THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY IN HELPING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
ENGAGE IN LEARNING AND SEEK MEANING IN LIVESA DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYIN
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGYMAY 2015

By
Lu Leng
Dissertation Committee:
Katherine Ratliffe, Chairperson
Anne FreeseMichael Salzman
Segongah Im
Thomas Jackson
Xu Di
Keywords: Philosophy for Children Hawaiʻi, Philosophical Inquiry, Engagement, MeaningDedication
To my father, who taught me to pursue my dream with heart and determination.
To my mother, who taught me never lose the hope for life.
To my husband, who made me believe I am an ordinary woman but can do extraordinary things.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee. This must begin
with a huge mahalo to Dr. Katherine Ratliffe, my ideal dissertation chair and advisor. You
helped me formulate plans for this research and pushed me to move forward step by step.
Whenever I experienced challenges, you would listen to me, encourage me, and provide me withvaluable suggestions. Most importantly you taught me how to write a dissertation with a peacefulmind. To Dr. Michael Salzman, for being my first admired UH supervisor. Your genuine concern
for my personal and professional development, your sage advice, insightful ciriticism, and great
expertise in psychology and culture aided the writing of this dissertation in numerous ways. To
Dr. Thomas Jackson, for firing up my passion for education. Your enthusiasm for Philosophy forChildren Hawaiʻi, your hunger for learning, and your love for children and international p4cHI
scholars gave me a role model for my future career. To Dr. Xu Di, for inspiring me to thinkcreatively and to put my heart in dissertation writing and living. Your care and support, yourexcitement for my growth, your feedback and criticism transformed into longlasted momentum
for me to accomplish this study and to overcome any challenge. To Dr. Anne Freese, for
introducing me to the field of dissertation research and self-study, and for your role modeling areflective researcher and a quality educator. Your dissertation writing workshop set a solid
foundation for this research. To Dr. Seongah Im, for your expertise in quantitative methodology
and data analysis and interpretation, which significantly improved the quality of this mixed
methods research. Your humor, your wisdom, and your patience are greatly appreciated.
I want to thank Ms. Cheriesse Shiroma-Ming and your students of Philosophical Inquiry
class for having me in the circle. Your enthusiasm for learning in the class and your participationiii

in the study made this dissertation possible. I also want to thank Francine Honda and Rosanna
Fukuda for making it possible for me to conduct this research.
I would also like to thank Dr. Amber Strong Makaiau, my friend, my mentor, and mycolleague. Thank you for creating an international community with me, Dr. Suguru Fukui, Dr.
Jessica Wang, Dr. Karen Ragoonaden, and Dr. Mitsuyo Toyoda. The days we wrote our online
journal with Suguru were also the days I struggled the most personally and professionally. Those
greatest pains have now become my greatest strengths. Thank you for thinking together with me
to design research questions, and for bringing me into the academic circle of p4cHI research.
My scholarship and professional development has also been supported by the Uehiro
Academy for Philosophy and Ethics. Thanks go to the Uehiro Academy for your financial
support in my professional career. I also thank Dr. Ben Lukey, Dr. Chad Miller, and otherAcademy members and friends for creating an intellectually safe environment that fosters
intellectual exchange and heartfelt communication.
My friend Huizhong Wang from Educational Psychology, UH Manoa and roommate Aya
Watanabe from Rikkyo University, Japan also helped me tremendously along the way writing
this dissertation. Thank you for sharing my happiness and worries. The time we spent together in
Hawai’i will always be deeply appreciated. Lastly, my gratitude also goes to Dr. Yang Zhang, Dr.
Lysandra Cook, and Dr. Jamie Simpson Steele. Because of your support and guidance in mywork, I could conduct better research and be a better educator.

iv

ABSTRACT
Studies have characterized high school students as bored, alienated, and disconnectedwith their class and the learning process. In order to address students’ learning needs, this study
explores the impact of philosophical inquiry on the development of adolescents’ academic
engagement and psychological well-being, and adds to the scholarly research on Philosophy forChildren Hawaiʻi. In determining an appropriate and holistic approach to investigating students’learning experiences, this study involves multiple forms of data collection, specifically including
surveys, student work, focus group interviews, classroom discussions, and reflective notes.
Applying both qualitative and quantitative methods, this study developed a deeper understandingof what classroom contexts, conditions, discourses, tools and practices promote positiveadolescent learning experiences.
This research consists of two studies; the first study is a multiple case study, and thesecond study is a descriptive quantitative study. Through six real-life case studies and one crosscase analysis, Study One developed a conceptual framework of student academic engagement ina philosophical inquiry class and summarized reasons why the participants engaged in learningand their perceptions of a meaningful life. First, students believed that maintaining a safe andpositive classroom environment is a fundamental condition for learning. Second, they reported
that asking questions, sharing ideas, listening attentively, thinking deeply, and making
connections are the manifestations of an engaging classroom in the philosophical inquiry
process. Third, students reported that they transcended their learning experiences by living a new
philosophy.
In Study Two, findings related to the Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire indicated thatthe philosophical inquiry participants’ global learning outcomes, including students’ abilities tov

engage in philosophical reflection, to make decisions, to be a responsible and ethical member ofthe community, and to show empathy to others was improved after the Philosophical Inquiry
experience. The Sense of Coherence Scale results suggested that students’ global sense ofcoherence was improved as well. Participants reported that they made more sense of the world andthe events that occurred in their daily lives. They believed that they were more able to manage
resources to solve problems and make informed decisions. The most interesting finding in the Sense
of Coherence Scale was that participants did not improve their Meaningfulness score, which
implied that these adolescents were still in the process of figuring out their identities and what their
future lives will hold.

vi

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 14
Research Questions ............................................................................................................................... 15
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................................ 15
Essential Theories of John Dewey ..................................................................................................... 17
Essential Theories of Lev Vygotsky .................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 23
Education-based Literature Review ................................................................................................... 23
Philosophy and Education .................................................................................................................. 23
The Community of Inquiry................................................................................................................. 25
Reflection and Education ................................................................................................................... 31
Philosophy for Learning ..................................................................................................................... 34
Mission of Contemporary Education ................................................................................................. 35
Psychology-based Literature Review .................................................................................................. 37
Engagement and Motivation .............................................................................................................. 38vii

Social Context of Learning................................................................................................................. 40
Adolescent Psychosocial and Cognitive Development ...................................................................... 40
Meaning of Life .................................................................................................................................. 44
Philosophy for Children ....................................................................................................................... 46
Philosophy for Children (P4C) ........................................................................................................... 47
Philosophy for Children Hawaiʻi (p4cHI) .......................................................................................... 48
p4cHI in Classroom Practice: Four Pillars of p4cHI .......................................................................... 49
The Philosopher’s Pedagogy .............................................................................................................. 57
Student Outcomes Related to P4C and p4cHI.................................................................................... 59
Gaps in p4cHI and P4C Literature ..................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ............................................................................................. 72
Research Paradigm ............................................................................................................................... 72
Researcher Positionality ....................................................................................................................... 73
Study One: Case Study ......................................................................................................................... 76
Trustworthiness .................................................................................................................................. 79
Kailua High School ............................................................................................................................ 80
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 80
Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Qualitative Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 85
Study Two: Quantitative Study ........................................................................................................... 87
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 88
Descriptive Research Design.............................................................................................................. 88
Instrumentation: Survey Questionnaires ............................................................................................ 89
Survey Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 92
Descriptive Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 93viii

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 95
Study One: Multiple Case Studies....................................................................................................... 96
Kalani ................................................................................................................................................. 96
Nahele ............................................................................................................................................... 107
Peleke ............................................................................................................................................... 117
Liko .................................................................................................................................................. 126
Makali ............................................................................................................................................... 136
Kanani .............................................................................................................................................. 141
Cross Case Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 144
Academic engagement ..................................................................................................................... 144
Meaning of life ................................................................................................................................. 146
Challenges ........................................................................................................................................ 147
Summary: The Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework ........................ 148
Study Two: Survey Findings.............................................................................................................. 152
Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire Findings ................................................................................. 152
Sense of Coherence Scale Findings.................................................................................................. 158
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 164

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................... 167
The Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework ...................................... 167
A Socio-Cultural Context of Learning ............................................................................................. 168
The Philosophical Inquiry Learning Process.................................................................................... 172
Application of Learning ................................................................................................................... 181
Educational Significance and Implications ...................................................................................... 187
Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 192
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................... 194

ix

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 197
Personal Reflection ............................................................................................................................. 199

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 203
APPENDIX A: Philosophical Inquiry Course Outline ......................................................... 235
APPENDIX B: Philosophical Inquiry Daily Reflection ........................................................ 237
APPENDIX C: Philosophical Insight Paper .......................................................................... 239
APPENDIX D: Inquiry Memos ............................................................................................... 244
APPENDIX E: Philosophical Inquiry Final Take-Home Reflection ................................... 246
APPENDIX F: Focus Group Questions .................................................................................. 248
APPENDIX G: Sense of Coherence Scale .............................................................................. 250
APPENDIX H: Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire ........................................................... 251

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Blueprint of resarch questions, theoretical paradigms, data sources and data analysis ... 79
Table 2 Philosophical Inquiry participant demographics ............................................................. 81
Table 3 Triangulation of Kalani's qualitative data ...................................................................... 106
Table 4 Triangulation of Nahele's qualitative data ..................................................................... 116
Table 5 Triangulation of Peleke's qualitative data ...................................................................... 125
Table 6 Triangulation of Liko's qualitative data ......................................................................... 134
Table 7 Frequency count of six participants’ shared themes in academic engagement ............. 145
Table 8 Frequency count of six participants' shared themes in meaning of life ......................... 147
Table 9 Frequency count of six participants’ shared themes in challenges ................................ 147
Table 10 Changes in PI students’ academic engagement scores ................................................ 153
Table 11 Changes in PI students' attitude toward the PI course ................................................. 154
Table 12 PI group PIQ average pre and posttest comparison ..................................................... 155
Table 13 PI participants PIQ pre and posttest comparison ......................................................... 155
Table 14 Substantial changes in some items in PIQ ................................................................... 156
Table 15 Rank of improvement in the six components in PIQ ................................................... 157
Table 16 Average scores on pre and posttest in PIQ .................................................................. 157
Table 17 PI group and traditional social studies group average pretest scores in PIQ ............... 158
Table 18 PI group and traditional group pretest scores in each component ............................... 158
Table 19 PI group SOC average pre and posttest comparison.................................................... 159
Table 20 PI participants SOC pre and post test comparison ....................................................... 159
Table 21 Meaningfulness average score comparison ................................................................. 160
Table 22 Comprehensibility average score comparison ............................................................. 161

xiTable 23 Manageability average score comparison .................................................................... 162
Table 24 Substantial changes in specific items in SOC .............................................................. 162
Table 25 PI group and traditional group average pretest scores in SOC .................................... 163
Table 26 PI group and traditional group average pretest scores in each component .................. 163

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Kalani Academic Engagement Concept Map ............................................................. 107
Figure 2: Nahele Academic Engagement Concept Map ............................................................. 117
Figure 3: Peleke Academic Engagement Concept Map ............................................................. 126
Figure 4: Liko Academic Engagement Concept Map................................................................. 136
Figure 5: Makali Academic Engagement Concept Map ............................................................. 141
Figure 6: Kanani Academic Engagement Concept Map............................................................. 144
Figure 7: Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework............................ 148

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
The following are three abbreviations that will be used often throughout this dissertation.

Philosophy for Children Hawaiʻi (p4cHI) - p4cHI is an innovative approach to education that
attempts to transform the schooling experience by engaging people in the activity of philosophy.
p4cHI aids students and teachers in converting traditional classrooms into intellectually safe
communities of inquiry. Together, participants develop their ability to think for themselves in
responsible ways by exploring meaningful questions that arise from their interests, experiences,and learning contexts. To learn more visit p4chawaii.org.

Philosophy for Children (P4C) - P4C converts traditional classrooms into reflective communities
of inquiry where students and teachers continue to develop their abilities to think for themselvesin responsible ways. P4C began around 1969 when Matthew Lipman, a Columbia University
philosophy professor, became disenchanted with the educational system. He observed thatchildren did not think as well as they could or should in a democratic society. He observed andwas concerned that schools encouraged children to have a negative view of their own intellectual
abilities. To address these issues, Lipman created a curriculum that incorporated the skills of
logic and reasoning found in the practice of philosophy to improve students’ thinking in the K –12 setting. In an effort to extend Lipman’s original curriculum and vision to a variety of geocultural contexts, a number of P4C Centers have been established worldwide. To learn more visit
p4chawaii.org.

xivPhilosophical Inquiry Course (PI) - Philosophical Inquiry is designed to help students understandand gain facility in transforming what they learn into knowledge. “Philosophy,” as understood inthis course, is the activity of inquiring into our own experiences and beliefs as well as theaccumulated knowledge of humanity. It is a participatory process, or “inquiry,” which requires
students to seek more than just the memorization of names, dates, and ideas. As members of an“intellectually safe” philosophical community of inquiry, students and teachers use dialogue,
Socratic inquiry, responsible thinking, and empathy to examine questions and issues that arise
from the study of history, contemporary society, economics, political science, geography andsocial interaction. Interdisciplinary links are made between these content areas, and students
learn tools for thinking philosophically and ethically across a wide range of topics and issues
introduced in each area of scholarship (Hawaiʻi public schools course description catalog, 2014)xv

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Philosophical inquiry, or the practice of “thinking together” is an educational approachthat originates from philosophical pragmatism. It upholds that knowing is not merely an
acquisition of knowledge that is external to the knower, but arises from a community of inquiry
that students engage with and construct together. This pedagogical approach involves logicalquestioning and broad discussions among students and their teachers. The teacher is the students’co-participant. In the process of constructive dialogue, students and their teacher clarify thinking,raise questions, record discussions, explore meanings, listen carefully, and respond to the ideasof others respectfully and nonjudgmentally (Millett & Tapper, 2011). The philosophical inquiry
is open to revision, which means the participants are capable of changing their views andpriorities based on their interests and needs (Sharp, 1993).
Considering the benefits of philosophical inquiry, the Hawaiʻi State Department of
Education (HI DOE) newly developed a standards-based social studies course called
Philosophical Inquiry (PI) that helps students understand and gain knowledge in transforming
what they learn into daily practice and problem solving. Students inquire into their own
experiences and beliefs as well as the accumulated knowledge of humanity in this course. In thecommunity of inquiry, students will build an intellectually safe place (Jackson, 2001) wherestudents and teachers use dialogue, gentle Socratic inquiry, responsible thinking, and empathy to
examine questions and issues that arise from their genuine wonderings about the study of history,
psychology, contemporary society, economics, political science, geography and social
interaction. During the inquiry, students learn tools for thinking philosophically, critically andethically across the wide range of interdisciplinary topics and issues introduced in each area ofscholarship (Hawaiʻi Public Schools Course Description Catalog, 2014).

1

The PI course is grounded in the philosophy for children Hawaiʻi (p4cHI) approach toeducation. p4cHI is an outgrowth and unique expression of Matthew Lipman’s (1988, 2003)
original Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement. p4cHI is an innovative approach to educationthat transforms the schooling experience by engaging students in intellectually safe communities
of inquiry (p4cHI Website, 2014). p4cHI now has become the namesake of the educational
movement associated with doing philosophy with K-12 and university students in the Hawaiian
islands (Miller, 2013). The concepts of community, inquiry, philosophy, and reflection serve as
the pillars of PI classroom activity. Students and teachers practice listening to one another withrespect and empathy, building on each others’ thoughts, and using thinking skills to understandeach other’s perspectives as they work toward finding possible answers to the confusions andconcerns confronting their lives and the world (p4cHI Website, 2014). Although the acronym of
P4C has been widespread and P4C has been practiced in many countries, it rarely has been
considered as a mainstream curriculum. This paper will use philosophical inquiryinterchangeably with p4cHI because this term is considered as having considerable overlap with
p4cHI (Millett & Tapper, 2011; Lam, 2012).
The Philosophical Inquiry course isa new social studies elective that was developed by educational researchers, teachers, andstudents in the State of Hawaiʻi. Unlike traditional social studies coursework,
Philosophical Inquiry is an interdisciplinary course that emphasizes students and teachers
working together to improve their thinking and community. (Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming,
Miller, & Fukuda, 2014)
It is the first social studies class at Kailua High School that focuses on teaching and using
philosophical thinking tools, and provides students with opportunities to think about things that2

really matter to them in their lives. It is a new paradigm of social studies coursework that values
global perspectives, multicultural views, depth of understanding, student experiences andinteractions (Makaiau, Miller, & Shiroma, 2013). The PI course was piloted in the HI DOE at
Kailua High School (KHS) in fall of 2013. This research will examine the effects of the PI
course on students’ learning, engagement and their efforts with regard to seeking meaning intheir lives. The following sections will describe the PI course, the development and design of its
curriculum, assessment and instructional practices and course objectives.
Philosophical Inquiry Course Curriculum Development
In 2012, the curriculum developer, Dr. Amber Makaiau of the University of Hawai’i
Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education was contracted by the Hawaiʻi State
Department of Education (HI DOE) to design and evaluate a new high school social studies
elective titled, “Philosophical Inquiry.” The curriculum was designed collaboratively by
Makaiau, Miller - the Philosopher in Residence of KHS, Fukuda - the Social Studies Director of
HI DOE, and Shiroma-Ming - the Philosophy Inquiry course instructor at the KHS. While
Shiroma implemented the course in fall 2012 semester, Makaiau and Miller visited thePhilosophical Inquiry course one or two times every week, observed Shiroma’s
teaching/facilitating practice, provided suggestions, and modified the curriculum. Before eachclass, they spent about 20 minutes discussing the previous week’s course implementation,
addressing challenges they encountered, specifying expectations and making new plans for the
next week’s teaching.
Philosophical Inquiry Course Curriculum Design
Makaiau, Miller, and Shiroma constantly examined their beliefs as p4cHI educators while
designing the curriculum ((Makaiau & Miller, 2012). They reported that they incorporated their3

senses of wonder, curiosity, interests, and critical analyses of life’s meaning into the curriculum
they designed and into the relationships they developed with their students. They realized thatstudents were more willing to engage in this process of philosophical inquiry when theyobserved their teachers engaging in genuine inquiry about life’s experiences, situations, world
problems, and their own questions. In the Philosopher’s Pedagogy article, Makaiau and Miller(2012) hoped that the curriculum would guide students to internalize the skills, knowledge, andattitudes needed to engage thoughtfully in an examination of their lives. With regard to national
movements in contemporary social studies education, the Common Core (English Language Arts)
Standards and the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State
Standards were used to create the PI course curriculum (Philosophical Inquiry Standards, 2014, p.
18). The course was designed to directly address many of challenges faced by students andeducators in the 21st century. The curriculum represents
a dramatic shift from traditional social studies courses which typically focus on: narrowperspectives, a predominantly Western view, studying ‘about’ democratic citizenship,
chronology as a way of organizing content, coverage, text-books, interpreting texts, theseparation of disciplines, emphasis on the past, individualism, and tests that emphasize
recall. It, however, represents a newer paradigm of social studies coursework that values
global perspectives, multicultural viewpoints, “practicing” democratic citizenship,
theme/issue based studies, depth of understanding, experience and interaction. (p. 2)
In the course, students construct their own meanings from multiple resources and integrate themwith their past experiences and prior knowledge.
Philosophical Inquiry Course Assessment Practices

4The class has a strong emphasis on peer and teacher collaboration, and alternative forms
of assessment such as evaluating community building and inquiry strength and depth (Makaiau
et al., 2014). Philosophical Inquiry was designed to provide students with the skills, knowledge,
dispositions, and processes “necessary for achieving 21st century student outcomes and is one
component of an effective standards-based education that will help Hawai‘i’s students be‘college and career-ready graduates’” (Philosophical Inquiry Standards, 2014, p. 2).
Philosophical Inquiry Course Instructional Practices
Philosophical Inquiry teachers are taught to transform their role into teacher-facilitators.
They use the philosopher’s pedagogy (Makaiau & Miller, 2012) in shaping the student
experiences in the course. Philosophical Inquiry focuses on processes for thinking and learning,
and the development of ethical relationships among students and teachers in and beyond school.
As a co-inquirer, the Philosophical Inquiry teachers are taught to think and work alongside theirstudents to create and maintain an intellectually safe classroom community. The PI teacher uses
the following methods to implement curriculum that promotes a safe and productive
philosophical inquiry in the communities of inquiry:•

maintain intellectual safety;•

encourage participation;•pose and respond to questions that probe for reasoning and evidence;•

ensure a hearing for a full range of positions on a topic or issue;•

clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions;•promote divergent and creative perspectives. (Philosophical Inquiry Standards,
2014, p. 3)

5

The PI teachers engage students in discussions and facilitation activities, because it is“through the process of engaging in activities that the [student] learns” (Dewey, 1980, p. 176).
Teachers are equally engaged in these learning activities, because they believe that “learning
occurs during situated joint activity” (Samaras, 2002, p. xxii). They remove themselves from thecenter of classroom activities. In the Philosophical Inquiry class, both teachers and students
become “self-activated makers of meaning,” (Schiro, 2008, p. 103) as they work together toconstruct knowledge. Traditional social studies classes emphasize the transmission of content
knowledge to students, but the Philosophical Inquiry encourages teachers to “develop or employ
strategies to help their students understand and retain a certain set of skills and knowledge
specific to their content area” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p. 12). The classroom materials such as
philosophy for teens, stimulate students’ prior knowledge and wonder, invite multiple
perspectives, and are “relevant to the diverse backgrounds and experiences of . . . students” (p.
13).
The teachers “develop a theory or philosophy of education that centers their work andclarifies their actions and judgments in the classroom” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p. 13). They
commit to activities that encourage students to engage in personally meaningful learning by
integrating their thoughts, feelings, cultures, and experiences in the community of inquiry.
However, “Due to a variety of pressures, both internal and external, the typical classroom teacher
does not appear to have time for children’s genuine wondering and questioning from which
structured inquiries can grow” (Jackson, 2001, p. 459). The PI teachers “create opportunities fortheir students to engage in the activity of philosophizing in their classrooms and via theirassignments” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p. 14). They do not just arrange students in circles, but

6use their creativity, knowledge of subject matter, and inquiry experiences to nurture quality
thinking, coherent learning experiences, and integrated development in students.
Philosophical Inquiry Course Objectives
Students who participate in philosophical inquiry learn to actively engage in course
materials to deepen their understanding of themselves, their peers and teachers, and the world.
The course is designed to improve students’ abilities in:•complex problem solving, critical thinking, good judgment, reasoning, interpersonal communication, personal reflection, group facilitation, note-taking,and writing skills;•

ethical relationship building, and process for thinking responsibly as a memberof a reflective community of inquiry;•interdisciplinary methods for conducting research;•

thinking philosophically about historical, economic, geographic, and politicalscience content, issues and concepts;•

wonderment, and connecting thinking across content areas and other areas of
life;

•

habits of mind necessary for meaningful and purposeful engagement in theircurrent and future schoolwork and life;•

successful completion of the course is worth ½ general social studies elective
credit (Philosophical Inquiry Standards, 2014, p. 1-2).

In order to address the problems and dilemmas teachers have while implementing thecurriculum, the curriculum developers conceptualize education as a shared activity between
teacher and students. Troubleshooting any problems is based on students’ needs and interests,

7and the mutual thinking and shared communication between teachers and students. They believethat “knowledge develops as one engages in dialogue with others” (Palinscar, 1998, p. 347). The
teachers reflect conscientiously on their daily teaching practice and allot time for critical, honest
awareness of their own thinking and the thinking of others (Makaiau & Miller, 2012).
Overview of the StudyIn this study, each chapter carries with it the central theme of this research – youth
academic engagement and the search for life’s meaning. The meaning of life is “the sense madeof, and significance felt regarding, the nature of one’s being and existence” (Steger, Frazier,
Oishi, & Kaler, 2006, p. 81). The operational definition of the life’s meaning in the PI course
refers to the life purposes, goals and objectives that students work towards and try to achieve.
Chapter one is a statement of the research problem and the concerns that led to the study.
Chapter two presents educational and psychological theories and approaches regarding learningand development. Most importantly this chapter briefly points out the gaps in the literature on
Philosophy for Children in order to fill the void in P4C and p4cHI scholarship. Chapter three isan attempt to define the population of students who are being studied and an examination of theresearch methods used. Chapter four is concerned with answering the research questions using
both qualitative and quantitative data. A philosophical inquiry student academic engagement
framework is designed in light of the most salient themes that emerged. Chapter five is theconclusion of this study, and includes recommendations for future research. It is hoped that thetheoretical frameworks developed from this project will be able to assist educators to develop
curriculum and pedagogy, and classroom practices and learning environments that foster
increased academic engagement and meaningful lives for all students.

8

Statement of the Research Problem“Learning and succeeding in school requires active engagement – whether students arerich or poor, black, brown, or white” (National Research Council, 2004, p. 1). Studies havecharacterized high school students as bored, alienated, and disconnected with their classes andthe learning process (Goodlad, 1984; Larson & Richards, 1991). Without counting those who
drop out, an estimated 40 to 60 percent of high school students are chronically disengaged; theyexert little effort on schoolwork (Marks, 2000). When students from disadvantaged economic
and social backgrounds become disengaged, they are more likely to dropout. The dropout rate ofstudents with less than nine years of schooling was 18 percent in 2012 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2014). Consequently these students fail to gain the most basic educational
credentials or basic skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education and in their future
careers, which leads to unemployment, poverty, poor health, and involvement in criminal
activities (National Research Council, 2004).
Academic engagement decreases significantly from the early grades of elementary tohigh school. One reason for disengagement is that adolescents do not fully appreciate the valueof academic achievement and successful schooling experiences (Eccles & Wigfield, 1992; Eccles,
Wigfield, & Shiefele, 1998; Marks, 2000). Schools need to do a better job of motivating andengaging the great majority of young people to be responsible learners and productive citizens(Dewey, 1956; Hall, 1969; Cremin, 1961). Although there has been a growing awareness of thesignificance of adolescents’ engagement in education, there has been little scholarship
documenting p4cHI or philosophical inquiry’s effects on students learning experiences. To fill
the void, this research examines how the PI course and p4cHI approach to education promote
involvement of economically disadvantaged youth in academic engagement.

9

Many high school students abandon their sense of wonder when they step into their
history, psychology, civics, or philosophy classrooms. They often stop asking questions, makefewer connections with their prior learning and personal experiences, and fail to find meaningand purpose in their general classroom experiences (Makaiau, 2013; Steinberg, Brown, &Dornbusch, 1996). Although teachers work extraordinarily hard to provide their students with thepractical uses and meaningfulness of their lessons, and use various teaching strategies tomotivate and engage their students to participate in class activities, young students still tune out
and disengage from their studies (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012). In order to fulfill external goals
and excel in high-stake testing, many students’ special and precious sense of wonder is being lost.
Their genuine questioning and thinking attitudes are often being ignored in today’s classroom(Jackson, 2004). “Too many students are falling through the cracks – physically dropping out
and psychologically turning out” (National Research Council, 2004, p. 20). Figuring out what
motivates and engages high school students in social studies class is a critical question that needs
to be addressed.
Education today is increasingly neglecting student’s inner development – the sphere ofvalues and beliefs, socio-affective maturity, spirituality, and self-understanding, which plays animportant role in students’ psychological and physical well-being (Astin & Astin, 2003; Werner,1989). Though education often awakens intellect, inwardly it may leave human beings unintegrated with their emotions, intuition, and self-knowledge (Krishnamurti, 1953).
Substantial empirical evidence has shown that psychological mediators such as beliefs
about competence and control, values and goals, and a sense of social connectedness affecteducational conditions that promote intellectual engagement (Dweck, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
One of the psychological mediators, life meaning plays an important role in human behavior.

10

Human thriving is based on the premise of “will to meaning” – human beings’ inborn urge
(Frankl, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1966). When a person fails to find meaning in life, and/or feels a stateof vacuum in his or her personal existence, he or she is characterized by an existential vacuum
and boredom (Crumbaugh, 1968). “There is a greater urgency to find meaning and new solutions
to problems” in adolescence (Dreyfus, 1972, p. 3). While there are studies demonstrating that
personal beliefs and purposes are protective factors in adolescents’ developmental resilience(Lerner & Galambos, 1998; Smith & Carlson, 1997), there is limited empirical exploration of
how the meaning of life is related to and affects adolescents’ academic development.
“Engaging adolescents cognitively and emotionally in school and academic work is achallenge regardless of the social or economic status of the students or the location of theirschools” (National Research Council, 2004, p. 211). What would be helpful to increaseadolescents’ engagement in learning? How does the meaning of life affect youth academic
engagement and development? How can philosophical inquiry that students engage in be
structured to facilitate exploration of purpose or meaning in life both in breadth (by considering
different purposes) and in depth (by exploring one kind of meaning thoroughly)? This research
synthesizes, summarizes, and criticizes evidence that can be used to guide efforts and moderateschool failure to improve adolescents’ learning and schooling experiences from students’ own
voices.
Significance of the Study
Over 30 years of U.S. and international research, including recent studies done in Hawaiʻi
indicate that the use of philosophical inquiry with a group of students who are supported bytrusted facilitators and peers to interact respectfully and critically as they explore intellectuallychallenging questions, known as an intellectually safe community of inquiry, sharpens students’11abilities to “think for themselves” (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980, p.53). This activity also
positively affects students’ cognitive and social-affective abilities, engagement, moral
dispositions, and self-confidence (Jones, 2012; Lukey, 2004; Makaiau, 2013; Toyoda, 2012;
Yos, 2012). Even so, there has been very little written about the intersection between students’learning experiences and p4cHI in the education of adolescents in a social studies course at a
Hawaiʻi public high school.
Adolescence is a critical psychological stage between childhood and adulthood thatdeserves particular attention. The onset of adolescence is a time of rapid physical growth, sexual
maturation, social and emotional changes, and it also implies a wide range of behavioral andemotional health problems. Pubertal development and brain maturation shape adolescentdevelopment and presumably later behavior (Forbes & Dahl, 2010; Erikson, 1963; Board ofChildren, Youth, and Families, 2004). This work will extend adolescent research to students’learning experiences in the association of philosophical inquiry.
Students hunger for meaning, but get turned off by schooling because it ceases to bemeaningful for them. P4C is “based around the notion that [the students] must constructmeanings for themselves, rather than simply accept those which are handed down to them”(Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 99). With an intention to understand what is an effective education, it
is very important to inquire into the meaning of living as a whole (Krishnamurti, 1953).
Participants in former studies were devoted to this quest of meaning and truth (Butnor, 2012;
Makaiau & Miller, 2012), but personally meaningful classroom and life experiences forsecondary students in a philosophical inquiry class in the Hawaiʻi context is a research area thatneeds to be explored.

12

Philosophers from all around the world have dedicated their teaching and scholarship to
addressing issues of virtue, morality, ethics, and other elements that are essential for humanlearning and development (Xu, 2012). Many educators have realized that philosophical inquiry isa trustworthy educational alternative that could develop students’ thinking abilities and practical
judgment (Lipman, 1988). Yet, some believe that “amid the clamor of competing proposals, thevoice of the philosopher is nowhere to be heard; it is missing from the conversation about the
future of schooling” (Schrag, 1995, p.1). Philosophical education contributes to peace and trains
free and reflective minds that are able to face the challenges of propaganda, fanaticism, exclusion
and intolerance in the contemporary world (UNESCO, 2007). The emphasis of philosophy is thetransformation of one’s thinking, one’s life, and one’s mode of being in the world throughconstant inquiry and self-reflection. Hence, educators have argued that philosophical inquiry isnecessary for the study and practice of education in a democratic society (Jackson, 2013; Lipman,
1988; Sharp, 1993; Snauwaert, 2012).
With reference to this, it is important to elucidate that one problem for school in generalis how to promote both an active and a contemplative life, because schools do not often cultivate
students’ own thoughts and reflections (Arendt, 1958). p4cHI integrates philosophical inquiry,
thinking, and reflection in its daily classroom activities. Bringing philosophy to schools is one
way to address the sense of disconnectedness, fragmentation and alienation in adolescents’schooling experiences (Splitter & Sharp, 1995). In light of the advantages of embedding
philosophical inquiry in school curricula, this study will address the gap in research literature bydescribing the possible benefits of incorporating philosophy in high school classrooms. This
study aims to explore the students’ learning experiences from their own perspectives, and will
examine how philosophical topics (i.e., what is the meaning of life? Am I the same person that I

13

used to be?) that are discussed in the PI course can help high school students construct meaning
in their schooling and lives.
The PI is a newly developed social studies course utilizing the p4cHI approach in the HI
DOE. It is critical to investigate and evaluate this course’s effect on adolescents’ cognitive andsocio-affective development and learning experiences. Several approaches, including classroom
discussions, student writings, surveys, and focus group interview are employed in the present
study to comprehensively understand philosophical inquiry’s effects on adolescents’ academic
engagement and psychological development. The results carry direct implications for local
secondary teaching of the p4cHI approach in particular, which in turn can expand the researchbase in the worldwide P4C approach. Although this work is focused on high school students at
one school site, it is believed that the mixed methods design applied and the results yielded may
be applicable to examine the effectiveness of philosophical inquiry in other contexts. The
investigation and description of various factors that contribute to students’ academic engagementin the PI course from the perspective of students themselves will provide educators, researchersand policy makers with important insights into the practicalities of PI course design, revision,and implementation, especially in regards to the complex educational and psychologicaldevelopment of adolescents. Such insights may provide suggestions and implications for teachers
to implement more effective p4cHI education in and beyond the Hawaiian islands.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods research is to explore the learning experiences ofstudents in a philosophical inquiry course that utilizes p4cHI educational approach featuring acommunity of inquiry, philosophical thinking and reflection. Modern life often leads tofragmentation of human life and society, but modernity provides little guidance to foster human14connections and deep reflections (Dalai Lama, 1999, 2012). The PI curriculum addresses these
problems by encouraging students to inquire philosophically and ethically together into theirpersonal concerns for their lives and the world, and helping students make meaningfulconnections with their peers, teachers, and schools as well as specific academic content. The
questions and issues that students examine arise from their own interests and wonderment. This
research will explore how the PI course contributes to adolescents’ engagement to learning andhelps students construct meaning in their schooling and lives.
Research Questions
The major research question driving this study is: In what ways does the PI course
influence high school students’ learning experiences? More specifically it will investigate:•

Do students feel more engaged in their learning during and after taking the PI
course? If so, what reasons for this do they report?

•

How did the PI experience shape students’ attitudes with regard to seeking
meaning in their lives and schooling?

•

How do students’ Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire scores change over thecourse of the project? Is this different for students enrolled and not enrolled in the
PI course?

•

How do students’ Sense of Coherence scores change over the course of the
project? Is this different for students enrolled and not enrolled in the PI course?

Theoretical Framework
Deweyan and Vygotskian educational theories are used to support this study. Five key
criteria were considered when selecting these theories. First, there should be evidence ofapplying these theoretical perspectives to p4cHI research, such as p4cHI’s impact on students’15

learning and cognitive, social, emotional, and psychological development. Second, thetheoretical framework should be consistent with the PI curriculum and classroom practices.
Third, the theoretical framework should inform the selection of survey instruments, the design ofstudents’ assignments, and the construction of focus group interview questions. Fourth, thetheoretical framework should encompass varieties of data (i.e., classroom discussions,documents, survey questionnaires) included in the study. Finally, the theoretical perspective usedshould be both comprehensive and specific enough to inform and support data analysis.
Over the last 30 years, research on p4cHI has been viewed through a variety oftheoretical perspectives: multicultural educational theory, social constructivist learning theories,
learner centered ideology, identity exploration theories (Makaiau, 2010, 2013), constructive
grounded theory (Miller, 2013), social cognitive theory, community of inquiry theory (Jones,
2012), Deweyan and Vygotskyian theories (Bleazby, 2011, 2012; Lavrentbiva-Grass, 2006;
Makaiau & Lukey, 2013). Previous studies provide the rationale for the selection of Dewey’s
theory of education and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory for this study. Their theories
provide scholars and practitioners with a common language and a frame of reference forunderstanding this dissertation’s research questions. They set a strong foundation to analyze
students’ interactions in secondary school classrooms to better understand strategies thatencourage academic engagement and ultimately socio-emotional, psychological and cognitive
development. An overview of Dewey’s theory of education and Vygotsky’s social
constructivism theory will be given in the following section, along with the rationale for their use
in the current study. This will position this theoretical framework within a broader context ofrelated frameworks, concepts, and models.

16

Essential theories of John Dewey. “The development, learning, sharing, andexperiencing of meanings were central to Dewey’s philosophy” (Kestenbaum, 1977, p. 2).
Dewey (1997) argued that the problem of modern education is that schooling tends to be“abstract and bookish” (p. 8). Learning becomes over-formalized and too disconnected from theinterests and projects that students find in their real lives and experiences that give meaning tostudents. The purpose of school education is to unify and enrich students’ experiences. The
revitalization of schooling should create opportunities for “reproducing situations of life” (p.
169). Schools should give students opportunities to discover the connections between theirexperiences and the subject matter. Students become active participants in learning whenclassroom activities are based on their needs and preferences (Dewey, 1930).
In order to live a worthwhile life, a person must spend time and energy on finding
meaning, or the purpose that makes his or her existence significant.
Fundamental to Dewey’s entire philosophy is his belief that ‘meaning is wider in scope aswell as more precious in value than is truth, and philosophy is occupied with meaningrather than with truth’… ‘the characteristic human need is for possession andappreciating of the meaning of things.’ (Kestenbaum, 1977, p. 2)
The nature of education is continuous reconstruction of students’ existing meanings as a result of
new experiences they encounter. In general, people are conceptualized as active makers of
meaning, and “self-propelled agents” naturally intended to satisfy the need for meaning or
understanding (Schiro, 2008, p. 103). People can “sense a joy of constant discovery and growth
if they search for meanings and values that serve as means to reveal a fuller and more significant
future experience even in their troubles and hardships” (Campbell, 1995, p. 64).

17

Human beings are perpetuated through communication and transmission. “We are social
creatures whose identities and fulfillment are grounded in communal participation” (p. 25). The
social interaction and learning are central to the educational endeavor since “individual mind is afunction of social life” (p. 39). In a classroom, the teacher should not take control of the situation
or determine the direction of learning, yet the teacher should be a learner and a participant who
engages in discussion and shares the work with students. Students’ inclination to learn, and know
for the sake of knowing is the best product of education. The purpose of education according to
Dewey isto help the students develop as problem-solvers in the new and difficult situations of the
new world, to help them to learn to how to think rather than to simply fill them withwhatever we think that they will need in later life. (Campbell, 1995, p. 215)
Dewey (1997) believed that education becomes humanistic if it liberates human intelligence andsympathy, but if a subject matter cannot accomplish this goal, it is not a real education.
Essential theories of Lev Vygotsky. A fundamental Vygotskian principle is that
education not only focuses on cognitive development but it is embedded in socioculturalactivities. Learning is socially constructed (Moll, 2014). Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1994) believedthat (a) social and cultural factors influence development; (b) learning best takes place throughjoint productive activity, where “experts and novices work together for common product or goal”
and have opportunities to communicate in the shared experience; and (c) cultural mediation,
especially language, plays an essential role in the formation and development of cognitive
abilities (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000, p. 21; Crawford, 1996).
Vygotsky’s social learning theory promotes a constructive learning community wherestudents and teachers can interact with, communicate and support each other. Vygotsky

18

examined how social processes and cultural resources influence human thinking and learning.
Our rules, skills, and abilities to interact with others are shaped by our culture and social
circumstance (Moll, 2014). Vygotsky (1978) wrote, “All the higher functions originate as actual
relations between human individuals” (p. 57). Every function in human cultural development
appears twice. First, it is on a social level, where people communicate with each otherinterpsychologically, such as during an engaging conversation. Later, it is on an individual level,
where people internalize new knowledge and understanding intrapsychologically. The higherorder mental functions, including reflective thinking, arise as a result of social interactions(Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). “It is the collision of our thought with the thought of others thatengenders doubt and calls for verification” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 47).
Vygotsky (1978) argued that the social learning precedes development. Learning occurs
in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and takes place through students’ interactions with
their peers, teachers and experts. The ZPD indicates the distance between a student’s ability toperform a task under adult guidance and/or collaboration with more capable peers and thestudent’s actual ability to solve problems independently. The important learning moment
occurring within a person is mediated through his or her social interaction with a skillful tutor.
The ZPD can help us assess students’ true potential for new learning (Crain, 2000). The teacher
may model behaviors and/or provide semiotic mediations as students interact with each other(Tharp & Gallimore, 1991).
For Vygotsky (1962), knowledge construction occurs in the social context, and students
and teachers build on each other’s language, skills, and experiences. Learning becomes areciprocal experience for students and teacher. In the learning process, teachers need to give
students more challenging tasks that they can solve with assistance from capable and19knowledgeable others who can guide students to navigate through their ZPD. An effective
pedagogy in teaching is to establish deep teacher-student relationships (Moll, 2014). Moreinteractions between students and teacher will facilitate intersubjectivity with each other. In thisway, instruction can stimulate students’ development and help them realize their potentials(Crain, 2000).
Researchers have found the sociocultural perspective to be a useful framework to explore
students’ academic engagement. It provides a theoretical link between students’ active
participation in discussion with their cognitive growth and social development (Mercer, 1996).
When students encounter others with different experiences and perspectives, they are provokedto critically reflect on their own beliefs and thoughts, consider alternatives, and search formeanings and reasons to justify their understandings (Bleazby, 2007). Based on Vygotsky’s
theory, individuals learn to think for themselves by internalizing these social or communal
inquiries or dialogues (Lipman, 2003).
Dewey and Vygotsky’s theories provide scholars and practitioners with a common
language and a frame of reference for understanding this study’s research questions (Makaiau,
2010; Miller, 2013). Informed by their theories, this study explored high school students’
academic engagement in a philosophical inquiry class, and examined whether the aforementioned
factors, such as interests and experiences in Dewey’s sense, and sociocultural factors andinteractions in Vygotsky’s sense contributed to students’ learning experiences.
Dewey’s perspective includes ideas about growth and meaning enhancement, as well as
the desire for making meaning and self-realization. “Dewey’s naturalistic metaphysics is
ultimately a call to answer for our humanity, for the demands placed on us by a world thatalternately facilitates and frustrates this human eros” (Granger, 2000, p. 166). Human beings20need a sense of meaningfulness to guide their life and behavior. The desire for meaning is the“spiritual dimension of human existence” (Frankl, 1969, p.160). Since engagement includes
meaningfulness, choice, competence, and growth (Kenneth, 2009), developing a sense of
meaningfulness would enhance students’ academic engagement.
In Vygotsky’s theory, the social-historical environment can significantly influence
students’ learning (Vygotsky, 1994). It is necessary to describe the influence of the research siteand participants’ prior experiences. “The human being is completely and unavoidably influenced
by his surroundings” (Frankl, 1969, p. 99). It is necessary to describe Hawaiʻi and Kailua HighSchool’s unique historical and cultural context, such as the geographical region, students’socioeconomic circumstances, the Philosophical Inquiry classroom’s physical layout, and thecultures of the Philosophical Inquiry and traditional social studies classrooms.
Dewey and Vygotsky’s theories inspired p4c Hawaiʻi researchers to design philosophicalinquiry curriculum (Makaiau & Miller, 2012). Dewey (1997) argued that what is required in aclassroom is that every student should have opportunity to employ his or her own powers inactivities that have meaning. In the PI class, students are the active agents in participating ininquiries and reflections. The aim of students’ work is to make connections to students’ lives andthe world they live in, relate personal experiences to content in text or dialogue, and to reflect on
a different perspective or point of view they have learned in the classroom. The activity designedin the Philosophical Inquiry class was to build an intellectually safe community where students
could exchange their understandings and ideas through philosophical inquiry and reflection.
Vygotsky (1978) maintained that learning occurs within the learners’ ZPD and that knowledge issocially constructed. In the PI class students’ discussions and interactions are highly valued.
In summary, Deweyan theories mainly focus on connecting students’ real life experiences,21

interests, needs, preferences and present skills to the classroom, and reconstructing students’existing meanings. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory focuses more on communication and social
interaction, and the influence of culture and social context on students’ learning and development.
These theories define a theoretical understanding of academic engagement and meaning
construction, explain the nature and challenges of these phenomenon, and allow me to describe,in depth, students’ learning experiences and the key features that characterize the PhilosophicalInquiry classroom. It is hoped that, the results of the study will be able to assist educators todevelop curriculum and pedagogy, classroom practices and learning environments that foster
increased academic engagement and meaningfulness for all students.

22

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEWAn education-based review of the literature offers a probing exploration of philosophy
and education, philosophy for learning, contemporary mission of education, moral education,
humanistic education, inquiry-based learning, reflection and education, learning communities,
and the community of inquiry. Following it will be a presentation of psychology-based literature,
relating to scholarship in the areas of engagement and motivation, social context of learning,adolescent psychosocial and cognitive development and meaning of life. The third section begins
with an introduction to the history of the Philosophy for Children movement both nationally andlocally in Hawaiʻi. It describes the growth of Matthew Lipman’s P4C movement, Thomas
Jackson’s p4cHI movement, and Amber Makaiau and Chad Miller’s context-sensitive version of
p4cHI: the Philosopher’s Pedagogy. Following that will be a description of the procedures ofdoing p4cHI in classrooms, and a synthesis of research outcomes related to P4C and p4cHI.
Education-Bbased Literature Review
In shaping perspectives and approaches to this study, it is evident that there are manyeducation theories and empirical research. This section of literature review will explore literaturethat is most relevant to the educational philosophy in the Philosophical Inquiry course.
Philosophy and Education
Philosophy means love of wisdom in ancient Greek. In ancient times, philosophy was
understood as search for wisdom. Aristotle viewed philosophy as “aris[ing] from the naturalwonder or curiosity, from the desire to know just for the sake of knowing” (Campbell, 1995, p.
60). He believed that philosophy begins from astonishment and questioning. When Socrates
engaged his interlocutors in philosophical dialogues, he did not expect a certain right answer,
rather, an important role of philosophy is to help us introduce and nurture openness to wonder

23

and confusion (Lukey, 2012). Philosophy “brings intellectual order out of the confusion ofbeliefs” and awakens humanity’s consciousness (Campbell, 1995, p. 91).
Human life has philosophical dimensions, including aesthetical, ethical, logical,
metaphysical, epistemological, and social dimensions. “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher,and philosophy begins in wonder” (Plato, 1953, p. 251). Human beings have a natural tendency
to wonder about the nature of knowledge and reality, and an innate disposition to search formeaning in life through philosophical reflection (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980). Yet,
wonder, the “wellspring of philosophy” and a particular quality of thinking and feeling is often
overlooked by education (Jackson, 2004, p.4). The distinction between philosophy and manyother professions is that philosophy is a field that aims to cultivate the human soul and provide
fundamental guidance (Xu, 2012). Philosophy focuses on fundamental ideas that can offer
deepened and comprehensive thinking about what schools can and should do. Philosophers canpose and answer the most basic questions and try to capture the essences of a phenomenon(Schrag, 1995). Yet, although philosophy is conceptualized as the “bedrock of the Westernhumanistic tradition,” in the United States few K-12 institutions incorporate it into their curricula(Romano, 2012, p. 12).
Despite the fact that philosophy has faced many challenges embedding into mainstream
curriculum (Miller, 2013), there are instances where it has been used in the pre-collegiateclassroom (Thompson, 1971). Matthew Lipman, a Columbia University philosophy professor
began to bring philosophy to children in 1969. He incorporated the skills of logic, reasoning, andphilosophical ideas found in the practice of philosophy, into a curriculum of sevennovels/textbooks aimed at improving students’ thinking in K-12 settings. According to Lipman,
the aim of education is to “help children learn how to think for themselves” and make better24judgments and choices (Lipman et al., 1980, p. 53). Education and philosophy are inextricably
linked, because “the craft of philosophy contains itself a pedagogy – the need for dialogues, theneed for questioning and a method of inquiry – which are essential characteristics of education in
general” (Lipman & Sharp, 1978, p. 259). Philosophy plays an important role in the education ofreflective practitioners and systematic and critical thinkers. The practice of applied philosophy
can provide students with a calm and open mind in the face of frustration, difficulty and danger.
Through philosophical inquiry, students can develop attitudes and skills that help them cope with
unstructured situations with both effectiveness and sympathetic insight (Dahlbom & Mathiassen,1992).
Philosophy, can promote education in three ways. First, it can promote reflective thinking
and thinking about thinking. This element in philosophy is essential for systematic selfcorrection and development of thinking ability. Second, because there is no definitive answer toa certain philosophical question, answers often need discussion, dialogue, and systematic inquiry.
Philosophical questioning encourages students’ further inquiry and reflective thinking. Students
are inspired to inquire deeper into their educational experiences. Third, philosophy can stimulate
students’ imagination and creativity through confronting questions like “How should I live?” and“Is there a greatest virtue?” These philosophical questions can inspire students to think in
multiple directions. Students thus can learn to re-examine the way they understand themselves
and the world (Splitter & Sharp, 1995; Miller, 2013).
The Community of Inquiry
Communities of inquiry have been used to promote education for decades, and aresupported by the ideas of both Dewey and Vygotsky. This section will address how ideas ofcommunity have been used in education, and definitions of common practices in educational25

communities such as discussion and inquiry. Community implies dependency, intersubjectivity,
autonomy and citizenship (Bleazby, 2007). It is a way of living in which a group of people share,reflect and direct one another’s individual interests together. Communitarian citizenshipemphasizes building up relationships and promoting shared interests, practices, goals, and values(Dewey, 1997). Through sharing thoughts and subjectivities, communitarian citizens have lessracial and gender discrimination and violence, and they become more inclusive and embracing
toward each other (Etzioni, 1993; Waghid, 2005). Since people treat the community memberswith love, respect and dignity, a unified and harmonious atmosphere can be formed (Yos, 2012).
Learning communities. Learning communities are sometimes defined by classroom
structures or configurations, such as “group work,” “cooperative learning” or “whole classdiscussions” (Freese & Strong, 2008). They are characterized by individuals working together tolearn with and from each other (Wright & Williams, 2003). The goal of a learning community is
to create a learning culture and advance individual knowledge and performance throughcollective efforts and support (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). Whenbuilding a learning community, students need to be prepared to listen to other’s perspectives andwilling to allow their beliefs to be questioned. The resulting caring and trusting environment canenhance students’ opportunities to develop supportive relationships, and increase students’participation in philosophical inquiry (Makaiau & Freese, 2013; Makaiau, 2010; Samaras &Freese, 2006).
In a learning community, students work collaboratively and individually to explore issues
that are both collectively meaningful and self-significant (Samaras, Freese, Kosnik, & Beck,2008). Students expect a sense of connectedness and a feeling of belongingness in the classroom(Kohn, 2004). This environment often encourages and supports students’ personal development

26

such as self-concept and self-esteem (Jones, 2012; Hittie, 2000). Learning communities nurture
conditions for achieving better communication, interaction and collaboration in open and flexible
learning environment (Hudson, Owen, & Van Veen, 2006). Because of “orchestrated
interdependence” in the learning community, students are aware of cultural differences and how
people interact with each other (Hudson, Hudson, & Steel, 2006, p. 747). Zhan, Xu and Ye’s
(2011) study provided evidence and support that both active and reflective learner’s learning
performances and attitudes toward learning were enhanced by engaging in a learning community
in face-to-face courses. Learning in a community could effectively improve student attendanceand school grades, as well as their human and personal interaction both on and off campus(Shumer, 1994).
Community of inquiry. Since Peirce coined the phrase community of inquiry, it has
been extended and broadened into all kinds of inquiry. John Dewey and Matthew Lipman put
learning by thinking, inquiring, and reflecting in a context of democratic community as the basisof educational practices and aims (Millett & Tapper, 2011). A community of inquiry is
characterized by a group of people who engage in a shared experience, voluntarycommunication, and a cooperative search for knowledge and understanding. They participate in a
democratic practice that emphasizes question making and student-to-student interaction throughdialogue (Cleary, 2011). In a supportive classroom context, a community of inquiry encourages
students to clarify ideas, offer examples and counter-examples, make assumptions, explain
reasons, and use analogies to develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions required for fullparticipation in a democratic society (Fisher, 2008). Knowledge that results from such a
community of inquiry is often more general, objective, and comprehensive because it has been
investigated and examined in a constructive and diverse field of experience (Bleazby, 2007).

27

Inquiry strategies. Communities of inquiry are often characterized by opportunities forin depth discussion and inquiry. Discussion is the action or process of talking about something. It
is a conversation or debate about a certain topic, typically in order to reach a decision or toexchange ideas (Zhan, Xu, & Ye, 2011; Ru, 2008). Inquiry starts with exploration andquestioning and leads to investigation and examination of a question, issue, concern or idea
(Hagemans, Van Der Meij, & De Jong, 2013). Inquiry is the struggle with real living doubts,
which arise from the surprise or shock that is generated from the novel experience, resulting instates or times that make people uneasy and uncomfortable. The aim of inquiry is to challenge
and examine fixed beliefs in order to understand future surprising or disappointing experiences.
Inquiry is not just uttering a question or adopting a certain intellectual attitude, it must involve a
stimulated mind to doubt and question old beliefs (Goudge, 1950). Dewey believed that inquiry
is initiated when people are exposed to a situation that they find confusing, problematic,
perplexed, unsettled or indeterminate in some sense. Such situations interrupt established belief
systems and habitual interaction with the world. Learners need deliberate efforts to create anorderly, resolved, determined, and unified situation that they can respond to in a purposeful,intelligent manner (Dewey, 1997). Inquirers maintain a cautious attitude of openness andfallibility which indicates, “no questions are unanswerable; no answers are absolutely true; noformulations are final; no level of examination is ultimate, and so on.” Many possibilities should
be considered in an inquiry (Campbell, 1995, p. 16).
Lipman (2003) described that in a community of inquiry, “students listen to each otherwith respect, build on one another’s ideas, challenge one another to supply reasons for otherwise
unsupported opinions, assist each other in drawing inferences from what has been said, and seek
to identify one another’s assumptions” (p. 20). Students can explore issues of personal concern,28

develop their own ideas, and make reasonable judgments, yet examine and challenge others’
ideas with respect. Participation in a community of inquiry often develops students into active
thinkers, discoverers, and valuable and valued human beings (Splitter & Sharp, 1995). The
community members may be driven by inherent initiatives to organize and articulate their ideas
in a responsive environment where free choice and rich interactions are valued. In thiscommunity, there are often diversified forms of intelligence and different learning styles(Kennedy, 1993). If a classroom is transformed into a community of inquiry, dialogue will likely
flourish (Lipman, 1993).
The collaborative community of inquiry solves the contradiction between students andteachers (Freire, 1965), teachers become co-learners with their students instead of a source ofauthority merely conveying information. When teachers give students autonomy to direct theirinquiry, they learn to value their own thinking as equal to the teacher. In this context, knowledge
is created and discovered by group inquiry. The role of a teacher changes into a facilitator thatcoves the community of inquiry forward within a broad range of parameters that stress criticalthinking, reflection, clarity, open-mindedness, and good judgment. The facilitator keeps
philosophical inquiry on track, respects the natural flow of inquiry, enriches and bridges thediscussion, and gently direct the discussion, but without imposing his or her ideas and agenda.
By emphasizing dialogue as a way to create a community and improve thinking, students shareinsights, clarifications, questions, and experiences, cooperatively, so that each participant learns
how to listen as well as how to speak respectfully and empathetically (Costello, 2007; Kennedy,2004).
Inquiry-based learning. As a pedagogical approach, inquiry-based learning is widely
recognized and advocated in education (Brew, 2003; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Spronken-Smith29

& Walker, 2010). Oliver (2008) described inquiry-based learning as teaching approaches inwhich “some form of problem or task serves as a catalyst for student engagement andparticipation . . . , learning comes as a consequence of the information processing that occurs as
students work to explore the problem setting and to seek a solution” (p. 288). Inquiry-basedlearning takes a constructivist approach, in which students have ownership of their learning.
They ask questions, gather and analyze information, participate into discussions, generate
solutions, make decisions, and justify their conclusions and take informed decisions. Other
researchers refer to “a range of instructional practices that promote student learning throughstudent-driven and instructor-guided investigations of student centered questions” (Justice, Rice,
Warry, Inglis, Miller, & Sammon, 2007, p. 202).
Inquiry-based learning is a curricular and pedagogical imperative designed to promotereflection, critical thinking skills, and productive usage of knowledge for real life problem
solving (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983). This conception serves as a basic teaching approach to the
PI course. On one hand, the conceptualization of inquiry-based learning is that it is a learning
activity that is student centered, and question or problem driven. On the other hand, the class
excludes teaching methods that are primarily focused on knowledge transfer or content
exposition. In the PI course, the function of education is to cultivate minds capable of thinking,wondering and reflecting. Students are taught to use well-reasoned supporting evidence to justify
their assumptions and make decisions about social affairs and their own personal lives. Throughthe process of asking critical questions and answering them beyond preformed knowledge,
students can learn to think for themselves (Millett & Tapper, 2011).
Some parents support inquiry-based learning because it teaches students how to think, but
not what to think. It does not impose particular values or ideas on students. Scholars consider the30

community of philosophical inquiry as a “political laboratory, a method of wisdom training, an
operational application of social learning theory, a means of raising philosophical questions
across the school subjects, a method of religious exegetics and education, and even acontemplative or spiritual practice” (Maughn, 2011, p. 212). However it also attracted conflicting
criticism fromreligious and social conservatives who don’t want children to question traditional values,
from educational psychologists who believe certain kinds of thinking are beyond childrenof certain ages, from philosophers who define their discipline as theoretical andexegetical, from critical theorists who see the programme as politically compliant, andfrom postmodernists who see it as scientistic and imperialist. (p. 109)
Some critics argue that inquiry-based learning is inefficient because students waste time indiscovering incorrect answers before they arrive at the correct one. Since time is limited, teachers
may not be able to teach students all the content that should be mastered. Other critics assert thatsome students cannot make the correct discoveries on their own and thus require systematic
support and instruction in order to reach a certain level of knowledge (Hirsch Jr., 1996). Inquirybased learning was used predominantly in Western countries, and some researchers believe thatit may be difficult to integrate into Asian countries due to the influence of Confucian beliefs andvalues (Ku, 2008).
Reflection and Education
Reflection is a strategy used in inquiry-based education and in collaborative learning
communities. It is an approach with a long history in education, and yet, it is not often a part of
traditional direct instruction in schools. Zimmerman and Schunk (2011) included reflection as
the final component of self-regulated learning, and Dewey (1993) included reflection as a key

31

component of learning. Reflection is used often in higher levels of education, particularly forteacher candidates (Coffey, 2014; Liu, 2013), but it has been used less often in elementary andsecondary education because of the demands of time (Makaiau, 2010). Procee (2005) believedthat “Reflection and reflective practice is one of the most promising innovations in education” (p.
237). Dewey (1933) described that “reflective thought” constitutes “active, persistent, andcareful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds
that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 6).
The function of reflection is to “transform a situation in which there is experienced
obscurity, doubt, conflict, disturbance of some sort, into a situation that is clear, coherent, settled,
harmonious” (Dewey as cited in Campbell, 1995, p. 57). By reflecting on one’s experiences andactions there can be new knowledge and realization of one’s interests, which in turn introduces
opportunities to learn or informs new action (Habermas, 1968). Reflection allows students tolook back on and examine their old knowledge, beliefs and thoughts, and inspires them todevelop new knowledge and construct a better future. Reflection is grounded in self-awareness,and serves as a bridge between experiences and learning (Kinsella, 2001; Hatton & Smith, 1995).
The following quote summarizes the characteristics and qualities of a reflective practitioner:
Reflective practitioners think about their experiences in practice and view them asopportunities to learn. They examine their definitions of knowledge, seek to develop
broad and multifaceted types of knowledge, and recognise that their knowledge is nevercomplete. Reflective practitioners are concerned about the contexts of their practices andthe implications for action. They reflect on themselves, including their assumptions andtheir theories of practice, and take action grounded in self-awareness. Finally, reflective

32

practitioners recognize and seek to act from a place of praxis, a balanced coming togetherof action and reflection. (Kinsella, 2001, p. 195-198)
Van Manen (1995) added to this definition when saying, “The aim of critical reflection is
to create doubt and critique of ongoing actions” (p. 43). Reflection is an essential component ineducation, because it serves as an effective tool to develop knowledge and skills, and lead to atransformative learning experience (Bengtsson, 1995; Mezirow, 1990; Zeichner, 1996). Schön(1983) described reflection as a process that can be used to reveal hidden or tacit knowledge.
Students’ abilities to reflect make their lives move forward. Every reflection can leave a double
effect: one direct effect is that they reorganize a situation, uncover connections and relationships,
and find more intrinsic meaning in their experiences. The other indirect effect is to indicate
subsequent investigations and inform future decisions. Through reflection students are often able
to develop, build upon, and change existing behavior and practice. It becomes a transformational
process (Campbell, 1995; van Manen, 1990; Brookfield, 1987). Reflection in education improvesprofessional proficiency, fosters personal growth and understanding of ourselves, and increasessocial justice. It develops “sensitivity for (combining) heterogeneous elements, in professional
work, in personal life, and in social relations” (Procee, 2006, p. 253; Fowler, 2014). Because
reflective education provides students with more time to reflect and think more deeply into the
topic before voicing their opinions, and after the teaching and learning, it helps to enhance thequality of student learning (Zhan, Xu, & Ye, 2011).
The philosophy for children Hawaiʻi researchers found that students learned to reflect on
their experiences, confusions, and inquiries. Reflection made them realize the importance of
uncertainty and find comfort in cognitive disequilibrium (Makaiau & Miller, 2012).
Conscientious reflection and adaptation gave educators “a renewed sense of purpose and aided

33

their success in teaching (Jones, 2012, p. 63).
Philosophy for Learning
Learning “refer[s] to changes in observable behavior” (Hergenhahn, 1976, p. 3). Afterlearning, the learner is capable of doing something that he or she could not do before learning
took place, and this behavioral change is relatively permanent. The best learning environment iswhere learners feel that they can learn and take responsibility for their learning (Ballantyne,
Bain, & Packer, 1999). Good teaching stems from valuing students and their perspectives andexperiences. Students learn the best when they can relate concepts and values to their own
experiences (Splitter & Sharp, 1995). Students learn and grow holistically by taking otherpeople’s views and interests into consideration. They learn by watching what other people thinkand how they live, and the consequences they experience (Snowman & Biehler, 2000). They also
learn by reexamining and reassessing their own beliefs and fixed knowledge structures in termsof an increasingly larger and broader social context with multiple perspectives (Matsuoka, 2007).
In order for this type of learning to occur, the p4cHI classroom creates an intellectually safe
place where students engage in their own sense of wonder and natural curiosity, and participate
freely and meaningfully in educational activities (Jones, 2012). Intellectually safe is defined not
as a place of comfort, but as an openness to discomfort in order to learn. One definition is, “afeeling of trust in oneself and one’s community to honestly and genuinely engage in thinking
together” (Butnor, 2013, p. 31). As Butnor (2013) said, in an intellectually safe community,
Not only do we openly share our own partial interpretations of the truth, but we must also
relinquish our stake in those ideas in order to fully hear and be present to the positions ofothers. And all participants must then be invested in a quest for truth and meaning andwilling to follow the inquiry where it leads. (p. 30)

34

Teachers are not viewed as the “know-it-all, end-all authority figure,” but as facilitators
who “encourage students to think through and discover their own view” (Odierna, 2012, p. 46).
Mission of Contemporary Education
Students may forget the knowledge that was learned in schools, but the continuing
attitudes toward learning, and the habits of mind that were developed will live within them. It ishuman beings’ curiosity about the world and themselves that results in their school experiences.
Educators should discover what ultimately matters to students, and fire students’ passions topursue their wonders (Schrag, 1995). Education should help students think, inquire, discover,and understand the whole process of life (Dewey, 1933).
Diversity. Based on the premise that we live in an increasingly diverse society, much
more cultural, ethnic, and historical content appears in social studies textbooks today than in thepast. A major goal of education is to help students to understand concepts, events, and people
from diverse backgrounds and cultural perspectives. School curricula should be restructured toenable students to pursue topics and activities that reflect their own cultures, experiences andperspectives (Makaiau, Leng, & Fukui, 2015; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010; Turgeon, 2004).
Another essential mission of contemporary education is to help students develop empathy andcare, and more democratic values, beliefs, skills, knowledge, and attitudes that can contribute tohumanitarian and democratic changes (Banks, 2013).
Morality. One of the prime functions of education is to prepare moral citizens. Education
offers students opportunities to learn better values, and eventually to integrate these moral beliefs
in their lives. In the 1970s, Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of six stages of moral
development that suggested that individuals who have reached the higher levels of moral
development could make choices between good or bad values (Turgeon, 2014). Kohlberg

35believed that moral development could be accelerated through moral education (Lockwood,
1978; Snowman & Biehler, 2000). In a world that commercialism and technology havepermeated, and in social conditions that have changed faster and have been more challenged,
some educators believe that moral education should be an integral part of school curricula (Xu,
2012). Moral education prepares students from kindergarten to college with the skills of ethicalinquiry by giving them opportunities to deliberate together on ethical issues related to theirexperiences. Students develop better moral awareness when given opportunities to discuss all
kinds of real moral dilemmas that occur in their daily lives (Snowman & Biehler, 2000). Moral
education nurtures students’ perspective taking abilities. When students learn to accept human
differences, they obtain more thinking and reasoning abilities and exercise more ethical virtues intheir life (Turgeon, 2014).
Meaningful. The humanistic approach to education focuses on the role of non-cognitive
components in learning, particularly, students’ emotional needs, beliefs, values, and selfperceptions (Snowman & Biehler, 2000). Students will be highly motivated to learn when thecontent is personally meaningful, when they understand the reasons why they need to learn, andwhen they believe the learning atmosphere facilitates their learning (Groeben, 1994). Learnercentered education establishes conditions that allow self-directed learning to happen, andmotivates students to learn inherently in a supportive classroom environment. Teachers andparents play a significant role in preparing students to make good decisions by satisfying their
psychological and emotional needs. (Maslow, 1968, 1987; Rogers, 1983).
Role of the teacher. In humanistic education, the role of a teacher is to facilitate,encourage, help, assist, and become a colleague and a friend of students (Combs, 1965). Good
teachers believe every student has the ability to learn. They strive to help students realize their36

full potentials. They are also sensitive to the feelings of students. Teachers who adopt ahumanistic orientation seek to create a classroom atmosphere in which students believe that theteacher’s primary goal is to understand their needs, values, motives, and self-perceptions.
Teachers guide students in the right direction based on students’ decisions and perceptions(Joyce & Weil, 1996). In order to generate authentic discussions among students, the p4cHI
teachers give priority to student interests and independent choices over the facilitation andacquisition of knowledge (Jackson, 2013; Jones, 2012).
P4cHI and contemporary education. The p4cHI style of instruction gives students andteachers time to reflect on the purposes and value of education, and students’ interests andwonders instead of devising lesson plan solely for content mastery or meeting rigid standards(Lukey, 2012). Philosophical inquiry can address many educational goals by helping children
learn to evaluate information and opinions, to see from different perspectives, and to think forthemselves (Toyoda, 2012; Makaiau & Miller, 2012). In addition, p4cHI developers andinstructors often incorporate moral education into its curriculum. The curriculum encourages
students to think about moral issues through morally rich student-centered inquiry.
Psychology-based Literature Review
In addition to establishing the educational foundation of this study, it is necessary toconstruct a firm understanding of psychology-based literature that is related to scholarship in theareas of engagement and motivation, the social context of learning, adolescent psychosocial andcognitive development, and the meaning of life. This will provide further background on the
p4cHI approach to education and the PI curriculum that is designed to assist adolescents as they
engage in their learning and development.

37

Engagement and Motivation
Graham, Trip, Seawright, and Joeckel (2007) stated, “The idea that students must be
actively engaged in the learning process in order for it to be effective is not new. The roots for
active learning reach back in the literature to John Dewey” (p. 233). Engagement is “…thestudent’s psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or
mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote.”
Engagement in schoolwork involves both behaviors (i.e., persistence, effort, attention,
attendance, attitude toward philosophical inquiry course and school) and emotions (i.e.,
enthusiasm, interest, social relationship, making connections to previous knowledge andexperience, pride in success) (Newmann, 1992).
Motivational research suggests that motivation has an emotional foundation. Whenteachers make emotional connections with their students and help students make emotional
connections with a subject or task, students are more engaged in learning (Suarez-Orozco, Onaga& Lardemelle, 2010). In a learning environment, threats and accusations almost never work tomotivate students to do their best. Stress can damage neurons in the human brain and reduce
students’ performance (Schenck, 2011). But if the classroom is grounded in loving relationships,
students’ potential can be more fully activated and they have a greater potential to live aflourishing life (Yos, 2012). A climate of trust and safety is essential for students’ learning(Bluestein, 2001). Students are “most likely to thrive in an atmosphere of trust… This involves
maintaining a warm, caring relationship with students, one in which teachers can be ‘real’ withthemselves and others” (Purkey & Novak, 1996, p. 50). Therefore building relationships of careand trust is a prerequisite to all forms of classroom engagement, including higher levels ofcognitive thinking (Noddings, 2002).

38

The National Research Council (2004) published a comprehensive study concerning thelack of engagement in today’s public high schools. Many of the students who are retained atschools attend irregularly, exert modest effort on schoolwork, and learn little. This situation can
be changed if schools “help the young make sense of life, of experience, and of an unknowable
future” (Brady, 2006, p.47). Students are more likely to show both short and long-term
commitment to learning if the class activities are consistently personally relevant, enjoyable, andappropriately challenging (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi &Schneider, 2000).
People have a basic need to feel competent, successful, autonomous, and affiliated withothers when doing a task (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Student’s psychological investments promotelearning, understanding, and mastering of knowledge, skills, or crafts of academic work
(Newmann, 1992). When students learn subjects that they are interested in and have autonomy inmaking choices, they tend to perform better (Stipek, 2002; Pintrick & Schunk, 2002). If students
pursue an activity out of genuine interest, their commitment will be both more persistent andmore successful than those who do not (Armes, 1992). Research has shown that the moreeducators give their students choice, control, challenge, and opportunities for collaboration, themore their motivation and engagement are likely to rise (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012). Students
who have a positive self-concept tend to be intrinsically motivated. They have a high level ofcuriosity, are interested in schoolwork, and prefer moderately challenging tasks. The
motivational orientation leads to high levels of achievement, and in turn maintains high levels of
self-esteem (Harter, 1988).

39Social Context of Learning
Substantial empirical evidence shows that educational conditions promote academic
engagement (Board of Children, Youth, and Families, 2004). Bronfenbrenner (2005) introduced
a theory on human development known as Bioecological Theory. The bioecological model ofdevelopment explains how everything in the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
macrosystem, and chronosystem constantly interact with and influence each other. Positive youth
development recognizes the importance of interactions within and across these fiveenvironmental systems, processes occurring between individuals and their ecological settingsand how these connections set a foundation for adolescents’ development (Bronfenbrenner,
2000; Benson & Saito, 2001; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005). This framework suggests that all young
people have strengths or potentials to realize their strengths, provided that they havedevelopmental opportunities that align them within their ecologies (Witt, 2002; Lerner, 2005;
Damon, 2004).
Bandura’s social learning theory (1977, 1986) suggests that the environment largely
affects human life. Rewards and punishments through operant, and classical conditioning canoften explain a person’s behavior. A safe and challenging environment is critical in developing
and maintaining a good learning environment. It promotes students’ authentic intellectual growth.
When students feel safe and respected by their peers and teachers, this sense of trust makes them
become more engaged in learning. They become more willing to share their thoughts, invite
questions and comments, and jump out of their comfort zone to embrace challenges (Greely,
2000).
Adolescent Psychosocial and Cognitive Development
When examining the impact of a secondary philosophical inquiry class on adolescent40

academic engagement and searching for meaning, it is necessary to understand and become
familiar with the wide range of literature relating to adolescence. These areas of scholarship areimportant for this study, because it closely connects with the research questions and data
analysis. The goal of the Philosophical Inquiry course is to prepare empathic, responsible, andethical human beings who can think deeply and appreciate multiple perspectives. Student
learning experiences include their cognitive, social, and emotional development, so literature
review in the field of adolescent psychosocial and cognitive development, and parent andadolescent relationships will provide a foundation to understand Philosophical Inquiry student’s
PI classroom experiences.
Adolescent psychosocial development. “Young people are searching within themselves
and outside of themselves for a handle on what life is all about and where they fit in if they fit atall” (Dreyfus, 1972, p. 4). Adolescence is extremely important period for teenagers as they arebuilding social networks and intimate friendships that help them develop a deeper sense ofunderstanding of themselves and others through shared activities and self-disclosure (Huntley &Owens, 2006). The onset of adolescence is a critical time of social changes, which includes
increased self-consciousness and social anxiety. Influenced by pubertal hormones, adolescentstend to increase their sensation-seeking and aggressive behaviors (Forbes & Dahl, 2010). The
transition from childhood to adolescence makes adolescents become more likely to spend timewith peers, often with reduced oversight by parents. Peers become a significant resource for
emotional and social support. In the meantime peer relations help to mold the development andlives of adolescents (Brown & Larson, 2009).
Erik Erikson (1963) described psychosocial development from infancy through old age.
His theory portrayed people as playing an active role in their own psychological growth through41

their attempts to understand, organize, and integrate their everyday experiences. In Erikson’sview, personality development occurs as one successfully resolves a series of turning points, or
psychosocial crises. The crises refer to extraordinary events when people need to adjust to thenormal guidelines and expectations that society has for them. They are called crises because
people are often not certain that they are fully prepared to fulfill these demands (Snowman &Biehler, 2000). Erikson identified eight stages of personality development across the human
lifespan. Identity versus role confusion is a primary psychosocial issue that students must resolve
during their middle and high school years (Erikson, 1963). An optimal sense of identity, as
defined by Erikson (1968), is a sense of psychosocial well-being, which is a feeling of being at
home in one’s body, a sense of knowing where one is going, and an inner assuredness ofanticipated recognition from those he or she cares about. A high school student tends to have asense of psychosocial well-being if he or she is pleased with his or her appearance, has already
decided to go to college, or is admired by parents, relatives, and friends (Snowman & Biehler,
2000).
Adolescent cognitive development. At the core of adolescent cognitive development is
the attainment of a more conscious, self-regulated and self-directed mind, and better executivefunctioning (Keating, Lerner, & Steinberg, 2004). During early adolescence, individuals show
significant improvements in reasoning, information processing, and expertise. They exert higher
level abstract, multidimensional, planning and hypothetical thinking abilities from late childhood
to middle adolescence (Steinberg, 2005). Because of changes in brain structure and function,
especially in the prefrontal area and systems of inhibition such as calibration of risk and emotion
regulation, adolescents’ cognitive and behavioral systems mature at different rates. This period42

of vulnerability increases the risk of depression, violent delinquency and substance abuse(Steinberg, 2005; Sylwester, 2007).
Jean Piaget theorized that human beings have two tendencies governing both
physiological and mental functions. One tendency is to systematize and combine processes into
coherent general systems – organization. The other one is to adjust to the environment –adaptation. He postulated four stages of cognitive development, sensorimotor, preoperational,
and concrete operational, and formal operational. Adolescents are in the formal operational stage
where they are able to deal with abstractions, form hypotheses, and engage in mental
manipulations (Snowman & Biehler, 2000). Although there have been many criticisms of
Piaget’s stage theory, his conception of the cognitive skills of adolescents is often used inschools.
Parent-adolescent relationships. “The family is a social system that exerts a profoundinfluence on the development of an adolescent” (Caprara, Scabini, & Regalia, 2006, p. 98).
Collins and Laursen’s (2005) research showed that the content and quality of parent andadolescent relationships, rather than the actions of parent or adolescent alone determines andshapes adolescent development in and beyond adolescence.
In periods of adolescent rapid transitional changes, parental expectations often are
violated. These violations may generate emotional conflict and turmoil between parents andchildren. Adolescents’ relationships with peers and extra-familial adults tends to be closer thanthose with their parents. They perceive less companionship and intimacy with parents and areless satisfied with family life (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). The hormonal changes at puberty
contribute to impulse control problems and anxiety, as well as rebelliousness and distance fromthe family (Freud, 1958).

43

Meaning of Life
Adolescents often find themselves trying to make sense of conflicting information,pressures, and experience of confusion. Finding something meaningful which to direct
themselves can help them develop their identities (Brassai, Piko, & Steger, 2012). Identifying themeaning in their lives can be a central purpose during adolescence as they figure out who theyare. The need to evaluate and reconsider their internal and external life experiences often inspire
adolescents to search for a true self and stimulate them to explore the meaning of life (De Vogler& Ebersole, 1985).
Meaning is proposition expressed, which “involves the relationship between sentence
meaning and the entities,” and assumes a relationship between what a speaker asserts whenuttering a sentence and the semantic content of the sentence uttered (Soames, 2010, p. 2). The
meaning locates in “thought, perception, and the cognitive acts of agents” (p. 8). The meaning oflife is “the sense made of, and significance felt regarding, the nature of one’s being andexistence” (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006, p. 81). Jacobsen (2007) defined that, “lifemeaning refers to the content with which people fill their lives. Life meaning imbues life withform and direction. A related concept is life goal. It refers to the objectives that people work
towards and try to achieve” (p. 132). The meaning of life is the purpose of one’s life. The
structured purpose gives meaning of life (Ronald, 2013). The search for meaning is defined as“the strength, intensity, and activity of people’s desire and efforts to establish and/or augment
their understanding of the meaning, significance, and purpose of their lives” (Steger, Oishi, &Kashdan, 2009, p. 200). One important aspect of the human condition is “a native impulse to livewith a funded sense of meaning and value. One might call it the human eros” (Alexander, 1993,
p. 203). This “eros” urges us to unify our experiencs and to form a greater meaningfulness.

44

Life meaning and life goals are generally selected based on a person’s basic life values.
Allport (1961) made an attempt to create a theoretical system that explains human beings’ life
values. He classified six types of people according to their essential values. First is thetheoretical person who lives to discover or uncover truth. Second is the economic person who isoriented towards the utility of things. Third is the aesthetic person who is oriented towards theforms and harmonies of things. Fourth is the social person who cultivates love for and affinity
with other people as the life value that has highest priority. Fifth is the political person who isinterested in power. Sixth is the religious person who seeks unity with something that lies
beyond the everyday world (Allport, 1961; Jacobsen, 2007). Some people claim that there is nocertain way of life or life goal that is superior or more worthwhile than another (Jacobsen, 2007).
When a person identifies a purpose in life, he or she would commit personally to a chosen way
of life (Sartre, 1990).
Some psychologists believe that how people pursue ways of life has something to do with
their chronological age. In other words, certain life meanings and values belong to a particular
stage in the course of life. According to Jung (1981), the process of individuation comprises two
main phases. The first and the second life cycles are bridged by a mid-life crisis. The way a
person pursues life goals may be dramatically different in these different phases. Bühler (1968)
differentiated the life cycle into five phases; each was identified by a person’s concern with life
goals. From approximately 15 to 25, people seek out and make preliminary decisions regarding
their life’s purpose. After 25 until 45 or 50, people become increasingly specific and definitive
with regard to life goals. Kierkegaard (1845) distinguished three stages of life, which are called
the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious, respectively. In Frankl’s (1959) view, man’s search
for meaning is the primary driving force. People need a sense of meaningfulness to guide their45

lives and behaviors. They are often prepared to live and die for the sake of their ideals andvalues. He called the will for meaning the “spiritual dimension of human existence” (Frankl,
1969, p.160).
Maughn (2011) described that conflict may be caused when a student gets “thedisciplinary knowledge, the intellectual, social and technological skills, and the cultural capital[he or] she needs to compete in the economic market,” without considering “whether [his or] herlife has any meaning or purpose beyond that, and without knowing how to cultivate personal orcollective wellbeing” (p. 202). Philosophy for Children researchers Laurence Splitter and Ann
Sharp (1995) explained that philosophy is the quest for meaning; all formal education is asystematic search for meaning. Sternberg (2003) and Nussbaum (1995) suggested that
Philosophy for Children could promote students’ emotional, ethical, and personal development.
Bringing philosophy to classroom practice is one way to address the sense of disconnectedness,fragmentation, and alienation that many students experience. The personal growth, the desire formaking meaning and the goal of self-realization and transcendence are inseparable from thephilosophical inquiry classroom.
Philosophy for Children
This third part of this literature review begins with the history of Philosophy for Children,which describes the growth of Matthew Lipman’s P4C movement, Thomas Jackson’s p4cHI
movement, and Amber Makaiau and Chad Miller’s context-sensitive version of p4cHI – thePhilosopher’s Pedagogy. Then it will describe the procedures of doing p4cHI in classrooms, andsynthesizing student outcomes related to p4cHI. This section will acknowledge the original
proponents’ of P4C theories and research that inspired this study, and demonstrate the need forthe current study.

46

Philosophy for Children (P4C)
P4C began in the late 1960s when Matthew Lipman found that children had a negative
view of their own intellectual abilities. He decided that there needed to be a way to better teachhis students to think and reason in a democratic society and that this effort needed to begin muchearlier than college. To address these issues Lipman created a curriculum that incorporated theskills of logic and reasoning found in the practice of philosophy to improve students’ thinking in
the K–12 setting. He saw that P4C converted traditional classrooms into reflective communities
of inquiry where students and teachers continue to develop their ability to think for themselves in
responsible ways (Lipman, 1993). Lipman wrote, education “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” (1988, p. 110).
To support the ongoing growth of P4C, in the early 1970s, Matthew Lipman and Ann
Margaret Sharp established the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC)in Montclair University, located in New Jersey. “The IAPC soon attracted international attention”(Jackson, 2012, p. 3). Each year scholars, mainly those connected with departments ofphilosophy, came for a three-week workshop conducted by Lipman and Sharp to learn this new
approach to doing philosophy. By the early 1980s, the IAPC developed a complete K-12 P4C
curriculum which consisted of seven books with seven accompanying teacher’s manuals thatwere designed to promote philosophical thinking in U.S. schools. Later Lipman’s P4C approach
received “national validation” and became “eligible for federal money to support costs associatedwith the professional development of school faculty who wanted to implement the program” (p.
3). P4C subsequently became a well established and developed educational philosophy withseveral centers around the world and thousands of individual practitioners in many countries -47

ranging from Austria to Iceland, Bulgaria to Brazil, and Canada to China (Makaiau, 2010). The
idea of the classroom as a community of inquiry is the foundation and primary pedagogy of theP4C program (Millett & Tapper, 2011).
Philosophy for Children Hawaiʻi (p4cHI)
In 1984, Jackson (2012) learned about Matthew Lipman and P4C, and attended a threeweek workshop at Montclair. He was impressed by Lipman’s approach of thinking together
philosophically and experienced a sense of belongingness in the community of inquiry. He
observed that during the inquiry students were animated, engaged, and thoughtful. They shared
their personal views with each other, and developed insightful views into the questions that they
voted to discuss. In an effort to extend Lipman’s original curriculum and vision to a variety ofgeo-cultural contexts, Jackson brought P4C to Hawaiʻi. People “from many different parts of theworld have adapted the program to blend with local methods” (Maughn, 2011, p. 212), Jacksonalso adapted P4C to meet Hawaiʻi students’ needs.
When P4C was being practiced in the context of Hawaiʻi, several limitations of Lipman’s
approach became apparent regarding the geo-cultural context:
Among them were: (1) the reliance of the curriculum on the presence of someone in theclassroom with philosophical training; (2) the perception of K – 12 classroom teachersthat philosophy should be reserved for education at the college level; and (3) the cultural
incongruence between Lipman’s novels and the experiences of many children in Hawai‘i.
(Miller, 2012, p. 31)
Thus after several years, Jackson, transformed in important way Lipman’s original curriculum,
creating philosophy for children Hawaiʻi (p4cHI) and developing it with children and teachers in
Hawaiʻi public schools, China, Japan, and around the world. Jackson’s p4cHI provided a more48

flexible approach than Lipman’s original P4C by changing the focus of classroom activity fromcurriculum with a Western oriented philosophical content to a more inquiry based approach
focusing on developing inquiries (rather than arguments) from the wonderings, thoughts, ideas,
and questions of students (Miller, 2013).
p4cHI in Classroom Practice: Four Pillars of p4cHI
A p4cHI approach to education is based on four pillars – “community, inquiry, reflection,and philosophy,” and a set of teaching strategies that can guide teachers to translate theoreticalfoundations into classroom practices (Jackson, 2012, p. 6). The following section describes thefour pillars of p4cHI, which are incorporated into the PI curriculum.
First pillar: community. After thirty years of p4cHI development (1984-2014), thevalues of community, inquiry, reflection, and philosophy have become the four pillars of p4cHI.
Among the four values, community needs to be developed first. According to Jackson (2013), ap4cHI community develops in three stages – a beginning, emerging, and mature community. In
the beginning phase, the teacher/facilitator’s role is strong and direct. As students and theirteacher “internalize the roles, vocabulary, and protocols (social and cognitive) that are thehallmarks of an intellectually safe philosophical inquiry community” (p. 100), both in a maturecommunity teachers and students become facilitators and participants.
Form a circle. In a typical p4cHI philosophical inquiry classroom, students and theirteacher will sit in a circle. One student expressed “this is not a graveyard classroom; we’re acommunity and I’m not above you, I’m not below you, I’m with you at your level” (Miller, 2013,
p. 73). Students view themselves as equal participants in the learning process in circular seatingthat promotes a new power relationship in the classroom. Students and teachers recognize thatcircular seating facilitates communication and collaboration, allows ideas flow more freely, and49

promotes a higher level of personal and intellectual acknowledgement among the students andtheir teacher.
Create a community ball. A signature technique incorporated into p4cHI classrooms isthe creation of a community ball (CB). The CB is made during the first one or two class periodsby the classroom community. After that, every p4cHI session is conducted in a circle with theuse of the CB to indicate who is the speaker of the moment, as well as to whom everyone elseshould listen and pay attention. Students and teachers can always pass the CB to designate thenext person to speak. However, if circumstance requires, the teacher has the right andresponsibility to intervene in the discussion even without a CB (Jackson, 2013). The CB plays animportant role in keeping the classroom organized. One student remarked,
That is what I really, really liked about the community ball because it kept everything inorder and organized. Because we weren’t having people yelling all across the room, butthen at the same time, everyone had their say. Everyone threw it to everyone that wanted,
felt like they needed to say something, and everyone was able to do that. (Miller, 2013, p.
75)
So as inquiry develops, the CB becomes a tool of facilitating the philosophicalcommunity of inquiry that empowers students with ownership of their session. Students’ ideas
can be heard and respected by their peers (Miller, 2013). The CB makes the other students
willingly concentrate on the speaker’s thoughts, instead of worrying about how they physicallyappear to their peers. The CB “takes away a lot of the anxiety…. Because people that don’t
really want to talk or people that are nervous about what it is they want to share, having
something there to fidget with and play with takes your attention off” (p. 75).
Create an intellectually safe place. In order to develop a safe classroom environment,

50

p4cHI classrooms always take more than one period to introduce and develop an importantconcept, Intellectual Safety, to the community. p4cHI aims to cultivate a K-12 philosophicalschooling experience in an intellectually safe environment that encourages students to thinkcollaboratively about meaningful topics and questions in responsible and respectful ways
(Jackson, 2012). An intellectually safe community, as Jackson (2001) defined, is a place that is
physically, emotionally, intellectually safe and hence conducive to collaborative, intellectuallyrich inquiry.
In an intellectually safe place there are no put-downs and no comments intended tobelittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule. What develops is a growing trust among
the participants and with it the courage to present one’s own thoughts, however tentative
initially, on complex and difficult issues. (p. 460)
In the intellectual safe environment, “all participants in the community are free to ask virtually
any question or state any view so long as respect for all is honored” (Jackson, 2013, p. 102).
Students’ curiosity, their natural sense of wonder, their eagerness for inquiry, and their desire to
make their voices heard need a trust and safe place to “grow, breathe and make sense” (Bluestein,
2001, p. 210). Learning in this safe classroom culture, students are able to express their authentic,
raw, or tentative thoughts more spontaneously. Even the most sensitive topics can be discussed
and explored. Students do not fear the feedback to their contributions; they are more willing tosupport and build a psychologically safe and caring community of inquiry, which is considered afoundational context for all future inquiries (Jackson 2013; Jones, 2012; Makaiau, 2010; Miller,2013).
To sum up, in p4cHI, the concept of community primarily indicates building an
intellectually safe community where students and teachers sit in a circle and feel free and51

respected to share their thoughts and ask questions. While forming this safe community, acommunity ball is created and used to facilitate communal discussion and empower eachmember of the community.
Second pillar: inquiry. p4cHI philosophical inquiry includes five key elements. The firstis the source of the inquiry which is always inclusive of topics that are questions of interest to thestudents. “Whenever possible, the inquiry arises out of the questions and interests of thecommunity, begins where the community is in its understanding, and moves in directions that thecommunity indicates” (p. 103). Once the students realize that the questions and topics can indeed
come from their wonderings, questions, concerns, and experiences, they are more motivated andengaged in learning, and explore and find joy in the learning process (Butnor, 2012; Makaiau &Miller, 2012). The second is co-inquiry. No one is committed in advance to a certain answer,
and it is not known where the inquiry will lead. Concurrently, Jackson (2013, p. 103) found that“the quality, creativity, and insight in their thinking is truly astounding.” The third element is theself-corrective nature of the inquiry. The fourth element includes the inquiry tools such as The
Good Thinker’s Toolkit (WRAITEC). The final element is reflection (Jackson, 2013).
Plain Vanilla. There are a variety of ways to initiate an inquiry. The Plain Vanilla format
of inquiry is one strategy Jackson (2013) suggested in order to identify a topic and develop a
p4cHI inquiry. The process generally follows four steps: (a) the community reads something,watches a video, or listens to a piece of music; (b) each member of the community poses aquestion, and all questions are posted for all to see; (c) the community votes democratically on
the question they would like to inquire into; and (d) the community begins the inquiry using
WRAITEC (Jackson, 2013).

52

In a Plain Vanilla inquiry, the person whose question is chosen starts the discussion. In
the community of inquiry, no one knows where the inquiry will lead. “A p4c inquiry develops its
own integrity, its own movement, going where ‘it’ wants or needs to go” (p. 104). Each memberof the community co-inquires together, opening an unexpected inquiry journey. The goal of an
inquiry is not to persuade anyone to accept a particular answer, but rather for everyone to reach adeeper and richer understanding of the questions and complex issues involved (Jackson, 2001).
Inquiry tools. A p4cHI inquiry is more than a conversation or sharing of ideas within acommunity. It contains thinking and intellectual rigor, and certain cognitive tools – WRAITEC is
one tool that is used to help facilitate students’ inquiries. The following are examples of
WRAITEC-based questions:
W – What do you mean by…?
R – What are your reasons…?
A – What assumptions are you making?
I – Can I infer…from…?
T – Is what is being said true and what does it imply if it is true?
E – Are there any examples to prove what is being said?
C – Are there any counter-examples s to prove what is being said?
The more familiar students become with using the toolkit, the more depth of inquiry they create
both during and beyond the p4cHI sessions (Jackson, 2013). WRAITEC is an essential
component of the Kailua High School philosophical inquiry curriculum. Students are required touse WRAITEC when they pose their questions and engage in classroom discussions. They are“an important means for giving shape and direction to the notion that, although we aren’t in arush to get anywhere, we do have an expectation that we will get somewhere” (p. 104).

53

WRAITEC represents a type of philosophical question or response that one can ask
individually or with others to move inquiry to a deeper level (Jackson, 2012). Following aresome examples of questions that high school students raised in an ethnic studies class using theGood Thinker’s Toolkit (GTTK) (Makaiau, 2013),•

What does it mean to be Hawaiian? (12th grader)•

Is it reasonable to assume that for me culture, race and ethnicity are all the same thing?
(12th grader)•

What are the reasons I don’t always feel empowered? (12th grader)•

If it is true that I make rude remarks about other people’s biases, then does that imply that
I am a hypocrite? (9th grader)
Evaluation. At the end of the philosophical inquiry, community members are asked toreflect on the day’s inquiry or classroom activities. The following categories of criteria aresuggested by Jackson (2013): 1). How did we do as a community? (a) Listening – Was I listening
to others? Were others listening to me? (b) Participation – Did most people participate rather
than just a few who dominated? (c) Safety – Was it a safe environment? And 2). how was ourinquiry? (d) Focus – Did we maintain a focus? (e) Depth – Did our discussions scratch beneaththe surface or open up the topic? (f) Understanding – Did I increase my understanding of the
topic? (g) Thinking – Did I challenge my own thinking or work hard at it? and (h) Interest – Was
it interesting?
To conclude, the community of inquiry features the p4cHI approach as well as thephilosophical inquiry classroom activities. p4cHI inquiry arises from students’ wonderings,
interests, and questions that matter to their lives. They are encouraged to remain open to multiple
perspectives, learn from their experiences, and challenge their belief systems in the process of54

inquiry. The p4cHI provides participants with the thinking tools embodied in WRAITEC and thePlain Vanilla technique for discussion and inquiry. At the end of a philosophical inquiry,community members are encouraged to reflect on the day’s inquiry or classroom activities.
Third pillar: reflection. In addition to the above criteria, students are often asked towrite a written reflection on whether or not they experienced any progress or change in their own
thinking as a result of the inquiry session. In a p4cHI classroom, students are provided with
opportunities to pause, stop what they are doing and question such things as what they assume to
be true about the content they are learning about, the world around them, and their relationships
with others (Makaiau, 2010). By the end of the semester, students learn that they will experiencesome sense of confusion or uncertainty over the course of philosophical inquiry, that perplexityand disequilibrium is an important stimulus for reflection, and one form of progression andgrowth. Philosophical inquiry provides time and opportunities for students to engage in reflective
thought concerning the questions and issues that are of most importance to them (Miller, 2013;
Jackson, 2013). The “student must be educated to see that…no claims of fact will be madewithout evidence, no opinions will be proffered without accompanying reasons, and nojudgments will be made without appropriately relevant criteria” (Jackson, 2013, p. 18).
In summary, reflection is an important component in p4cHI classroom practice. “Fromthe perspective of a philosopher’s pedagogy, sustained and meaningful learning can only occur
under the conditions of conscientious reflection” (Makaiau, 2010, p. 60). In p4cHI reflection,
self-correction and a questioning attitude are essential attributes. Participants recognize thatreflection is effective in helping them organize thinking, make connections, and in directing
future actions to promote personal growth.

55

Fourth pillar: philosophy. Many people tend to have a neutral to negative view ofphilosophy because they consider philosophy as “something rather esoteric, removed fromeveryday experience and concerns, difficult to understand, perhaps not even suitable to children”(Jackson, 2013, p. 108). However, p4cHI offers an addition to this view that enriches people’s
understanding of philosophy through its concept of philosophy as both “Big” and “little”.
According to Jackson (2013), philosophy can be experienced in two versions: Big-P
philosophy and little-p philosophy. Each of these experiences involve content and activity. Big-P
content includes a) philosophers, for example, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant and Confucius; b) areas,such as metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics; and c) schools, movements, and worldviews, forinstance Taoism, feminism, and phenomenology. Big-P Activity refers primarily to academics
who teach, research, write, read, and present their work at conferences based on years of study
devoted to the aforementioned content.
Little-p content refers to, “The set of beliefs we begin to acquire at birth that continue toinform our experience, becoming the framework with which we make sense of our world. To theextent that we have beliefs, we have a philosophy” (p. 108). Philosophy recovers itself when it
deals with “the problems of men” (Campbell, 1995, p. 92). little-p activity is grounded in theextraordinary sense of wonder we live with. We are not passive but active from the beginning,
wondering, questioning, and seeking to create meaning for ourselves in the new world.
Questioning is a life-long process of reflecting on our own beliefs and experiences. It can begin
with any content or topic that comes from our thoughts, questions, reflections, and our concrete
experiences (Jackson, 2012; Makaiau & Miller, 2012).
In brief, the concept of philosophy in p4cHI inquiry is not the Western philosophicalmodel of argument, which is based on opposing, and defending one’s beliefs in an attempt to56

understand more fully. Rather, it is built upon the notion of collaborative co-inquiry (Jackson,2012). In addition, in p4cHI, philosophy becomes a pedagogical activity that is appropriate in allcontent areas. It is a practice of inquiring deeply and reflectively as well as communicating
effectively and ethically. Philosophy is expanded beyond its current position as an academic
discipline to a dialogical activity directly relevant both in the classroom as an important addition
to pedagogic practice as well as in students’ lives (Lukey, 2012).
The Philosopher’s Pedagogy
Makaiau and Miller (2012) determined to create ways to incorporate p4cHI into theirown practices as public high school teachers. In order to adapt p4cHI to more effectively meetthe needs of high school students and to more concretely design and implement student activities
within the school curricula, they pioneered a modified approach to p4cHI they called the“philosopher’s pedagogy” (Makaiau, 2010; Makaiau & Miller, 2012). This approach extends“the ongoing dialogue concerning philosophy for children and its relationship with philosophy,
education, theory, and practice” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p. 8). The philosopher’s pedagogy
expands upon the work of Lipman and Jackson in that it focuses on ways in which p4cHI can be
included to teach across disciplines at the high school level (Makaiau & Lukey, 2013). These
educators determined to use the philosopher’s pedagogy to bring back the notion that schools areplaces where human beings can work together to understand the purpose of our lives better, andto work to correct some perceived crucial shortcomings, such as students did not have chanceand time to reflect on their learning experiences, students lack of motivate and engagement inlearning in social studies classes, of the current school system (Makaiau & Miller, 2012).
Philosophy “encourages individuals to examine their lives and experiences in order tocome to a deeper understanding of the world and their place in it” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, p. 6).

57

When it connects with our lived experiences and emotions, philosophy is also an activity of thehuman heart. The philosopher’s pedagogy is not just a curriculum or method, rather, it is anapproach to teaching that requires a set of six interconnected educational commitments.
First, teachers must live an examined life. Socrates argued that life is not worth living if it
is void of examining one’s beliefs and conceptions as well as others (Plato, 1961). Whenteachers live and model an examined life, both within their classrooms and beyond, students may
become inspired and engage in examining their lives too (Makaiau & Miller 2012). Second,teachers must view education as a shared activity between teacher and student. In a p4cHI
community of inquiry, teachers become co-inquirers alongside their students. “The-teacher-ofthe-students and the students-of-the-teacher” share mutual understanding and communication to
construct knowledge together (Freire, 1970, p. 80). Third, the teacher and students must reconceptualize the content as a reflection of the interaction between classroom participants’beliefs and experiences, and the subject matter being taught. The philosopher’s pedagogy
expands the focus from specific subject content to include the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of thestudents. Texts are used as a stimulus to initiate meaningful philosophical inquiry among
students and teachers. Fourth, teachers must position philosophy as “the general theory ofeducation” (Dewey, 1916, p. 328). The teachers should ensure that philosophical wonder is at theheart of classroom activities, and carry out their commitment to philosophical inquiry as anecessity for learning. Fifth, teachers and students must make philosophy a living classroom
practice. p4cHI provides teachers with a set of classroom structures (i.e., community ball, Plain
Vanilla), and assists students in learning to incorporate the GTTK to facilitate their philosophicalinquiries. This facilitates bringing philosophy into actual classroom practice. Finally, teachers58need to be willing to challenge contemporary measures for classroom assessment (Makaiau &Lukey, 2013; Makaiau & Miller 2012).
Student Outcomes Related to P4C and p4cHI
The Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education(SAPERE) (2013) summarized P4C as a powerful educational approach that has been foundthrough research studies to have cognitive and social benefits for schools. In P4C classes,
students’ self esteem and self-confidence, concentration, engagement and motivation to learn,reflection and reasoning skills, abilities to communicate, behaviors in and out of the classroom,
listening, cooperative and social skills, and emotional and psychological wellbeing were all
improved (Biesta, 2009; Brown & Campione, 1994). The following section will describe student
outcomes related to Philosophy for Children in three sections: (a) development in cognitive
ability and thinking skills; (b) development in socio-affective skills; and (c) development inlearning and engagement.
Development in cognitive ability and thinking skills. Sutcliffe (UNESCO, 2007)
declared that P4C is widely accepted as a method to stimulate students’ creative and criticalthinking abilities. The P4C community of inquiry provided students with opportunities to express
their own views. “Through taking part in thoughtful, reflective discussions, children gain
confidence in their ability to think on their own” (Lipman, et al., 1980, p. 131).
Seven studies used quantitative method to describe outcomes of P4C program. Lipman,
Sharp, and Oscanyan (1980) utilized pre and post test design with two groups of 20 students over
two and a half years and found that students’ reading and reasoning abilities, as well as criticalthinking skills improved. Yet time involvement of experimental group is given but not of control
group. Haas (1975) used a quasi-experimental design with 200 children and concluded that the59children achieved significant improvements in reading, critical thinking and interpersonal
relations but was inconclusive about impact of P4C on curiosity and logical thinking. There were
few details about how schools were chosen or matching of control and experimental children. In
addition, sessions were led by teachers rather than P4C professionals. The Education Testing
Service (1978) research studied 200 experimental and 200 control students aged 10 to 13 over
two years. Teachers were given two hours training per week in the first year and students were
exposed to the P4C program for two hours per week. The study demonstrated significant
improvement in reading, mathematics, creative thinking and logical reasoning in experimentalgroup. But the study provided little details on how schools were selected, and alternative
activities that control group engaged with.
Williams (1993) did a similar study with 15 experimental and 17 control students aged
between11 and 12 years over 27 one-hour session of philosophical inquiry, and found that the
London reading test revealed that the experimental group results were statistically moresignificant than the control group. However, this was a very short-term intervention of P4C. The
Institute for the Advancement of P4C (IAPC) (2002), based at Montclair State University,
concluded that students who had used P4C from diverse demographic and geographic sites from
Hawaiʻi to New York, spanning various socio-economic status, showed significant gains inreasoning ability. However it is not clear from this publication what social disadvantage
indicators were used to categorize populations. It did note that the experimental schools were
carefully selected on the bases that they had been commited to the P4C program for many years.
The Scottish study conducted by Topping and Trickey (2004) at 18 primary schools in
Clackmannanshire in 2002 and 2003 showed that even one hour’s use of an inquiry-basedteaching methodology each week for seven months can have a significant impact on children’s

60reasoning abilities. The length of student utterances in the experimental classes increased on
average by 58%. They (2007) conducted a follow-up study on the same group of students after
they enrolled into their secondary institutions. The research demonstrated that the philosophicalinquiry group sustained their cognitive gains after two years despite the absence of further
experience of philosophical inquiry in secondary schools.
These quantitative studies used experimental and control group design and applied normreferenced tests, students’ reading, reasoning, cognitive and mathmatical reasoning abilities were
improved after the P4C Lipman approach’s intervention. Two qualitative were conducted by
Echeverria (1992), and Daniel and Auriac (2009). Echeverria collected qualitative data throughobserving students in classrooms, the schoolyard and at home. Although there were some
improvements in children’s thinking skills, some contradictions and inconsistencies wereobserved. Children had tendency to use their thinking skills in classrooms rather than in othercontexts. Daniel and Auriac’s study found that P4C students mastered argumentative and criticalthinking and increased knowledge of philosopher’s thought. In philosophy, the solving ofphilosophical problems is often done through individual critical thinking, while in P4C it occurs
through the apprenticeship of critical thinking in a community of inquiry.
Different from the aforementioned P4C studies that mostly applied quantitative studies
and were more focused on students’ reading, logical reasoning, critical thinking andmathematical skills, the p4cHI studies employed more qualitative methods in investigating
p4cHI’s effects on students’ cognitive abilities.
Yos (2004) conducted his research in a Hawaiʻi public elementary school, and found thatphilosophical inquiry empowered children to think well and understand themselves and others
more deeply. p4cHI cultivated good judgment, which is an essential quality for human beings “to61lead lives that are rich, worthy and fulfilling” (p. 13). Mitias (2004) concluded that p4cHI offered
students time and space to practice thinking alternatively. Philosophical inquiry promoted theapplication of logical and methodological analysis to questions and assumptions. Engaging inphilosophical inquiry, students learned to analyze and inquire into problems “within acommunity of other thinkers and within a network of knowledge” (p. 17). Lukey (2004) worked
with special needs children who were not in the mainstream curriculum for almost two years, andfound that philosophical inquiry helped children with autism to develop their communication andthought processes. After consistence practice, children with autism improved their abilities to ask
and answer questions.
Yuan (2004) conducted a comparative study with two groups of children from China and
Hawaiʻi who were made up of 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders. The study found that p4cHI introduced
a kind of wisdom that beyond language, geographical location and culture, in which children
always kept an open space for a sense of wonder. Tsuchiyama (2004) studied her six-year-olds,
and found that her children could make sense of their questions by using their own personal
experiences. The children demonstrated ability to skillfully engage in philosophical dialogue andreflective thinking.
Matsuoka (2004) conducted a longitudinal study for her dissertation, and she found thatusing GTTK, students developed mindful behaviors, such as using the GTTK to think creatively
and flexibly, to reflect before taking action or making judgments, and enhanced problem solving
abilities developed in their elementary school years in evidence after completing their first yearof middle school. Lien (2004) interviewed teachers in Hawaiʻi who had practiced p4cHI with
their students for some years, and found that p4cHI provided an environment where inquiry
naturally took place and students helped each other to nurture the ability to think cooperatively,62

rather than competitively. In Makaiau’s (2010) Ethnic Studies class, she utilized the GTTK
developed by Jackson (1998) to guide students’ thinking and inquiry. She found that this toolkit
helped students explore what they wanted to know more about, seek clarification, think moredeeply, and acknowledge and defend their assumptions by providing examples and counterexamples. The GTTK provided an alternative way to teach students to communicate clearly andanalyze information reflectively.
Thinking skills that philosophical inquiry can foster are life skills that are much needed
by individuals in order to operate effectively in an increasingly complex world (De Bono, 1991).
Lipman (2003) summarized that P4C provides the necessary skills to discuss concepts,
inferences, arguments and reasons, and helps students become creative and imaginative thinkers,
as well as be appreciative and caring toward others.
The following section will summarize and critique findings regarding student outcomesin socio-affective development. Although P4C researchers implemented rigorous large-scalequantitative studies, their participants were mainly elementary students. p4cHI researchers
conducted systematic investigation into p4cHI’s effects on primary and secondary students’socio-affective development, their research methods were predominantly qualitative.
Development in affective and social skills. Six studies used mixed methods research
designs to study P4C’s effects on students’ socio-affective development. Hope (1975) selected
200 students in the experimental and 200 in the control group on the 6th grade level. The study
noticed substantial improvements in P4C participants’ interpersonal relationships compared withthe control group. Williams (1993) conducted teacher observations with 15 experimental
students over 27 one-hour sessions of philosophical inquiry. The study also suggested
improvement in students’ interpersonal relationships. Sasseville (1994) applied a pre and posttest

63

design with experimental group of 124 students and control of 96. Teachers were given 12 hoursof training in P4C prior to the study and four days during the five-month span of the project.
Sasseville’s study demonstrated that low self-esteem students could be able to find value inthemselves through being listened to and taken seriously by their peers. However, no details
were given of how the groups were selected or how they were matched.
Fields (1995) aimed to evaluate the outcomes of philosophical approaches with 123
children aged from 7-8 years over a period of one academic year. Experimental and control
subjects were randomly selected from two schools, matched for intelligence quotient, age andsex, and assigned pairwise to conditions. Fields concluded a discernible increase in the displayedself-confidence of those participants who on completion of the study were identified as having
introvert personalities. The result was linked with Sasseville’s finding above that the largest
gains in self-esteem following involvement with P4C took place with children with the lowest
self-esteem. The experimental groups were perceived as displaying markedly more motivation,
curiosity, commitment and concentration. Yet, it would have been useful if this study had
provided more details of the evaluation and of the selection of the groups and other experimental
details. In Gardner’s (1999) two-year empirical study on P4C, the experimental group increased
its scores on the social values and overall self-esteem. However, the scores decreased on selfprotection, intolerance for ambiguity, and general external orientation.
Another strong empirical support for the social benefits of P4C was provided by Trickey
and Topping (2007). In their program, Over 100 teachers received training and support andcollaborated with two assistants working part time to develop P4C in the primary classroom forone hour a week with regular classes for 16 months. The study is comprised pre-post test design
incorporating an experimental and a control group. A range of evaluation tools were used,64

standardized quantitative methods, Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT), Myself as a Learner Scale(MAL), qualitative methods, such as video analysis and questionnaires. The experimental groupwere involved in an additional qualitative analysis in order to triangulate findings. The researchdemonstrated that students had significant improvements in communication, confidence,
concentration, participation and social behavior following six months of philosophical inquiry.
Sharing the same characteristics while studying students’ cognitive and intellectual
development, p4cHI researchers again applied qualitative research designs to examine p4cHI’s
impact on students’ socio-affective development.
p4cHI research in socio-affective development. Jackson (1993) reported an evaluationof the implementation of p4cHI program during the 1990-1991 school year, which involved 56
teachers. The report was based on two questionnaires answered by students and teachers.
Respondents believed that doing philosophy in a community of inquiry gave all students a voice
as well as teaching them appropriate ways to express themselves and to have their contributions
heard. The voices of all students were encouraged and included in classroom dialogue. A rangeof co-operative skills, such as listening to others, keeping open-mindedness, treating others’
views with respect, building on others’ ideas, being confident in self-expression, being willing tooffer, accepting and responding to criticism, becoming committed to inquiry, valuing
reasonableness, developing intellectual courage, and creating a space in which students caninteract with both gentleness and rigor. In 2006, Jackson conducted a qualitative case study, andfound that the p4cHI approach could help children keep authentic wonderings and philosophicalinquiries. In the p4cHI environment, children placed much more emphasis on listening,
thoughtfulness, care and respect for the thoughts of other. The community, inquiry, philosophy,
reflection, and intellectual safety were the pillars of the p4cHI style. However, because of the65

qualitative research design it limits to describing the phenomenon rather than predicting
students’ future behavior.
A qualitative study conducted by Jones (2008) using survey to gauge primary, middle andsecondary teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness and impact of p4cHI on students’ learning.
39% surveys were sent out and 87 returned. The vast majority of respondents reported a range of
positive effects on their students, including student motivation and cognitive, social and affective
benefits. p4cHI was thought by respondents to contribute most to cognitive and social benefits
whilst thinking strategies were more likely to aid motivation and engagement. The study
indicated that future research might explore why it is that P4C appears to have a more visible
effect on cognitive development.
Makaiau (2010) conducted an identity intervention study during the third unit of study
within the Kailua High School ethnic studies curriculum, with 89 students across three-year
period. The study documented and analyzed the impact of a p4cHI curriculum on adolescentprocess of identity exploration in Hawaiʻi’s multicultural setting. The author analyzed students’
identity narratives using a constructivist approach to grounded theory methods. The results
suggested that the socio-cultural setting where adolescents’ identity exploration took place isimportant in deternmining their exploration’s outcomes, since 61 out of 89 students identified
place as central dimension in their identiy exploration process. In a multicultural community
context, students were inclined to accept the idea of ethnic identity pluralism. They saw theworld as a complext place that is full of multiple perspectives.
Miller (2013) applied a qualitative constructivist grounded theory study to examine 13
students’ expereinces with the Philosopher’s Pedgagogy. Through the analysis of intensive
interview responses, the study found that in p4cHI classroom environment, students could be66

themselves and learn from each other. Students considered their teacher as an active participantsin the learning process. The pedagogy also transformed students’ understanding of education,
which is “knowledge moves beyond the acquisition of information and becomes the search for a
feeling of satisfaction” (p. v). The study concluded by generating a theory of teaching that isdifferent from traditional models of instruction.
Although these four p4cHI qualitative studies found positive results regarding students’social, emotional, and psychological development, it is difficult to generalize these results
because of the size, and descriptive nature of the studies.
Development in learning and engagement. P4C utilizes students’ viewpoints andpersonal experiences as vehicles for learning. The classroom activities encourage students tothink about their own thinking and select questions or topics matter to them. This allows students
to interpret what they have experienced into meaningful insights that can create opportunities for
personalized useful learning (Allan, 1996). Fisher (2008) studied a small sample of two groupsof 14 students, and found that children’s self-esteem as thinkers and learners improved after they
engaged in community of inquiry. The study demonstrated that a group size of 14 is instrumental
for class discussion, providing a good range of viewpoints and ample opportunity for students tocontribute. In a meta-analysis that focused on studies using controlled experimental designs,
Trickey and Topping (2004) found that children showed a decreased rate in conflict and bullying,as well as increased participation and engagement in learning. In their 2006 study, Tricky andTopping noted that children demonstrated improved self-esteem as a learner, reduced anxiety,increased level of empathy, and greater self-confidence.
The most striking findings with regard to student learning and engagement was from
Buranda State School in Australian. In a study of the school, it was concluded that,67

The changes at the school over the space of nine years include a significant increase inenrollments, improved programs and facilities, improved work practices, a very
supportive school community and, most importantly, demonstrable, improved student
outcomes. (Burgh, Field, & Freakley, 2006, p. 202)
Hinton’s (2003a, 2003b) studies showed that students improved significantly in their social
behavior outcomes. Less behavior management problems occurred in the classroom. Bullying
became a rare phenomenon. Students were more patient with each other. They were willing toaccept their own mistakes as a normal part of learning. Student interaction and behavior outsideof the classroom reflected cooperative learning environment
There is other evidence that a philosophical community of inquiry is an effective
pedagogical approach to teaching values (Millett & Kay, 2001). Russell (2002) conducted aqualitative study using an emergent research design, and found that children came to have astrong moral sense that was fostered in P4C type of community of inquiry. Another school study
implemented by 143 schools in Australia reported positive effects on student engagement withlearning, active listening, and evidence of more respect and care in student-to student
interactions. They “experienced the mutual benefits of a values-centered classroom
environment” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008, p. 28)
Makaiau (2010) concluded that the application of philosophical inquiry in the classroom
makes students take the time to reflect, to doubt, to question their beliefs, values, schemas, andthinking that provide them with the stimulation that is essential for authentic engagement inlearning. A newer study strongly suggested that philosophical inquiry improved students’ generallearning and their attitudes to school and peers (Millett & Tapper, 2011). Oderna (2012) foundthat p4cHI learners became engaged listeners and respectful and assertive contributors. They68

were excited and felt empowered in acquiring a new sense of autonomy and responsibility intheir learning. With growing confidence in their thinking and communicating abilities andprogress, students were more motivated to learn and explore (Butnor, 2012). Providing
students opportunities to take control of their learning motivated their love for knowledge,
and made them enjoy school more (Nakamoto, 2004). Since the class centered on students’questions, students were engaged in learning from their peers and were motivated to think
deeply about subjects (Miller, 2012). All of these researchers conducted qualitative studies.
More rigorous studies such as mixed-methods can be used to increase the generalizability
and validity of research findings.
Gaps in p4cHI and P4C Literature
As the literature review has shown, a considerable number of empirical studies into
the effects of P4C have been conducted (Topping & Trickey, 2007; Trickey & Topping, 2004,
2006, 2007; Garcia-Moriyon, Robello, & Colom, 2005; Sutcliffe, 2003), and they haveproduced strong support for the practice of P4C or philosophical community of inquiry, interms of cognitive, social and emotional benefits. Yet many of the studies have been more
focused on reading, critical thinking and mathematical abilities than on social and affective
benefits. Additional rigorous studies are needed to examine socio-affective benefits of using
P4C.
Although p4cHI researchers have conducted some qualitative studies, almost all theprevious research was non-experimental or non-empirical. UNESCO (2009) suggested that it
is a matter of great significance for P4C findings to be replicated on a broad scale in arigorous way and across cultures. A mixed methods methodology is desirable (Millett &Tapper, 2011). Although research has been conducted at KHS, the focus was on adolescent69

identity exploration (Makaiau, 2010) and the Philosopher’s Pedagogy model (Miller, 2013),
which are very different topics from the current study. Thus, a qualitative study exploring
adolescent academic engagement and meaning construction from a perspective ofeducational psychology will begin to address this gap in p4cHI scholarship.
In Millett and Tapper’s (2011) meta-analysis of the benefits of collaborative
philosophical inquiry in schools, they pointed out that future research would best add to thescholarship of community of philosophical inquiry if it includes one or more of thefollowing:•

the research uses a mixed methods methodology;•

the survey population is ethnically and geographically diverse;•

the survey population includes both younger and older students;•

the study uses a diverse set of curriculum materials;•

students in schools where philosophy is an established part of the whole school
program are studied. (p. 13)

They also recommended conducting research with a teacher/teachers that had experience of
doing P4C or a community of philosophical inquiry.
The current study is designed to include many of those features, since it used a mixed
methods design. The population was from a Hawaiʻi island - Oahu, which is ethnically andgeographically different from many previous studies. The survey population was adolescents,
which adds to the population that previous P4C researchers studied. The PI course used a wide
range of curriculum materials, such as creating a community of inquiry and daily reflections, ten
lenses of philosophical inquiry, race and politics, class and environment, gender and society(Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014). Students had been learning about and using70

p4cHI during their entire school experience at Kailua High School. Lastly, the PI teacher was
experienced in teaching p4cHI, and had been teaching it for at least five years.

71CHAPTER 3. METHODS
Research Paradigm
This study will include two small studies to approach the research questions in two ways.
The first will be a qualitative case study examining student work and classroom discussions
across one semester. The second will be a quantitative study measuring students’ perceptions of
the PI course and life’s comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness through two preand post surveys.
The quantitative and qualitative strands of the study occur in a parallel manner, either
simultaneously or with some time lapse. That is to say, the data collection either starts and ends
at approximately the same time or one strand starts or ends later than the other (Teddlie &Tashakkori, 2009). The integration of statistical and thematic techniques triangulate the data andinterpret it through statistical and qualitative methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Tashakkori &Teddlie, 2009). The triangulation refers to the combinations and comparisons of multiple data
sources, data collection and analysis procedures, research methods, investigators, and inferencesthat occur at the end of a study (Denzin, 1978).
The mixed research methods were used in this project because multiple methods can (a)simultaneously address a range of confirmatory and exploratory research questions with both
qualitative and quantitative approaches; (b) provide stronger inferences; and (c) provide theopportunity for a greater assortment of divergent views in a way that achieves “complementarystrengths and non-overlapping weaknesses” to increase the reliability, validity andgeneralizability of findings (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.18; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

72

Researcher Positionality
Born and educated in China, my motivation for achieving academically mostly has comefrom family expectations and my success in standardized examinations. In China, the passing of
the exam depends on whether a student can provide the standardized answer that the teacher
designates. Elementary and middle schools often emphasize filling student’s brains withinformation, but ignore their moral, physical, and aesthetic development (Li, 2004). Because of
the fierce competition in the national exams and end-of-semester exams in China, it is difficult tobuild up a safe community to exchange ideas among students. The Little Emperor syndrome thatmany one-child families have also draws attention from Chinese educators and researchers. As
parents and grandparents focus all their attention and affection on one child, many students begin
to lack initiative, independence, empathy, and responsible thinking (Colvin, 2004). In order tochange this situation, Chinese educators and officials are actively seeking out alternative ways ofteaching to engage Chinese students in learning and assist them in developing more holistically.
So, I have wondered how to help students become more engaged in their study. I wanted
to know how to stimulate students’ curiosity, interest, imagination, and their desire to learn. I
wondered how to create a safe learning environment to allow students to really flourish, and how
to make students become better human beings. I believe that educators should create an
intellectually safe and loving environment that encourages and nurtures caring, mindful, andcreative communities, and develops students who are capable of loving, listening, sharing, andbeing open to new ideas while working with others in a collaborative and respectful manner.
When I visited one of the p4cHI flagship schools, Waikiki Elementary School, I found alearning community that was engaging, collaborative, and nurturing. I felt, “This is exactly what
I want! This is the way I want to be educated, and how I would want to educate others.”73

My interest in learning and exploring more about p4cHI brought me to the University of
Hawaiʻi at Manoa’s Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education1. I have had thesingular good fortune to work together with the Philosophical Inquiry Longitudinal Project
Principal Investigator, Dr. Amber Makaiau, the founder of the Academy, Dr. Thomas Jacksonand other remarkable scholars together to collaborate on p4cHI related international exchanges
and research. I am currently a researcher with the PI longitudinal project at the Academy. Thisdissertation study is a pilot for studying the effects of the PI classroom.
This dissertation not only studied the search for the academically engaged youth and thesearch for meaning on the part of adolescents, but it also represents my own search. The topics
discussed are those that I found personally relevant in my life and Chinese secondary education
as well as issues found of interest in adolescents across the world. In a sense, their challenge is
my challenge, because the seed for searching for an academically engaged adolescent and ameaningful life was planted during my adolescence since I could only find school a necessary
task that I should fulfill, and life felt absurd. I hope that I was able to remain more objective thansubjective while conducting data collection and analysis and that my own interpretation did not
significantly color my remarks.
Although researchers often have an illusion of objectivity while collecting and analyzing
data, as Creswell (2007) explained, qualitative researchers approach their studies with a certain
worldview or propositions that guide their inquiry. Hamel (1993) also observed,
The case study has basically been faulted for its lack of representativeness…and its lackof rigor in the collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials that give1

The Uehiro Academy is founded by Dr. Thomas Jackson. The Academy will prepare, support, and sustain
educators, researchers and students who engage or are interested in engaging in p4cH worldwide.

74

rise to this study. This lack of rigor is linked to the problem of bias…introduced by the
subjectivity of the researcher. (p. 23)
One method to minimize the effects of bias is to become aware and bracket out personal
perspectives that may color or influence the research. As “the primary instrument of datacollection and analysis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 39), I have tried my best to bracket out my biases. I
have kept a reflective journal with two p4cHI researchers, and kept continued discussion with
two of my trusted peers to help me identify and eliminate my biases. I have invited anotherresearcher who had experiences with p4cHI research to help me look at the data and provide mewith objective suggestions. I may bring values and expectations to the study, but I criticallyreflect on myself as a researcher (Lincoln & Cuba, 2000). My “assumptions, worldviews, biases,
theoretical orientation, and relationship to the study that may affect the investigation” (Merriam,
2009, p. 229), but I consistently examine my interpretations and I am aware of the conduct andconclusions of this study (Maxwell, 2012).
An additional area for bias comes from my participation in the PI classes. The p4cHI
circle respects and appreciates multiple perspectives, so they invite visitors to join their
discussions. Because of my participation, I am in a unique position of knowing all myparticipants on various levels. Patton (2002) wrote, “the participant observer employs multiple
and overlapping data collection strategies: being fully engaged in experiencing the setting whileat the same time observing and talking with other participants about whatever is happening” (p.
265-266). Regardless of my stance, I “cannot help but affect and be affected by the setting, andthis interaction may lead to some distortion of the situation as it exists under nonresearch
conditions” (Merriam, 2009, p. 137). My participants’ ideas may have been influenced by myviewpoints.

75

On the other hand, the relationships that I built with my participants helped me gain
deeper understandings of each individual student’s viewpoints, especially in the focus groupinterview. While conducting the research, I am aware that I am going into the world of realhuman beings who may be threatened or unsure of what my study will bring. Knowing that, “Thetrustworthiness of a qualitative study depends on the credibility of the researcher” (p. 234),
whenever I designed or conducted the study, or analyzed the data, I have kept a sense of
sensitivity and integrity as the investigator. I assessed my participants’ possible risks, especiallywhether their psychological or emotional health was affected by the survey and interviews, kept
their confidentiality, obtained informed consent from them and their parents, and made sure only
the principal investigator and I had ownership and access to student data. Insofar as interview
procedures, I also tried to be fully respectful, nonjudgmental and non-threatening with eachparticipant (Merriam, 2009).
Study One: Case Study
This case study is “interested in uncovering the meaning of a phenomenon” for the PI
participants (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). The phenomenon in question is participants’ learning
experiences in the PI classroom. Simultaneously with gathering the quantitative data, qualitativetechniques such as document analysis, classroom discussion analysis, and focus group interviews
that are central to understanding students’ lived experiences and perspectives in the classroom
will be analyzed (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) to answer the research questions:•

Do students report feeling more engaged in their learning through p4cHI, and if
so, what are the reasons they attribute to this?

•How did the PI experience shape students’ attitudes with regard to seeking
meaning in their lives and schooling?

76

This multiple case study will reflect the context and background of the PI course, and explain
and add strength to the quantitative survey results, which will be discussed in Study Two. Bytalking directly with the participants, going into their places of study, recording their discussions,
I will summarize meaningful findings from participants’ voices, insider perspectives, and lived
experiences (Creswell, 2007). This study develops understanding of how the PI students engaged
in their learning, how they constructed their worlds, and what meaning they attributed to theirlearning in the class (Merriam, 2009). Denzin and Lincoln (2009) described qualitative researchas,a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive,
material practices that make the world visible. . . . This means that qualitative researchers
study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret,
phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)
Case study research is an empirical inquiry that emphasizes detailed contextual analysis
of a limited number of events or conditions and their inter-relationships “especially when theboundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p. 13). It is “anin-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40), or “aphenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 25). It
explains the “why” or “how” of a phenomenon and enables the researcher to go more in depth
than a quantitative study (Yin, 2004). A real strength of case studies is that the phenomenon
being studied is “anchored in real-life situations, the case study results in a rich and holistic
account of a phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 41). The case study can give the researcher agreater understanding of the participants’ thoughts, and give complex and rich descriptions ofcontext to their lived experiences.

77

Despite the fact that case studies as a research method have been viewed as lacking
scientific rigor and objectivity, they are widely used because they offer insights and illuminate
meanings that other methods could not achieve. Eisenhardt (1989) explained that case studies are“particularly well suited to new research areas or research areas for which existing theory seems
inadequate” (p. 548). This study is designed to gather exploratory, descriptive and explanatory
research findings to provide insights on the PI course that is part of the Philosophical Inquiry
Three Year Longitudinal Research Project.
Examining the impact of philosophical inquiry on adolescent academic engagement andconstruction of meaning requires use of a suitable research methodology that can adequately
describe and that can account for the nature of phenomenon. It involves an explanatory accountof rich ethnographic data. In determining an appropriate and holistic approach to investigating
student learning experiences, a number of approaches were used. This study involved multiple
forms of data collection, specifically survey questionnaires, student work, focus groupinterviews, video/audiotape of classroom interactions, and class observation notes. These datacollection methods make sure the quantity, quality and sufficiency of the data gathered cancapture, interpret, and explain students’ complex learning experiences. The following chartsshow how the survey questions, student work, and interview questions arise out of Vygotsky’ssociocultural theory and Dewey’s theory of education, and how the research questions also fit
these paradigms. Table 1, below, details the fit among research questions, theoretical paradigms,
primary data sources and data analysis methods.

78

Table 1
Blueprint of research questions, theoretical paradigms, primary data sources and data
analysis methods
Research Questions
Do students feel moreengaged in theirlearning during andafter taking the PI
course?

How did the PI
experience shape
students’ attitudes withregard to seeking
meaning in their lives
and schooling?

Deweyanprinciple
Interests;
Needs;
Experiences; PriorKnowledge;
Thinking;
Inquiry;
Reflection;
Philosophy;
Community

Vygotskian
principle
Socioculturalcontext;
Prior
experiences;
Disequilibriu
m;Internalization; Zone of
ProximalDevelopment; Learner's
environment

Primary Data
Sources
Philosophical Inquiry
Questionnaire (PIQ);Class Discussions;
Focus Group Interview;
Philosophical InsightPapersSense of Coherence
Scale (SOC-13); Class
Discussions; Final
Reflection Paper; Focus
Group Interview

How do students’Philosophical Inquiry
Questionnaire scoreschange over the courseof the project?

Philosophical Inquiry
Questionnaire (PIQ);Class Discussions;
Daily Reflections;

How do students’
Sense of Coherence
scores change over thecourse of the project?

Sense of Coherence
Scale (SOC-13); Class
Discussions; Daily
Reflections; Final
Reflection Paper

Data Analysis
Methods
Survey data:
MSExcel and
SPSS;
Qualitative
data: NVivo
thematic
analysis

TrustworthinessAlthough data around these cases focused on a single course in a single semester, muchcan be learned from these six cases. The force of this multiple case study cannot be
underestimated (Merriam, 2009). Generalization can be achieved when case study design isinformed by theory, and the empirical findings of the case study can therefore be considered asadding scholarship and knowledge to the established p4cHI field of study. If more than two cases
are shown to support the same theory, then analytic generalization can be claimed. Multiple

79

cases can be considered as multiple experiments. The more cases, the more replications can bedone, so the more robust the research outcomes are (Rowley, 2002). In order to increase thetrustworthiness of Study One, the researcher used multiple sources of evidence (i.e. classroom
discussions, daily reflections, student homework, focus groups). A chain of evidence andthorough documentation of qualitative data was established. For the purpose of increasing
internal validity, I conducted cross case analysis after reporting six individual case study results.
Setting: Kailua High School
Kailua High School (KHS) was founded in 1955 and was moved to its present location in
1962. With its beautiful views of the Ko‘olau mountain range, KHS is one of four public highschools that serve the Windward (eastern side) District on Oahu. The rural communities of
Kailua and Waimanalo each provide about 50% of the population of just under 1,000 students at
KHS (2014 total enrollment = 750), among those just under under 60% of the students are native
Hawaiian. As more than 40% of the student population comes from low-income families, KHS
receives Title I funding. Many students are faced with domestic violence, discrimination, andsubstance abuse (Makaiau, et al., 2014). The school utilizes programs such as p4cHI and Habitsof Mind to prepare mindful, philosophical thinkers who will pursue their life goals and create
positive changes in the world. The Habit of Mind program emphasizes doing tasks such as
homework, sports, or music with quality as opposed to just getting it done (Kailua High School,2013).
Participants
I recruited students from the Philosophical Inquiry course at Kailua High School in Fall,2014. The students were also told that their decision whether to participate in the study was
voluntary and would not impact their grade in the course, and if they did choose to participate

80they could leave the study at any time. Of the six students in the course, all agreed to participate
and returned parent consent and student assent forms indicating that they gave informed consent.
Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the four girls and two boys. Their demographic
information is provided in the Table 1.
Table 2
PI participant demographics
Participants Gender Age Grade
KalaniMale
17
12th
NaheleMale
17
12th
Peleke
Male
16
11th
Liko
Female 16
11thMakaliMale
15
10th
Kanani
Female 17
12th

Ethnicity
Hawaiian, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese
Caucasian, JapaneseChinese, Caucasian, Part-Hawaiian
Japanese
Caucasian, Japanese, German
Hawaiian, Chinese

Data Sources
This multiple case study uses multiple sources of evidence including student classroom
discussions, daily written reflections, focus group interviews, Philosophical Insight Paper
homework, final reflection papers, and field notes to explain and generate insight not available
through quantitative survey data. These documents help “uncover meaning, develop
understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem” (Merriam, 2009, p.163).
Because this study generated a large amount of data, systematic organization of the data wasimportant. I created a database to assist with storing, categorizing, sorting, and retrieving data for
future analysis (Sternberg, 1981).
Class Discussion. The Philosophical Inquiry class ran for eight weeks. Five classes were
held each week, for 65 minutes each in the late mornings, except on Wednesdays when class was
only 45 minutes for a total of 35 classes. Students engaged in philosophical inquiries (seeAppendix A – Outline of Philosophical Inquiry Course) using the Good Thinker’s Toolkit and81

Plain Vanilla on topics such as racial politics (i.e., race and ethnicity in Hawaiʻi; what if there
were no governments), class and environment (i.e., Karl Max – globalization; who will take careof the environment), and gender and society (i.e., Bel Hooks – feminism is for everyone; what is
it like to be somebody else). Based on this cross-disciplinary curriculum, 20 student classdiscussions out of 35 classes were recorded. These included participants’ discussions fiveminutes before, five minutes after, and during the PI course. The full length of the videorecordings is about 21 hours.
Student work. Besides class discussions, additional student work was collected
throughout the semester including student hand-written responses in class to a set of open-ended
questions or sheets provided to them in the workbook named The Daily Record, PhilosophicalInquiry Student Resources and Workspace (Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014).
Using this book, students’ reflections and thoughts in the PI course were systematically
documented. The following section will describe student work in detail.
Philosophical Inquiry Daily Reflection. Students used the Philosophical Inquiry Daily
Reflection (DR) (see Appendix B) in every class. In the Daily Reflection, they reflected on theprompt of the day (POD), which was a quote, a short video, a song, a poem, or movie related tothe class. They needed to “use textual evidence and/or self-knowledge/experiences to support”
their responses (Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014, p. 63). At the end of the class,students explained “How does what you learned today connect to your life and the world youlive in? Do you see a different perspective or point of view? Use textual evidence AND
ideas/quotes from classmates/teacher to support your response” (p. 64). These students’ dailyreflections were collected in each class.

82

Philosophical Insight Paper. Students used Philosophical Insight Paper (PIP) (seeAppendix C) to continue thinking about the topic they philosophized about after each unit (e.g.,what is the meaning of life? Am I the same person that I used to be?). The Philosophical InsightPaper was organized into five sections: (a) Evaluation of the Community of Inquiry; (b) Lensesof Philosophical Inquiry (not to be completed until after unit two); (c) Constructed Responseusing claims, assumptions, supporting evidence, and counter-example; (d) Personal Reflection
and Action; and (e) References (Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014, p. 225).
These data were collected after each unit’s study. At the end of the semester, each participant
submitted two PIPs.
Inquiry Memos. During each Plain Vanilla discussion, students used Inquiry Memos (seeAppendix D) to record their questions and thoughts, as well as those of their peers. They citedspecific spoken evidence that they found interesting or important. They usually used their inquiry
memos and notes to write Part One of their Philosophical Insight Paper (Makaiau, ShiromaMing, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014, p. 173). The inquiry memo data was collected after each Plain
Vanilla discussion.
Final Take-Home Reflection Paper. In the Final Take-Home Reflection Paper (FRP)(see Appendix E), students reflected on their experiences in the PI course at the end of thesemester. They answered questions such as:•

What personal transformation have you experienced (or are you beginning toexperience) from your participation in this course?

•

How does what you experienced in this course give you a new perspective or help
you to see a different perspective from your own?

83•How will you use what you learned from your experience in this course in yourfuture? (Makaiau, Shiroma-Ming, Miller, & Fukuda, 2014, p. 326)

This typed Final Take-Home Reflection Paper was collected from the participants only once atthe end of the semester.
Focus group interview. After administering the post surveys, I conducted a follow-up
focus group with four Philosophical Inquiry participants (originally there were six participants,
but two of them did not continue in the class after mid-term) using a semi-structured interview(Merriam, 2009) approach (see Appendix F for a list of questions). The interview questions were
designed to elicit participants’ thoughts and perceptions about their motives, feelings, growth,and transformations experienced during classroom activity. The reasons why the PI students felt
more engaged in learning in philosophical inquiry and their perceptions of the meaning or
purpose of their lives were investigated. The focus group was audio recorded.
Field notes. Field notes are a way to record stories and illustrations that could be used inlater reports (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The direct record of classroom interactions “offers afirsthand account of the situation…when combined with interviewing and document analysis,[and] allows for a holistic interpretation of the phenomenon being investigated” (Merriam, 2009,p. 136). Field notes were recorded to capture my initial thoughts and impressions of theclassroom interactions. My intuitive feelings and hunches, confusions and questions were
documented as well.
Inspired by Vygotsky’s principles, my observational and reflective notes focused on
lesson context information, lesson activities, classroom discussions and interactions regarding
the research questions. I also focused on whether the changing of instructional format and thephysical layout of the classroom, including positioning of students, teachers affected students’84

learning experiences. All the data recognized student voice as a valid source of insight on themeaning of their philosophical inquiry experiences (Cook Sather 2006; Fielding 2004; Lodge2005).
Qualitative Data analysis
Data from student written work, classroom discussions, and field notes were analyzed, as
they were collected. While organizing and analyzing data, NVivo software, Mac trial version,
was used. Welsh (2002) described, “The searching tools in NVivo allow the researcher tointerrogate her or his data at a particular level. This can improve the rigor of the analysis process
by validating some of the researcher’s own impressions of the data” (Paragraph 12). The NVivo
allowed me to do content analysis more effectively and efficiently than the old method of cutting
and pasting from Word documents or from hard copies. Although the Mac version of NVivo isdifferent from the Windows version mainly because it cannot generate auto-coding, it helped meorganize and integrate coding stripes I generated, and significantly increased my ability to link,create, reshape and reorganize my coding and nodes.
In order to triangulate different types of qualitative data, I grouped classroom discussions(CD), student daily reflections (DR), and observational notes (ON) together because they shared
the same topics inquired about in the classroom, and the same themes emerged from these data.
The focus group interview (FG), philosophical insight paper (PIP), and final take-homereflection paper (FRP) data were analyzed individually because the focus group directly
addressed the research questions, the philosophical insight paper focused on evaluating thecommunity of inquiry, and the final paper reflected students’ culminating learning experiences in
the class.

85

Analysis of qualitative data occurred in three phases. In phase one, all qualitative data
were entered into the NVivo software, and initial open codes were developed to highlight major
themes occurring in each individual case study. The analysis made use of all of the relevant
evidence, considered major rival interpretations, and addressed the most significant aspects ofeach case study. I repeatedly referred back to the research questions in order to focus attention on
the purpose of the study, and also continuously compared and integrated coding and nodes
developed in the NVivo software. Throughout the evaluation and analysis process, I attempted toremain open to new insights and opportunities (Yin, 1994; Rowley, 2002). Salient themes thatappeared in each individual case study are reported in the format of concept maps and narratives
based on the occurrence frequency that was shown in the NVivo software. I then described eachcase in a narrative.
In phase two, using the method of constant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998;
Merriam, 2009), similarities, differences, and complementarities across and within participants
were examined in a cross case study analysis. I studied the six cases collectively in order toinquire into similarities and differences in students’ learning experiences (Denzin & Lincoln,1998). I applied a categorical analysis strategy to break down the narrative data and rearrange
those data to produce bigger categories that facilitated comparisons. I searched forcommonalities and mutual exclusivity (i.e., distinctiveness) between the emerging categories,
and classified and cross-referenced all evidence. I deliberately looked for conflicting themes tovalidate or disconfirm the original analysis (Spradley, 1979; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In
order to provide intuitive data analysis results, flow charts were created to tabulate frequency ofthemes. Concept maps were used to categorize and recombine data.

86

To decrease researcher bias in the initial selection of categories and to assure
trustworthiness, I worked together with another researcher as critical friends (Miles &Huberman, 1994) to gain a variety of perspectives and insights to examine the data and thepatterns and seek validated interpretations of the findings (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011). My
critical friend was a graduate student who was a qualitative researcher. We read the data findings
together and determined initial and second phase categories. Then we shared open codes andworked together to develop theoretical codes and analytic themes on which we agreed. Whensummaries conflicted, the conflicting perceptions helped me to reexamine data analysis results,
and identify the cause or source of difference (Charmaz, 2006; Yin, 1994).
While analyzing the data, I kept both descriptive and reflective notes. During phase three,
I triangulated three types of qualitative of data, the class discussion, daily written reflections, andobservation notes; focus group interview; and philosophical insight paper and final reflection
paper, wrote up findings, further revised my thinking and refined the themes that had developed.
The goal of this written report is to portray a complex problem in a way that is understandable to
the reader and to lead the reader to apply the findings in his or her own real-life situation (Hamel,
Dufour, & Fortin, 1993).
Study Two: Quantitative Study
Quantitative research brings the strengths of comparing the pre and post results,
comparing the philosophical inquiry and traditional social studies groups’ survey results, tracing
the trends from the beginning to the end of the fall 2014 semester, conceptualizing variables,
analyzing relationships, and using representative samples to generalize findings (Punch, 2009).
Hence, it not only generated information about unknown aspects of the phenomenon, but also
aimed at testing theoretical propositions (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Researchers often use the87quantitative data to corroborate and support the qualitative data that can be useful forunderstanding the rationale or theory underlying relationships (Rowley, 2002).
Participants
The Philosophical Inquiry group consisted of six students in grades 10-12 who
voluntarily chose the PI class in the fall 2014 semester (see Table 1 for demographic data). The
traditional social studies group consisted of 33 students from grades 9 - 12 at the same school.
Among them, 16 (48%) were female students, and 17 (52%) were male. Four (12%) were in 9th
grade, seven (21%) were in 10th grade, 13 (39%) were in 11th grade, and nine (27%) were in 12th
grade. Native Hawaiians accounted for 58% (19) of the ethnicity makeup. The other 42% (14)students were all mixed by different ethnic groups. Most of them were mixed by Filipino,
Caucasian, Chinese, Portuguese, and Japanese. The traditional social studies group students did
not take the PI course. However, all of them had some prior p4cHI experiences (i.e. knowing
about Intellectual Safety, engaging in Plain Vanilla discussions) while studying in English,
Social Studies, World Languages, and other classes.
Descriptive Research Design
Because the equivalence of the Philosophical Inquiry and traditional social studies groupis not assured, this study applied a descriptive quantitative design, which provides a systematicand logical method for answering the research questions:•

How did students’ Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire scores change over thecourse of the project? Is this different for students enrolled and not enrolled in the
PI course?

•

How did students’ Sense of Coherence scores change over the course of the
project? Is this different for students enrolled and not enrolled in the PI course?

88For the descriptive quantitative design, I did not begin with a hypothesis, but developed one after
data collection.
The Sense of Coherence (SOC) (Antonovsky, 1987) and Philosophical Inquiry
Questionnaire (PIQ) survey data were analyzed to determine if a difference appeared and achange or modification occurred in the PI group. These measured changes in student
performance may be attributable to the influence of the PI course. Teacher competence orenthusiasm, students’ age, socioeconomic status, academic ability or prior experiences with
p4cHI are extraneous variables that this research could not control. These extraneous variables
may preclude valid conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the PI course (Best & Kahn,
1998). The analysis of quantitative data may provide some objectivity to Study One.
Instrumentation: Survey Questionnaires
The quantitative instruments for Study Two were a standardized survey, the Sense of
Coherence Scale (SOC-13) (Antonovsky, 1987) (see Appendix G) and the Philosophical Inquiry
Questionnaire (PIQ) that was developed by the Uehiro Academy members (see Appendix H).
The survey provides “a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes or opinions” of
respondents (Creswell, 2009, p. 234).
Rationale for using SOC. While planning the philosophical inquiry research, I worked
with the Philosophical Inquiry Longitudinal Project Principal Investigator to research somequantitative data instruments (i.e., California Critical Thinking Skills Test M25 (CCTST M25),
California Critical Thinking Skills Test for Everyday Reasoning (TER), Model of theDevelopmental Process of Dialogical Critical Thinking, Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults) thatformer P4C researchers had employed. We realized that none of the tests captured what the
project wanted to measure because those surveys only focused on measuring students’ thinking

89skills and reasoning, or, in other words cognitive abilities. The project researcher wanted to finda quantitative instrument that could measure both students’ cognitive and social-emotional
wellbeing. The SOC fit these needs to assess the full impact of p4cHI. Applying this scale fromthe health field to measure the impact of students’ school experiences demonstrates the potential
relevance of this scale to the field of education.
Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence scale (SOC) (1987) has received widespreadrecognition within the fields of health and psychology. However, few studies use SOC in
education. Little is known about the role of the SOC in the normal adaptation of generaladolescent populations. With the view that school adaptation has an essential impact on a wide
range of social, psychological, and behavioral outcomes, empirical evidence on the role of SOC
during adolescence may offer a particular scope for the development of prevention policies forstudents’ psychological stresses (Torsheim, Aaroe, & Wold, 2001). This research links sense ofcoherence to the educational field through common theoretical starting points – effective schools
have demonstrated improvement in students’ psychological and emotional wellbeing (Nilsson, L.,& Lindström, 1998).
Sense of Coherence Scale-13. The SOC-13 will be used to test the PI course’s impact on
students’ senses of coherence (SOC). SOC is a global orientation that expresses the extent towhich a person has a feeling of confidence that their environment is comprehensible, manageable
and meaningful. The SOC-13 consists of three components and 13 items, which together
constitute a person’s coherent understanding of the world: (a) comprehensibility, which iscomposed of five items, is the degree to which the environment is seen as structured, predictable,
explicable, and understandable; (b) manageability, which is composed of four items, means theview that one has the ability and resources necessary to overcome obstacles; and (c)90meaningfulness, which is composed of four items, suggests the extent to which life’s struggles
and demands are seen as worthwhile of investment and engagement (Antonovsky, 1987).
Each of the 13 items in the SOC-13 uses five rating scales, either ranging from never,
seldom, sometimes, often, to very often, or from don’t like it at all, don’t like it, it’s OK, like it,to like it a lot. A review of previous studies suggested that SOC-13 possesses adequate internalconsistency with Cronbach alpha values ranging from .80 to .85. The dimensions scored lower,with the alpha for meaningfulness at .53, manageability at .58, and comprehensibility at .64
Deleting one negatively correlated item, item two in the comprehensibility section, resulted in
marginal improvement in the alpha value .71. This survey is a three-factor model with test andretest validity at .78 (Naaldenberg, Tobi, Esker, & Vanndrager, 2011; Torsheim & Wold, 1998).
The SOC scale is further conceptualized by three different dimensions: (a)comprehensibility, the cognitive component; (b) manageability, the instrumental component; and(c) meaningfulness, the emotional and motivational component (Antonovsky, 1993; Eriksson &Lindström, 2005). According to the SOC theory, these three aspects are highly interrelated.
Consequently, those who score highly in all three dimensions of SOC are regarded as having astrong sense of coherence that is associated with effective coping, reduced stress, fewer healthdamaging behaviors, and ultimately, improved morality, greater health, well-being and social
adjustment (Antonovsky, 1979, 1987, 1991). The SOC questionnaire has been translated into atleast 33 languages and used in 32 countries (Eriksson & Lundin, 1996).
Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire. In addition to survey items on students’demographic information and students’ prior experiences with p4cHI, the PIQ includes six
dimensions, namely: (a) Decision-making; (b) Being a Responsible Ethical Member of a
Community; (c) Philosophical Reflection; (d) Empathy; (e) Transformative Experience; and (f)91Joyous Learning. Since this survey instrument is newly created, it needs further development,such as validating its psychometric properties. Each of the six components includes eight items.
Once more data are collected, further psychometric testing can be done and any items thatnegatively affect survey reliability and validity will be excluded. In order to ascertain students’
perceptions of the PI course, two questions were added: 3.49 I would recommend a“Philosophical Inquiry” class to others; and 3.50 I feel more engaged in my learning in“Philosophical Inquiry” class. Each question applies a five-point rating scale, ranging fromstrongly disagree, which is coded as 1, to strongly agree (5). In total, there are 50 items in the
PIQ. Adding SOC questions, the total number of combined survey items is 63. Students tookapproximately 12-20 minutes to finish both surveys. The participants did not find thequestionnaires difficult to complete online in computer labs.
Face validity check. An evaluator from the Pacific Resources for Education and Learning(PREL) center and the scholars in the Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education
checked the face validity of the PIQ scale, and all of them found it acceptable. When checking
the face validity, the evaluator suggested the researchers rearrange some sentence structures tomake it shorter and clearer, and to use simpler language. The Uehiro members organized andaligned the 48 PIQ items with different components based on their understandings of themeaning of each component, which helped to increase the face validity of the instrument
significantly.
Survey Data Collection
The data collection process in the Philosophical Inquiry class was described in
Qualitative Data Collection part. Using the same procedure I collected the PI students’ data. I
attended the seven traditional social studies classrooms and explained to the class that a study92

was being conducted to evaluate the impact of a new social studies class at KHS called
Philosophical Inquiry, and that student participation was voluntary. The students were also toldthat their decision whether to participate in the study would not impact their grade in the course,
and if they did choose to participate they could leave the study at any time. In total
220 parent consent and student assent forms were sent out. After one week, 33 student assent andparent consent forms were collected. Prior to the collection of Philosophical Inquiry surveys in
Kailua High School computer labs, I gave a brief introduction to participants on how to complete
the survey.
The pretest for the Philosophical Inquiry group occurred at the beginning of the semester,and the posttest at the end. The quantitative study was originally envisioned to be quasiexperimental with a pre and posttest. However, I was only allowed to collect data once, changing
the research design.
Descriptive Data Analysis
Once the data were collected, the mean scores between the pre and post tests in the PI
group were compared to examine whether there was any improvement in participants’ SOC
scores, or improvements in their perceptions of the PI course and learning experiences. The preand post mean scores in three components of SOC and six components of PIQ were comparedseparately. Then aspects that contributed the most to students’ sense of coherence andphilosophical inquiry experiences were determined. Since the traditional social studies grouponly took one test, which can be considered as a pretest, the pretest mean scores between the PI
group and traditional social studies group were compared.
While analyzing the survey data, participants’ prior experiences with p4cHI, student
characteristics (i.e., gender, age, grade level, ethnicity), teacher characteristics (i.e. years of93

teaching, age, experiences with p4cHI), teachers’ role, instructional practices were taken into
consideration. Because these are factors that affect quantitative research design and results.
Another methodological issue considered throughout the research process was the influence ofmy presence as a researcher and camera on class interaction and behavior during the data
gathering process. Despite my potential influence on students’ behaviors, I kept research
integrity and maintained ethical data collection procedures.
Timeline of Data Analysis
The qualitative and survey data were analyzed concurrently. The data were collected
between October 14 and December 19, 2014. While collecting data, survey data were coded into
numbers 1-5. For example, “strongly disagree” was coded as “1.” Qualitative data were also
reviewed and documented as they were received. The intensive data analysis occurred bothduring and immediately after the end of the semester in which it was collected.

94CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Informed by the literature review that summarizes, synthesizes, and criticizes the researchthat has been done in the field of p4cHI, this section presents findings that come directly fromstudents’ own voices to address the gap in the p4cHI scholarship. Building on the research
design in Chapter Three, this chapter presents six individual case studies showing students’ learning
experiences in the PI course. More specifically it describes how these six participants engaged in theirlearning, and their perceptions of the p4cHI classroom. Further, this section depicts how thePhilosophical Inquiry class shaped participants’ attitudes with regard to finding meaning in their lives
and in school.
In the individual case study descriptions, each participant is given a brief introduction
including demographics (i.e., grade level, ethnicity), predispositions (i.e., personality, life situation),and prior experiences with p4cHI at KHS. This information provides each participant with a uniquebackground that may directly influence his or her philosophical inquiry experience. Then thefollowing section presents thematic analysis findings with regard to participant’ academic engagement
and meaning searching based on frequency count analyzed via NVivo software. In order to explore
the reasons and evidence for students’ engagement in the PI course, it is also necessary to
examine the challenges that students encountered while learning in the class. These data provide
another perspective in viewing an engaging classroom. Following this, concept maps will beapplied to give a coherent summary of each participant’s learning experiences in the PI class.
The cross-case analysis will present significant themes that appeared in participants’ data
based on frequency count via NVivo using tables, graphs and narratives.
Lastly, the results of the quantitative surveys PIQ and SOC are given. This includes PI
participants’ pre and posttest differences, and the relationship between the PIQ and SOC

95

questionnaires. Although students from traditional social studies classes did not complete post
surveys, their pre test results will be aggregated and reported.
In this study, the Deweyan and Vygotskian concepts constituted the lens through which
the data were analyzed and interpreted. In the data analysis, the emergent themes were coded.
Several themes were directly related to Dewey and Vygotsky’s theories. I identified emergent
themes such as intellectually safe environment, connections with prior experiences, and the ZPD.
Study One: Multiple Case Study
This multiple case study consists of six individual case studies of students in the PI class.
Each student has an individual perspective about an engaging philosophical inquiry classroom
and their own understanding of a meaningful life that is anchored in his or her life context, butthere were several common themes that will be discussed in the cross-case analysis. In these casedescriptions, I identified themes in each student’s data.
KalaniKalani was a male student enrolled in the 12th grade at the time of the study. His ethnicity
was mixed, including Hawaiian, Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. He had previous p4cHI
experiences at Kailua High School in several classes from 9th to 12th grade. Themes that emerged
from Kalani’s data include (a) academic engagement, such as intellectually safe environment, astrong community, student and teacher relationship, participation in discussion, multiple
perspectives, think and question, attentive listening, positive affect in life, the community ball; (b)meaning of life, such as a balanced life, happiness and balance, to be yourself; and (c) challenges,
such as confusion, difficulty in organizing thoughts.
Academic engagement. In the beginning of the semester, Kalani expressed how the PI
course was different from other classes, and how much he liked the class. He wrote,96I hope I can be an example and show others how important this class is to build a better
community and I hope schools will look at that class and take it into thought and seeing
what this class does for us. (DR, 10/16)
The following section describes the reasons why Kalani was engaged in learning in the PI course
from his comments and based on salient themes that appeared in his data.
Intellectually safe environment. Kalani appreciated how an intellectually safe environment
promoted his learning experiences. He liked the PI class because he felt close to each participant.
He defined intellectual safety as,
Not being scared or worried that others will judge you. You can express your thoughts or
feelings with others who will support you and listen to you. It’s a feeling like being withsomeone you trust or like being with your family who listen to you and hold you up. I see
this class as a family and I know I can express myself freely. (CD, 10/16)
Kalani shared in the classroom that it was his own responsibility to maintain an intellectual safe
environment. He said that he wanted to set an example and teach other students how to maintainan intellectually safe environment. Kalani explained that in a safer environment, he felt equallyrespected and comfortable in expressing his thoughts and opinions even if he was not completely
sure of his raw thoughts and/or unfinished ideas. He said that he would respect and not judge
others even if he disagreed with them (DR, 10/20).
A strong community. Kalani suggested that a class should work together to create a stronger
bond in order to achieve a class goal or reach certain standards. The class would become more
knowledgeable if they worked as a group. He emphasized that, “If one of us don’t feel comfortable,
it changes or has an effect on all of our attitudes and holds us from moving forward” (DR, 10/17).
He stated that the most critical thing in a classroom is to build a strong community, which could97help the whole class in the future. In the second week of the PI course, Kalani inferred that he andhis peers would cooperate with each other very well before the end of the semester (CD, 10/20). In
class discussions, Kalani always took the whole community’s benefit into consideration. He advisedthat everybody needed to make his/her claim to support everyone’s thought process (DR, 11/10).
Kalani was willing to share his ideas and to recognize the accomplishments of his peers.
He wrote, “Makani is good at getting deeper into thought and explaining his reasoning behind his
opinions like in past discussions” (DR, 10/19). He praised, “Nahele is logic and is able to backup everything he says with some sort of source” (DR, 12/3). Peer supports increased all PI
participants’ confidence and self-efficacy levels. Kalani’s comments indicated that community
building helped students gain a sense of belonging in the PI course.
Student and teacher relationship. Building a relationship with his teacher also helped
Kalani engage in his study. In the final PI class, Kalani expressed his gratitude to his teacher anddescribed that, “I feel good [studying in this classroom]. I love her [the teacher]” (CD, 12/19).
The statement implied that Kalani had opportunities to develop a trusting relationship with histeacher.
Participation in discussion. Kalani considered active participation in classroom
discussions as a form of high engagement in the PI course. He wrote, “I thought last week Friday
was a really good discussion and would rate it as a 10. We all participated and there were only a
few quiet moments. I thought we got really deep in the discussion” (DR, 11/5). He also regarded
peers’ full participation as an evidence of positive classroom environment. He reflected, “We all
shared something about what we thought and gave others an opportunity to talk and not just have
only one person” (PIP, 11/13). In the second Philosophical Inquiry Paper, he wrote, “I feel weneed to work on participation more and just be able to say what we think” (12/16). The

98

comments indicated that he felt students’ active communications and constructive dialogues
improved the PI classroom environment.
Multiple perspectives. The PI course helped Kalani step back and evaluate a situationfrom a perspective other than his own. Kalani shared that listening to multiple perspectives
helped him make continuous progress in his thinking. He expressed that, “We had progress in
our thinking because our perspective always changes or we begin to question things and thenshare it in our reflection” (CD, 11/16). He realized that his peers affected his thinking, “Our own
opinion could not really be our own opinion. We are influenced by others to form an opinion but
not necessarily our own opinion” (CD, 10/31). While learning about ethical egoism and altruism,
Kalani had a big change in his thinking. He shared,
Being selfish is not always being bad. It’s just one point of view, not full point of view. I
gained a new perspective on being selfish and seeing selfish might not always bebad….We think we aren’t being selfish because we’ve only seen in it from one point ofview. We’ve always seen it from a negative side and not the full picture. As a kid I
always seen selfish as being greedy but now I don’t know if all the negative things I wasthought were really negative. (CD, 10/23)
Another significant change for Kalani was that he did not only experience cognitive changes but
also wanted to apply his new learning into practice and help the world. He explained, “My takeaway is that I gained a new perspective on how people do thing without benefiting themselves. I’ll
try to do things to make this world good in some way” (CD, 10/20). Kalani’s remark implied that
the PI course developed a sense of self-worth and competence in him.
Think and question. Kalani acknowledged that keeping open-minded and becoming a
deeper thinker are strengths of a philosophical inquiry (CD, 11/6). He was proud of getting a deeper

99

insight on his claim and helping others think from different views. He encouraged his peers to raise
more questions. He asked, “What are the reasons why being biased or being on one side is notalways going to help you?” (CD, 10/31) “Having too much power or freedom leads us to becoming
uncontrollable, but why are we like that? Is everyone like that?” (CD, 12/2) “Why are we so blind towhat we are doing to the environment? When do we become blind to all the bad we are doing?”(DR, 12/18) Kalani thought that asking questions could give students a deeper understanding of thesubjects. Formulating his own thoughts helped him draw connections between his learning and hislife.
Attentive listening. Kalani rated himself as a good participant if he listened attentively,
asked questions, shared his ideas, and wrote notes. He suggested to his peers to keep an open ear,“In order to be fully engaged in a discussion you need to share your ideas and listen to others andwrite not only yours but also everyone else’s thoughts” (CD, 10/31). His comment represented that
listening promoted sharing and understanding. Kalani exhibited better concentration and on-task
behaviors through active listening.
Positive affect in life. The PI course built confidence in Kalani, and inspired him to set ahigher goal for his life. The class helped him to construct the meaning of his life,
I’m taking away at how much this class can affect me, my life, and the impact it has on me
to question things. It helps me question traits about me and what I can do to better myself, or
what do I need to work on, and find who I am in general. (CD, 11/16)
The community ball. Kalani shared that the significance of the community ball was to show
cooperation among the people in a group or community. The community ball represented hisclassroom by getting everyone sharing using the ball. “For example, in every class I go to that has acommunity ball we all participate and respect everyone who is using it” (DR, 10/20). All of the PI

100

participants had a field trip in Waimanalo Intermediate School, and Kalani had an opportunity tofacilitate a p4cHI discussion with new students who transferred from elementary to intermediateschool. Kalani learned from that experience that,
When I first went into the class these kids were loud. But then when we got all the question,
and when they got community ball, and then all of a sudden the class became quiet, and they
started respecting with each other. When they passed the ball around, it was all respectful
and only one person talked with the ball. (CD, 10/27)
He saw the community ball as a tool that helped him as teacher/facilitator to manage the classroom
and helped students engage in their inquiry.
Meaning of life. Kalani began to question how to live a meaningful life and if there is abetter way to live his life. He asked, “How we should live in a community with others and how tointeract with others?” He explored this question and answered, “Balance is beautiful” (DR, 11/24).
In his adolescence, Kalani was redefining his role and his life. He learned to make decisions andidentify consequences in his life. In light of Kalani’s PI discussions and daily reflections, he wasbetter able to think in terms of the public good.
A balanced life. Kalani wrote, “Balance gives you power to be a better person and that yourenergy is good” (DR, 11/12). He assumed that, “As long as we strive for balance we will become
successful. Success is balance” (CD, 11/7). In the next week’s inquiry, Kalani came back to his
definition of success again. He wrote, “Balance can make you happy, and being happy and finding
inner peace is my definition on being successful. If I am unbalanced in my life I become unhappy
and things become more stressful” (DR, 11/12). He realized the importance of finding balance
between his activities, “Doing too much one thing could not necessarily going to be a good thing. I

101

don’t know it makes sense, but it is always going to be a balance, and with balance there is harmonyand harmony is everything” (CD, 10/27).
Happiness and balance. Kalani explored the meaning of happiness. He thought, “In order tofind true happiness we need to find that balance between ourselves and others [between being
selfish and helping others]” (CD, 10/23). When he was confused about something, he also wanted
to “find a balance between discussions, I need to find what it means to me” (CD, 10/27). To Kalani,“Happiness is finding balance between everything and having equilibrium” (CD, 10/28).
To be yourself. While learning if there is a greatest virtue, Kalani questioned, “Were findingout who we are and what we agree with that will give us such happiness?” He stressed theimportance of living an honest life and doing what makes himself happy. In PI course’s supportive
environment Kalani developed a positive sense of self and resiliency to deal with problems. He
remarked, “I’m living a pono (pono is a Hawaiian word commonly rendered as righteousness)life, because of how I define my own happiness” (CD, 10/28). When discussing about the right way
to live he explained,
The right way to live is all based on your opinion and what you believe is right or wrong.
Others may say you’re not doing well and you should change how you live but that’s theirthoughts and none of if matters as long as you’re happy with who you are and how your lifeis. (DR, 12/1)
Kalani’s comments revealed that the PI course played an important role in helping him defineand select his future. He trusted himself and wanted to behave in accordance with his true self.
Challenges. In the PI course, visitors often came from outside the class to learn p4cHI
and the way that philosophical inquiry was taught. For example a Japanese visiting scholar
joined the PI course every Thursday. Philosopher in Residence Dr. Miller and PI curriculum102

developer Dr. Makaiau occasionally came to the class to model p4cHI teaching, facilitating andlearning. I observed that the whole class was more active without presence of the Philosopher in
Residence, the PI curriculum developer, or the international guests in the classroom. There wasmore laughter and joking among students. Usually there were more side conversations, forexample about their favorite color, what they did in the past days, or the weird person they saw
on campus, alongside their classroom-based inquiry. Kalani’s comments explained theirconcerns when guests came to the class,
I can infer that we are more comfortable with each other as a class without guests. But
when we do have guests we feel different and don’t talk as much. Since we don’t know
them as much we don’t feel as comfortable with them around. (CD, 10/20)
But he said if he knew the guests more personally and became friends with them, he would be
willing to share his thoughts in the classroom.
While discussing, writing daily reflections and homework, students needed to integrate
information across a variety of settings, such as academic, social, home and community. One
challenge for the PI participants was that they were struggled with organizing their thoughts and/or
understanding their own or others’ questions and ideas. Kalani wrote, “[The reason I did notparticipate in discussion] is because mine was repetitive to whatever else’s saying, it was hard forme to get a deeper understanding of my question.” While doing homework, Kalani struggled withwriting down his ideas and thinking of evidence to support his claim. He reported, “The process was
slow” (DR, 12/12). Kalani was also sometimes confused with his own questions or other people’squestions or ideas. He remarked, “Feel confused, need to find a balance between discussions, I
need to find what it means to me” (CD, 10/27).

103

Philosophical Insight Paper Data Analysis. In the Philosophical Insight Paper (PIP)
after each unit, Nahele, Peleke, Kalani, and Liko evaluated the strengths and weaknesses ofcommunity of inquiry, reflected on their learning experiences after one month, and planned
future actions in light of new learning.
The common themes that appeared in community strengths are listening, giving otheropportunities to talk, and maintaining intellectual safety. Kalani reflected that “We did well withlistening to each other and being intellectually safe. We gave others chances to talk and weretaking down notes of the discussion” (12/16). Kalani also encouraged his peers to participate
more in discussion and share their opinions. When he reflected on inquiry strengths, heacknowledged that “We did well on focusing and trying to stay on topic without drifting toomuch” (12/16). He appreciated that the whole class community could make progress in theirthinking and question and reflect on topics deeply. He hoped the class could come up with better
questions to stimulate inquiry and inspire deeper understanding. In his personal reflection andaction part, he “[felt] that balance can make you happy and being happy and finding inner peace
is my definition on being successful.” In the future, he will “find balance in things and try toexperience different things and not lean on too much or depend on doing one thing” (11/13).
Final Reflection Paper data analysis. The purpose of the Final Reflection Paper (FRP)
is to invite students to ruminate on their learning experiences in the PI course. Students had
opportunities to reflect on whether they made personal changes after the class, and whether theygained new perspectives or transformed their views and beliefs.
Kalani appreciated that the class built up a safe community so “[he] begin[s] tounderstand why I am helping the community and how it helps me become a better person
teaching me patience, being humble, and other aspects that shape me” (12/18). He reflected that104

the PI class opened his eyes to world problems and expanded his thinking. He started to question
who he is and what he can do to make a better world.
Focus Group data analysis. The focus group directly asked Liko, Peleke, Kalani, andNahele’s learning experiences in the PI course (see Appendix F). Kalani explained that a smallerclass helped the PI class build a strong community,
In other classes, there are always different groups. And there is always people who talk totheir friends, and there is other people who just there to get their grade, there is no class.
And some people affect others in the learning environment because they talk more, you
cannot really hear what the teacher is talking, or disrupt teacher, so teacher call you out ofthings like you are doing well, and they are doing poor. (12/18)
He enjoyed the PI course because in other social studies classes, he had to just sit there and read atextbook. But in the PI he could engage in thinking and inquiry, and it is about what he thinks, notwhat the textbook says.
Kalani shared that the PI course prepared him for his future. “It gets me thinking like all theworld problems happening and how I can become more imaginative and creative to what I can do tohelp fix the world” (12/18). The PI course exerted a powerful influence on his outlook. It shifted
his life focus in a positive and optimistic direction. He also wanted to “come to school for classthis way.” He explained that he did not really know the meaning of life, but the PI course
inspired him to question about his purposes of life.
Qualitative data triangulation. Comparing the four types of qualitative data, classroom
discussions and daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, Final Reflection Paper, and focus
group interview, themes that appeared from Kalani’s data are listed in table below.

105

Table 3
Triangulation of Kalani’s qualitative data
Class Discussions andDaily Reflections
Academic Engagement:
Intellectually safe
environment; a strong
community; student andteacher relations;participation in discussion;
multiple perspectives; thinkand question; attentive
listening; positive affect inlife; the community ballPhilosophical InsightPapersCommunity Strength:
Maintaining
intellectually safe
environment; giving
others opportunity toshareCommunity Weakness:
Engage peers toparticipate indiscussion more

Meaning of Life: A balanced
life; happiness and balance; Inquiry Strength:
to be yourself
Progress in thinking;
Challenges: Confusion;difficulty in organizing
thinking

Final Take Home
Reflection
Build a safe
community; be abetter person;
opened his eyes;
expanded his
thinking

Focus Group
Data
More
engagementin learning in
the PI course;
prepared him
to think about
his future;
inspired him
to think aboutthemeaning/purp
ose of life

Inquiry Weakness:
Need to think better
questions

Summary. A positive classroom culture engaged Kalani in his learning. The biggest
takeaway for Kalani was “just making a bond, and making a strong community” (FG, 12/18).
The following concept map summarizes salient themes that appeared in his qualitative data. This
figure uses color-coding to categorize different themes and inform future cross-case analysis.
The primary reason for Kalani to engage in learning in the PI course is that the classcreated an intellectually safe environment. Empowered by the community ball, Kalani was activein participating in class discussions. He gained multiple perspectives, which in turn provoked his
thinking. Although this created confusions and disorganized thinking, Kalani began to explore
the meaning of his life and wanted to apply new learning into his life. Recognizing the impact of
the self on others, Kalani was inspired to contribute to the positive welfare of his community and106

the world. He demonstrated concern and respect for the rights of others, and said that he would
like to create, build, and sustain a better world by applying knowledge to help others.

Figure 1: Kalani’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
NaheleNahele, a male student, was enrolled in 12th grade during the study. He identified himself asa Caucasian Japanese. He had lived in South Korea for almost ten years when he was younger. Then
his family moved to Hawaiʻi and he transferred to KHS. He had p4cHI experiences in other 12th
grade classes. Nahele’s mother was working on the mainland, and his father was always at work on
the Oahu Island during the time of this study. So he had to take care of his house, manage moneyand bank account, and get up at six in the morning to walk the dogs by himself. He liked to use thecommunity ball to invite his peers, especially Liko, to join the discussion. Themes that emerged
from Nahele’s data include (a) academic engagement, such as connection with learning, a strong
community, intellectually safe environment, attentive listening, think and question, multiple
perspectives, student and teacher relations, the community ball; (b) meaning of life, such as

107

participation in discussion, positive affect in life, a balanced life, be yourself; and (c) challenges,
such as struggling with organizing thoughts.
Academic engagement. Nahele defined an engaged participant as, “One who listens toothers and is not only willing to speak, but to actually speak. They try to remain within rims of the
discussion prompt and practice intellectual safety. In addition, they ask questions” (DR, 10/31).
The reasons why he was more engaged in the PI course are elaborated on in the following
sections.
Connection with learning. Nahele usually made personal connections with the subjects
he learned or topics that were discussed. For example, he remarked that one of the philosophicalinquiry strengths was that students were able to make connections to their original ideas, otherpeople’s ideas, to the world, and to their own lives. He illustrated,
I guess I’m taking away a feeling of satisfaction. It’s encouraging to know that our
discussions generate something greater and that people actually take it outside of theclassroom, this is also pretty. Because I don’t think I’ve done that with any other class.
(CD, 11/6)
Nahele connected new learning to existing knowledge and used it in problem solving. Whenlearning about altruism and ethical egoism, he shared, “I guess I can relate this to the world I live
in because one is always surrounded by people making decisions 24/7, and I can use my new
curiosity to try to understand people’s decisions better” (CD, 10/23).
Furthermore Nahele reported that he used philosophical inquiry in his life and in his otherclasses. The greatest take-away he gained from the Waimanalo Intermediate School p4cHI
facilitation experience was that he got a better understanding of philosophy and developed adesire to use it in his life. He stated that, “I guess it connects to my life, because I have people

108around me making decisions, it’s interesting to understand why other people are doing certain
things, and why I am doing certain thing” (CD, 10/27). Sometimes reading the assigned PI
material inspired him to write articles for other classes such as English 100. The class helped
Nahele integrate his new knowledge with his other subjects.
A strong community. Like Kalani, Nahele appreciated that the class participants built up
a strong community that encouraged the gifts and strengths of every participant and promoted asense of belonging and purpose. Nahele believed that if a community is united, everyone could
be able to move forward. He also believed that a successful and safe environment is created byeach member of the community. “If some people disrupt the class or have their own agenda, it
throws everyone off” (DR, 10/17). He noted that even the PI course already had a very strong
community, and the participants were “pretty close to each other” (CD, 12/4), Nahele suggested
that his peers “strengthen the community further…. we can keep it up. So it’s not boring” (CD,
10/21).
While creating a caring community by demonstrating each member’s loving acceptanceof others’ backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints, Nahele noticed that everyone began toshare and were more open to each other. This sense of community fostered a high level ofconnections among the members. “Based on the level of connections we made this morning, it’s
clear that we all listened to each other, and made some connections” (DR, 12/11). The learning
community increased Nahele’s motivation for learning and enhanced his positive attitude about
the PI course and school in general.
Intellectually safe environment. Nahele defined an intellectually safe environment as“feeling equally respected and comfortable in expressing your thoughts and opinions, where you are
not judged or put down even if someone disagrees with you.” He explained that he always felt

109

intellectually safe in the PI class because of the way it built community throughout the year. But inother classes, Nahele felt less comfortable, as community building was never really implemented(CD, 10/16). The following quote describes Nahele’s feelings about the importance of intellectual
safety when he facilitated p4cHI plain vanilla discussion at Waimanalo Intermediate School,
I realize how important it [intellectual safety] was. There are two or three kids were
sleeping in the classroom. They were really rude when people were talking. You realized
the discussion would die down because of that. Because it was really one-sided, because
only few people were talking. It reinforces my understanding how significant it could be.
(CD, 10/27)
In an intellectually safe environment, “no one was afraid to share their original ideas or express theirquestions, or afraid to change their view of at the end of the class” (CD, 11/6). His comment
indicated the significance of intellectual safety for creating an open and trusting climate in theclassroom. “I can use my reinforced definition of intellectual safety in my life by taking it withme to other classes and practicing it in and out of other classes” (CD, 10/16). Nahele noted thatstudents all practiced intellectual safety and did their work in order to make progress as people andstudents, but, “a lot of the time in x class, the teacher must stop and reprimand the students,
preventing us from moving forward” (DR, 10/17).
Attentive listening. In the PI course, students need to take notes while listening. Being anactive listener, Nahele used new information more productively. Active listening allowed him to
make connections with new information. By activating his schema of learning, Nahele had aframework for understanding new content and whether or not the content was relevant. “People
listen with intent to understand” (CD, 11/6). As a result of his participation in the PI class,
Nahele could more readily integrate new ideas into his schemas. As an active listener, he

110exhibited better concentration and memory. When rating participation in the PI course, he wrote,“I would rate myself a 8 or 9 out of 10, because I took a lot of notes and tried my best to listen
actively when my peers were talking” (DR, 11/5). According to Nahele, active listening implies
high academic engagement in the classroom.
Think and question. Nahele expressed that “[Thinking and questioning are] very
important when we are trying to dig deep and make our discussion beneath the surface level.”
His inquisitive nature was revived in the PI course and he loved to explore ideas. He explained,“It’s good to ask questions and strive to ask more, but even better if everyone make an attempt toanswer them” (CD, 11/6). Although sometimes he was confused, he felt free to raise questions
and was open to his peers’ comments. He enjoyed using Good Thinker’s Tool Kit to ask
questions and used it beyond the classroom. He commented, “Within our community of inquiry,
we get more by giving to expand on our discussion” (DR, 10/29). As a fortuitous byproduct of
this newfound expanded perception, Nahele was more engaged in his thinking. He demonstrated
new connections with his learning as he questioned: “Why does racism exist? Where did racism
originate from?” (DR, 12/10) He showed insight into his own thinking when he said, “I’m taking
away that maybe everything we do is subconsciously selfish, even if to the smallest degree. Is it
purely for other people? Does altruism really exist?” (DR, 10/24) On another day he exploredideas around morality. “We teach children certain rules of morality growing up. At what point dothey become irrelevant in our lives? What are the reasons we disregard them in life?” (DR,
12/18)
Multiple perspectives. As a result of posing questions and inquiring together within thecommunity, Nahele “left with more concrete understandings” (CD, 12/12). Learning from his
peers, he realized the importance of thinking using multiple perspectives. “This process can be111

useful anywhere because I make claims or think about things alternatively” (DR, 11/10). His
perspectives were expanded. He shared with one visiting scholar, “We just did the lenses ofphilosophy, and how you look at different lenses and try to solve different problems and looking
things differently” (CD, 12/4). Before the PI course, he liked to debate, but soon he realized that,“I guess the most important is that you don’t debate in this class, we never debate, we are justdiscussing with each other” (CD, 11/6). He gained new perspectives and broadened his vision“by discussing rather than debating recycled ones” (CD, 10/6).
Student and teacher relations. In the PI course, Nahele established a positive relationshipwith his teacher. He was more emotionally and intellectually invested in the class because of thecaring and supportive relationship with his teacher. Because of the intellectual safety andcommunity building, Nahele learned more about other participants’ personal interests andbackgrounds. Positive teacher-student relationships drew him into the process of learning andpromoted his desire to learn in the classroom.
The community ball. According to Nahele, the uniqueness of the community ball was thatstudents got to know each other while making it. “Because of this, not only does it represent ourcommunity, but it also represents the power to speak so that during inquiry, each person who
receives the ball is allowed to express their opinion hopefully without interruption” (DR, 10/20).
Nahele’s comment suggests that the community ball has the power to encourage students’
discussion, and that it has become a classroom management tool to keep a well-maintainedclassroom structure.
Meaning of life. Constructing meaning or purpose in life was a theme in Nahele’s PI
discussions and assignments. He described,
Everyone everyday, is trying to reach something in their life, especially seniors, I

112

constantly strive to balance hanging out, doing school work, packing my house up,
applying to class and having ‘me’ time; and I imagine that the people around me are
striving to get something as well. (DR, 11/12)
Nahele is striving toward a goal or goals that lead to his idea of a coherent and purposeful life.
A balanced life. Nahele thought, “humans are striving for balance, and never reaching it,
we also strive for success, and never reach it.” He explained,
My new perspective is on success, because even though I strive to do all these things I
never had an end game or real final goal, and it’s satisfying knowing there is success instriving, and I am now more aware that maybe I need to set an end goal for something,and continue to reach for balance. (DR, 11/12)
Nahele’s reflection suggested that his own searching for meaning or purpose in life is considereda personally significant, overarching objective that he continually strives to fulfill. His statements
reflected that the PI course became an effective learning instrument aligned with Nahele’s life
commitment. The activities that he engaged in the classroom could help him to construct themeaning and purpose of his life.
Be yourself. Nahele shared that he tried to restore inner peace and harmony in his life. He
was willing to recognize and tolerate what life is, rather than fight it or judge it. He found a way
to free himself from wanting something to be or not to be, and accepted reality in order to build afull and vibrant life. He shared that,It [discussing what is the right thing to do] reminds me a lot about Buddhism and being at
peace with yourself, and living your life where you are balanced within.…So things will
come in their own way you don’t have to take it….just being able to with your life andbeing able to accept yourself and how you are living. (CD, 10/28)

113

He questioned ideas of right or wrong in respect to his actions in his life. He thought being
himself was justified as part of his right to the pursuit of happiness and self-fulfillment.
What is right or what is wrong? What is righteousness? What is good? Does anyone havea definition of those things? I don’t have the definition of what is right, what is wrong,
and what is in balance. So I said pono is something judged by yourself and others, it
doesn’t seem correct for others to judge whether or not you are pono, or whether you act
as pono. (CD, 10/28)
Challenges. Although Nahele usually was the one who shared the most in the class, he also
had challenges in organizing his thoughts and making clear statements. He described,
Writing the PIP was really hard because having my ideas be concise and clean was hardbecause wow was I just thinking so much. Even though Part One took forever, it was theeasiest because I had everything written out, it was 3 pages alone. (DR, 11/14)
Philosophical Insight Paper data analysis. In the Philosophical Insight Paper (PIP)
Nahele evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of community of inquiry. Nahele appreciated that“One thing we did well as a community is actively listening to each other when we’re sharing.
An example of that would be our inquiry memos” (12/16). He encouraged his peers to speak atleast more than one time in each class, and explained “One thing we didn’t do well in the inquiry
is how we were having those long pause where nobody said anything” (12/16). He
acknowledged the strength of the inquiry is to relate new learning to real world problems. In the
future, he wanted to make positive changes in his life and contribute to his community.
Final Reflection Paper data analysis. In the Final Reflection paper, Nahele experienced
personal transformations and gained different perspectives. He felt grateful for being “pretty

114

close to each other. It’s not intense, everything is just good” (12/19). He commented that hebegan to solve different problems and looked at things differently.
Focus Group data analysis. Nahele shared in the focus group that he was more engaged inlearning in the PI course. The most important reason is that the PI course was interesting, and hecould be able to say how they feel about the subjects they learned. For instance, he expressed that:
I think we are more engaged [without doubt]. Because in other social studies classes, you
are not allowed to say how you feel about certain things, you just learn it, you aresupposed to read about it, and just accept what you read. While in this class…you get tomake connections to your life, you get to listen to other people’s saying. (12/18)
He commented after the PI course, he still wondered about the topics discussed in the classroom.
He was motivated to come back to the classroom to talk about it again. He reported that he built
a better social relationship with his teacher, and described,
I guess I feel afraid my teachers in a social level. Because you just walk in the class, youtell them, they just tell you this this, and then you go home, you don’t talk them. Miss
Shiroma is like, I don’t know, you kind of like on a social level, because we know how
she thinks and feels about certain topics. And I think it really helps with the wholecommunity building thing. (12/18)
Nahele appreciated that the class added more meaning to his life, because it opened him up to
more important subjects, such as think about life’s meaning, address world problems, and be abetter self.
Qualitative Data Triangulation. Comparing the four types of qualitative data,classroom discussions and daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, Final Reflection Paper,and focus group interview, themes that appeared from Nahele’s data are listed in table below.

115

Table 4
Triangulation of Nahele’s qualitative data
Class Discussions andDaily Reflections
Academic Engagement:
Connection with learning; astrong community;
intellectually safe
environment; attentive
listening; think andquestion; multiple
perspectives; student andteacher relations; thecommunity ballPhilosophical InsightPapersCommunity Strength:
Active listening
Community Weakness:
Engage peers toparticipate indiscussion more
Inquiry Strength:
Topics connect withworld problems

Meaning of Life: A balanced
life; to be yourself
Inquiry Weakness:
Need active sharing
Challenges: Struggled withorganizing thinking

Final Take
Home Reflection
Build a safe
community;
address world
problems; look atthings differently

Focus Group
Data
More
engagement inlearning in the
PI course;
continue
wondering
about topics
discussed in theclassroom;
better student
and teacher
relationship;
open up to
more important
subjects

Summary. Making personal, social, and cognitive connections helped Nahele engage in
his learning. The biggest take-away for him was that he realized the value of discussing rather
than debating with his peers. The following concept map demonstrates Nahele’s learning
experience. Because his thinking style is more integrated and complicate, the shape of his map isin circles. He related the unknown to the known, and then applied what he had learned to solve
practical problems and make decisions. In addition, the PI course promoted inquiry and curiosity
so that although Nahele was confused with his thinking he still wanted to learn and explore
more.

116

Figure 2: Nahele’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
PelekePeleke, a male, was enrolled in 11th grade during the study. He considered himself to be
multiracial, since his last name is Korean, and his mother and stepfather are Hawaiian. He had
p4cHI experiences in 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. Peleke liked the idea of Yin and Yang, which
encouraged him to lead a balanced and peaceful life. Themes that emerged from Peleke’s data
include (a) academic engagement, such as participation in discussion, connection with learning,
emotional connection with learning, intellectually safe environment, multiple perspectives, thinkand question, attentive listening, the community ball; (b) meaning of life, such as Yin and Yang; and(c) challenges, such as confusion, struggled with organizing thoughts.
Academic engagement. Peleke explained that an engaged practitioner in the PI course issomeone who has “open mind, is willing to speak in public, and would participate in discussions inusing intellectual questions and answers” (DR, 10/31). The following sections elaborate the reasons
why Peleke was engaged in learning in the PI course.

117

Participation in discussion. In the beginning of the PI course, Peleke described that, “I
am usually in an isolated area making me not used to talking to people in a group, in which I
would feared to talk fast, stutter, or say words that would not be English” (DR, 10/17). The PI
course encouraged dialogue among and between students. Gradually through active participationand peers’ invitation to discussion, Peleke developed more confidence in speaking. He became
more able to share his thoughts in front of the community. When Peleke was asked to introduce
the class to visiting scholars, when he was asked what the guests should know about the class, healways referred to discussion as one of the distinguished strengths of the PI course. He shared“Discuss is very common and yet kind of strong at the same time. Common means there is notthat much goofing off. But in terms of that, we are actually doing our work” (CD, 11/6). He alsosaid, “We do a lot discussion, and we decide to focus on it from now on” (CD, 12/4).
Peleke’s case offers evidence that students’ motivation to learn could be positively impacted byparticipating in discussion-focused and inquiry-based classrooms.
Connection with learning. Peleke appreciated the practical use of the PI course. He
could apply what he learned into daily practice and make connections to his past knowledge. He
acknowledged that the strength of philosophical inquiry was that the whole community tried toconnect new knowledge with their past knowledge and prior experiences (DR, 12/12). He statedthat the idea of intellectual safety, “can connect to my life and the world by in my life it would
seem to be a way to help people” (CD, 10/16). While learning altruism and ethical egoism,
Peleke described that,
What I learned today can affect me. For me I guess this can relate to me since when I wasa little kid I just wanted this or that and yet later I started to think more and care more forothers. (CD, 10/27)

118This direct quote indicates that the PI course had a positive effect on Peleke’s life. He explained,“This [course] connects to the world, because there will always be people that have different
ideas, some radical, some not” (CD, 12/2). In the final class, Peleke expressed his genuine fear
for the world, but also walked away with some hope. He wished that, “They [human beings]
would love to be in seeing the beauty of nature and friendship since the world is pretty muchbeing destroyed piece by piece from war, aggression, pollution, and environmental changes”(DR, 12/18). This statement not only demonstrated an ability to integrate and apply ideas andthemes across the learning content, but also developed a sense of compassion and empathy forothers and for the world.
Emotional connection with learning. Peleke enjoyed his learning experiences in the PI
course. He acknowledged that spending his time in class was worthwhile. He was interested inlearning the new content. He mentioned, “Finding that new quote that we had reflected on wasvery interesting and had a good message in it” (CD, 10/23). “It’s kind of interesting to know [theconscious and unconscious world in the dream]” (CD, 11/24). When the material held personal
meaning and connected to Peleke’s interests, authentic learning took place.
Intellectually safe environment. Peleke’s understanding of intellectual safety was“usually cooperation among a person or a group of people in which you and the people would
treat each other in a safe, helpful, and a respectful manner and environment” (CD, 10/16). He
appreciated that the PI course provided him with a physically, emotionally, and intellectuallysafe learning environment that assured frequent, consistent and positive teacher-student and peerinteraction. One reason he liked the PI course was “because we are all close and talkative and all
feel intellectually safe” (DR, 11/5).

119Peleke shared that the small group in the PI course built a better community than in othersocial studies classes that have “more dimensions.” He explained, “In my freshman year we
discussed about philosophy and touched about intellectual safety, but most of time the classdidn’t actually show intellectual safety” (CD, 10/16). The intellectual safety set a foundation for
a supportive and collaborative learning environment. He explained that in the PI course, “No one
was really putted down or felt unsafe, everyone gets along while in the discussion” (CD, 11/6).
Peleke realized that even though he had a disagreement or argument against an idea or one
person, he could still examine its benefits. He learned to be open-minded and think critically. He
was able to take intellectual risks. In the classroom everyone respected each other, which createdan active-learning environment, keeping Peleke and his peers on task in their thinking, speaking
and writing.
Multiple perspectives. Peleke expressed that he benefited the most in the PI course by
seeing different perspectives and different viewpoints. In the beginning of the course he began torealize that, “Everyone sees everything in different ways or different perspectives on how theyview, and how they view it or messages they can actually take home with it” (CD, 10/17). He
emphasized the importance of gaining multiple perspectives, “If you fall on one information, youjust become still pretty much, you need to focus on other.” By seeing multiple perspectives anddifferent points of views, Peleke thought he actually was rewarded with more knowledge andmore strength. He positively commented that, “From that it actually helps yourself and otherpeople, you are not being one sided, relying that one information” (CD, 10/30).
Learning from students, teachers, and guests whose backgrounds and experiences differ
from Peleke’s own sharpened his self-knowledge and self-insight by allowing him to compare120

and contrast his thoughts with others. Peleke increased his knowledge base and formed a morethorough understanding of the subjects.
Think and question. Peleke experienced perspective shift or a transformation in his
thinking. He asked, “What are the reasons why being biased or one sided is not always going tohelp you” (CD, 10/30)? Peleke used to think that balance, like Yin and Yang, was the greatest
virtue, but after collaborative learning and discussion on is there a greatest virtue, he questioned,“Can I infer that there is no one way to finding happiness and that how is higher from the other,
we will always vary in our own meaning of happiness” (DR, 10/31)? Peleke had opportunities to
ask questions that he genuinely wondered about. When learning about politics and race, he asked,“What are the reason why if you live in a country that fully suggests democracy and freedom, but
the people in charge, government, doesn’t actually want to give it to those they deem unworthy”(DR, 12/10)?
Attentive listening. Another strength of the PI course was listening according to Peleke.
In order to be fully engaged in a discussion, Peleke suggested, “You need to share your ideas andlisten to others and write not only yours but also everyone else’s thoughts” (DR, 10/30).
The community ball. In Peleke’s eyes, the community worked together to create thecommunity ball to complete a task. For him, the role of the community ball represented,
All of our ideas and everyone contributing to create a ball that allows us to share ourideas. We use the ball to let everyone discuss and share their own ideas to help us look atthings from a new perspective. (CD, 10/20)
The community ball created a culture of sharing in the classroom. Peleke felt a sense of
responsibility in contributing to the community by exchanging his questions and thoughts withothers.

121

Meaning of life. Being in balance was a central theme of Peleke’s life. He thought, “Inorder to find true happiness we need to find that balance between ourselves and others” (DR,
10/27/14). He tried to find balance that helped him settle things down (CD, 10/23).
Yin and Yang. Peleke was interested in the idea of Yin and Yang. He believed that,“There are both pos. and neg. for everything, and yet they might be opposite they also
supplement each other. When there is an unbalance both pos. and neg. energy/force would try tohave an equal flow or balance” (DR, 10/29). He argued that the greatest virtue is being balanced,
but he explained, “I have not been balanced in my life due to me being dragged into conflicts”(DR, 10/28). Because of the Yin and Yang syndrome, Peleke had a different understanding of
success compared with Kalani and Nahele, who thought balance led to success. He explained,“You can’t have success if you’re balanced, if so you also fall on failure. Yin and Yang orbalance means 50/50 there for you. State would generally be neutral.” Peleke described that inorder for him to obtain balance, he would have to be in a state of neutrality. “In my life I am
close to balance so I stay in my position with that there are times when bad there for more goodto even it out and vice versa. (DR, 11/12)
Challenges. The PI course provided students opportunities to be challenged and to
experience cognitive conflict or dissonance while listening to different perspectives. When theyused the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit to examine their deeply held beliefs, they were sometimes
confused. Peleke questioned his belief, and asked, “What is right or what is wrong, everyone hasan opinion, for one’s belief there is struggle” (DR, 11/6). On the same day, he explained thereason why he did not participate actively in the discussion. “Since some people, including I insome cases, did not participate a lot on Friday, for me my reasoning was that I was thinking andconfused” (CD, 11/6). Peleke hoped his peers could understand his perspective, he described,

122

Work on: process of understanding or they to understand that topic. I ex. which includedme, one was that I didn’t understand a bit about the discussion, [I was] confused, and . . .
people couldn’t try and understand [that] I was trying to apply nature into a virtue. (DR,11/6)
Peleke wanted more time to think, and stated, “I should just think more in order for others and me totruly know what I am saying” (DR, 11/10). “I tried to figure out something” (CD, 12/12).
Another challenge that Peleke experienced was that he felt that it was difficult to explain
his ideas. He shared,
I am walking away with that I need to try to understand more terms. I need to makepeople understand what I am saying. I just want to have clarification, examples, probably
I have to look up some new words to understand and to figure out. (CD, 11/6)
Philosophical Insight Paper data analysis. In the Philosophical Insight Paper (PIP)
Peleke evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of community of inquiry. Peleke summarized thecommunity strength as, “listening and intellectual safety. Listening since everyone had recordedon the discussion we had and following up what our topic is about. Intellectual safety since
everyone in the classroom respects each other” (11/13). As far as the community challenges
concerned, he suggested that they needed to work on their participation, making sure everyone
speaks in the circle. “We need to work on our participation. The reason why I say this is thatduring discussions not everyone is participating”.
When he reflected on inquiry strengths, he acknowledged that they focused on main
topics, and they were interested in inquiring about those topics. However, he experienced
challenges in understanding his own thoughts and others’. He shared “For our challenges it

123

would be the process to understand…myself would be confused or would not be able tounderstand what someone is trying to say or what the directions are stating” (11/13).
Final Reflection Paper data analysis. Peleke realized the importance of building acommunity, because in a safe community they socialized better and felt comfortable in sharing.
For example, he wrote,
I am starting a personal change from taking this course due to the interaction andparticipation in what p4c feels on a daily basis and also I have become less anxious due
to me participating within in the community and sharing my opinions and ideas on thework we are given and at times on my own personal life. (12/18)
He acknowledged the class helped him see multiple different perspectives. He felt the ten lensesof philosophical inquiry were interesting, which could relate everything in the world. He alsotransferred his new learning in other classes.
Focus Group data analysis. Peleke acknowledge that the PI community maintained an
intellectually safe environment. Because of this, he felt he was more engaged in learning in the PI
course. He explained, “Some people affect others in the learning environment because they talkmore, you cannot really ear what the teacher is talking, or disrupt teacher, so teacher call you out ofthings like you are doing well, and they are doing poor” (12/18). His comment suggested that
smaller class size improved their classroom atmosphere. “Having like a small class, this is goodfor discussions, there is not much people, there is not going to be much like time consuming.” Heappreciated the class gave his more freedom to think about and discuss questions and topics he
was interested in light of course materials. In the class, he formed multiple perspectives anddifferent viewpoints.

124

Qualitative data triangulation. Comparing the four types of qualitative data, classroom
discussions and daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, Final Reflection Paper, and focus
group interview, themes that appeared from Peleke’s data are listed in table below.
Table 5
Triangulation of Peleke’s qualitative data
Class Discussions andDaily Reflections
Academic Engagement:
participation in discussion;connection with learning;
emotional connection withlearning; intellectually safe
environment; multiple
perspectives; think andquestion; attentive
listening; the communityball
Meaning of Life: Yin and
Yang
Challenges: Confusion;
struggled with articulating
thoughts

Philosophical InsightPapersCommunity Strength:
Active listening;
maintaining intellectual
safetyCommunity Weakness:
Engage peers toparticipate in discussion
more

Final Take
Home Reflection
Build a safe
community; feel
comfortable insharing; gain
multipleperspectives;topics wereinteresting

Focus Group
Data
More
engagement inlearning in the
PI course;
smaller classsize; freedom inthinking; form
different
viewpoints

Inquiry Strength:
Focused on main topics;
were interested ininquiry topics
Inquiry Weakness:
Challenges inunderstanding his own
and others’ thoughts

Summary. Classroom social interactions and communications supported Peleke’s
learning. Peleke described that, “I think we did well on our communication, participation,
discussion, talking and taking notes/following along” (DR, 12/12/14). In light of Peleke’s
reflection, he believed that communications made learning engaging. The following concept map
shows how Peleke connected social-affective, cognitive, and personal communications withlearning. Since he liked the idea of Yin and Yang, the following figure is drawn using circles. He
found that communications fostered dialogue between students and teacher, and encouraged125them to articulate and reflect on their thinking. The improved communication skills helped
Peleke build up better interpersonal relationships with his peers. The biggest takeaway for Peleke
was that he gained a more complete view of himself through juxtaposing various perspectives.

Figure 3: Peleke’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
Liko
Liko, a female student, was enrolled in the 11th grade during the time of study. She is
ethnically Japanese. She had p4cHI experiences in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade classes. Liko is the
person who experienced the most significant changes in the PI course. Themes that emerged from
Liko’s data include (a) academic engagement, such as parent involvement, a strong community,
build up confidence, relevance to life, intellectually safe environment, participation in discussion,
multiple perspectives, attentive listening, think and question, student and teacher relations; (b)meaning of life; and (c) challenges, such as low self-efficacy, confusion, difficulty in explaining
ideas, difficulty in organizing thoughts.

126

Academic engagement. One of the reasons why Liko enjoyed the PI class more than othersocial studies classes was that she did not have to memorize all the facts. “History really bores me.”She explained,
History classes also tend to have the same kind of direction, same kind of learning process,same kind of memorization. History is repetitive in its learning process and memorizing thedates and events that happened in history gets really boring. (DR, 10/21)
In the PI course, Liko could reflect and talk about her feelings. She thought she was more
motivated to learn in the PI course “I think this class motivates me by like I am never challenged
to think outside my own thinking, so yeah [I like this class].” Throughout the first week of theclass, Liko realized that “I’m going to enjoy this class as oppose to another class I have” (CD,
10/21). She continued to think about the questions posed in class when she went back home andlooked forward to coming back to this class again (DR, 10/31). In the following section,evidences will be provided explaining why Liko was engaged and motivated in learning in the PI
course.
Parent involvement. Family education played a central role in Liko’s learning anddevelopment. In classroom discussions, she often referred to her parents’ teaching andeducational philosophy. When having questions or when she was confused, she talked about
asking her parents for answers and further clarifications. Besides discussion with her classmates,
she often reported that she asked her parents, cousins, or aunties’ about their ideas (CD, 10/23).
She sometimes shared her father’s or mother’s stories to support her claims and viewpoint. For
example, while learning about the topic, “What is the greatest virtue,” she explained, “First I
thought knowledge is the greatest virtue. That was all taught by my parents” (CD, 10/28). “I
might ask my mom and my dad if they think there is a ‘greatest’ virtue” (DR, 10/31). Whenever127she felt confused, she spontaneously discussed questions with her parents. Liko once asked,“What makes you have good or bad intentions?” She described, “When I think about thisquestion, I cannot exactly answer it. As I thought about it, I actually talked with my dad” (CD,11/8). Thus family involvement in Liko’s education improved her school readiness andperformance in the PI course. In the final PI class, Liko brought her mother’s homemade cakes toshare, which showed her care for the community.
A strong community. Liko acknowledged that the PI course really helped her be a lot
more open than she would be in another class. In this class she was able to create friendships
with her classmates. When Liko felt comfortable in a class she was more likely to talk about her
ideas and opinions, to admit her confusion and ask for help, and to use peers as resources. She
reflected that in order to overcome problems and roadblocks in life the class needed to be able tounite and work together as one. She once introduced the PI class to a guest visitor, saying, “We
do have a strong community here. Because when I first came here to begin the quarter, I instantly
felt like I was part of this community” (CD, 11/6). This strong sense of belongingness
encouraged Liko’s positive interactions and cooperative learning with each participant. Likopraised Makali, saying that “his thinking is deeper than mine” (DR, 10/29), and commended
Kalani, saying, that “I like how I didn’t know who you are till now” (DR, 11/5). Liko found that
the PI classroom created an environment that supported mutual respect, and fostered cooperation
and acceptance among students.
Relevance to life. Liko evaluated that, “One thing we did well in the inquiry is that wewere able to relate this topic to other real world problems.” She used an example to explain her
comment, “For example, the biggest example shared was from Nahele who related our topic toebola and how the U.S. didn’t even care about the outbreak of ebola until it got to the U.S.” (CD,128

12/16). The inquiry connected to Liko’s life and the world she lived in. When talking about raceand politics, she demonstrated strong empathy for her friends at school. She explained,
Racism is a big problem in this world and it may not be a problem for me but it’s
definitely a problem for other people in this world…. Some of my friends even havetrouble now with just being judged in school, how are they going to be able to deal withthe real world? (DR, 12/16)
Intellectually safe environment. Liko defined that intellectual safety makes students feelsafe with sharing their own thoughts and ideas with others. There would be “no side
conversations, no swearing, put downs anywhere or anything that would make a person feel as if
they weren’t important.” The whole community should be responsible for maintaining an
intellectual safe environment and be respectful to each other. Everybody “can disagree and notjudge” (CD, 10/16). She used an example to explain how an intellectually safe environment
supported her learning,
Comparing to my Japanese class, Ms. X’s class is kind of wild, because sometimes shedoesn’t say anything, so [Liko laughed] sometimes intellectual safety there is not exactly
good at all. But in Sensei’s class she most of the time has everything together and has
everybody share and try to make it safe for everybody. (CD, 10/16)
She further illustrated, “I basically learned that, I definitely learned that I feel a lot safer in thisclass compared to my lots of other classes.” She felt that in the PI course, every student tookeach other into account. She also liked what her peers felt and shared in the class. Liko’scomments indicate that in a positive classroom culture she found an encouraging attitude andestablished meaningful relationships with others, which increased the likelihood that she would
feel comfortable sharing her concerns, inner feelings, and raw thoughts with others.

129

Participation in discussion. Actively participating in discussion is one standard that Likoused to evaluate her participation in the community of inquiry. She believed that each student
should share at least two times in each PI course. She hoped she shared more often voluntarily
instead of frequently being invited by others (CD, 12/16). Nahele is the person who often
encouraged and invited Liko to share. During the discussion, Liko expected the class to have nosilent times. “One thing we didn’t do well in the inquiry is how we were having those long pause
where nobody said anything…. I could have prevented these pauses because I had a lot ofquestions but I didn’t ask them” (CD, 11/16).
In the beginning of the semester, Liko did not want to share, but later she realized that “I
thought myself as a dude kicking everybody off, because if I don’t share, it’s like doing the samething” (CD, 10/30). Liko felt a moral need to commit to class discussions. When a visitor cameto the class, she shared “I guess something I’m walking away with is that I need to learn toparticipate more and more to speak up for myself now” (CD, 11/6).
Multiple perspectives. Liko mentioned that she tended to take a single, monologicalperspective and view reality through a narrow lens; she could not think outside of the box. She
described, “How I learned in this class, mostly our knowledge is gained from other peoples’
perspectives during our discussions. That basically helps me” (CD, 12/4). She appreciated that
she could be able to expand her views,
I think my own perspective just expanded…. I got to see a new perspective of whether or
not humans control nature and one of my peers said yes because of our ability to be able
to clone plants and animals. So yes I have seen a new perspective, and I’m glad I did.
(FRP, 12/19)

130

Attentive listening. Liko illustrated that an engaged participant is the one who “Listens;
No talking, when others are; Respect” (DR, 10/31). She thought she was an engaged participantbecause when her teacher was facilitating, she always listened attentively. In addition Likoacknowledged that one thing the community did well was that they used inquiry memos torecord their peers’ viewpoints to keep track of the ideas in the inquiry (CD, 11/13). Listening
attentively helped Liko recall her and her peers’ thinking and the entire sequence of ideas
presented.
Think and question. Liko expressed that one thing they did well in the inquiry was thatthey were able to “branch out without branching out to a completely different subject.” Forexample, when discussing if there is a greatest virtue, “They were able to branch out to what
virtue could possibly be the greatest” (CD, 11/13). The PI course integrated thinking into thecurriculum, which fostered students’ individual creativity, helping them think critically about
how and where they get their best ideas. Liko could dive deeper into her thinking and inquire
together with her peers and teacher about the topics and questions that she cared about the most.
Their questions included considering real-world problems and conceiving their interests.
Liko asked the following questions. When learning ethical egoism and altruism, she
asked, “What I realized is that talking about benefiting ourselves. We talked about having goodor bad intentions. I thought, what makes you have these good or bad intentions, and why you act
upon them?” (CD, 10/17) Liko began to question human nature and her self-knoweledge, she
asked, “When I heard everyone, I have more values. What I think is right? What makes me
happier? What would I think human nature is?” (CD, 10/28) She also thought about “What is
morally right and wrong?” (DR, 12/5) She related her learning to the world problems, andquestioned, “Is there really a way to get rid of racism? WATRs [What are the reasons] why we131can’t get rid of racism?” (DR, 12/10) She showed her care to the environment, and asked“WATRs [What are the reasons] people are so cruel to the environment?” (DR, 12/16)
Meaning of life. For Liko, the purpose of her life is to live a healthy life, strive for abetter job, and try to do as much as she can to prepare herself for her next voyage in life (DR,12/1). She tried to create a balance in her life,
I try to balance out my chores, school and my free time but it never works because itchanges everyday. I thought that everything had to be balanced out in order for me to beable to progress in anything but the truth is you really don’t need everything to bebalanced. Especially since a lot of things tend to just work themselves out. (DR, 11/13)
Although Liko wanted to live a balanced life, she felt that stepping back and allowing things tohappen would allow things to take care of themselves naturally. Her needs will also be satisfied
in the end.
Challenges. Liko shared that when she did not participate in discussions, she was always
thinking. She explained why she could not join the discussion, “I am thinking” (CD, 12/11). “My
mind cannot follow. It is slow” (CD, 12/18). “I still don’t understand the concept of my example”(DR, 10/29). This struggle was one that Kalani and Nahele shared.
Liko expressed she was often confused. She remarked, “I’m still kind of confused on themeaning of ethical egoism” (CD, 10/27). “I need more clarification. I was kind of confused. That’s
why I couldn’t say anything. Sitting there. I don’t know why I didn’t say anything” (CD, 12/12).
The following quote showed that Liko tried to examine her prior knowledge structure. “I learned
that life is confusing. Now thinking – Is my knowledge even true? (DR, 12/2) She also shared that,“For half of the discussion I was so lost that I had no idea where the discussion went, and I was juston a basic state of confusion” (DR, 12/16).

132

Liko shared a challenge with Peleke; she felt that she struggled in explaining her ideas. She
stated, “When I think about this question, I cannot exactly answer it” (CD, 12/8).
“Struggle with explaining the logic I had behind my textual evidence and the claim. Easy time witheverything else. [A big question mark was added after this sentence]” (DR, 11/14).
Liko demonstrated low self-efficacy in her thinking. When she did not share, she would
say, “It doesn’t make sense” (CD, 12/10). Although she was invited by Nahele, Makali, or Peleke,she sometimes reacted, “Don’t pass it to me.” “Wait, Wait…[half a minute pause] Don’t knowwhether it makes any sense. So I have no clue the passage is saying, but I have an idea about justdidn’t write it down” (CD, 12/16). But at the same time, Liko realized that she needed to make achange, and reflected, “While we were sharing the assumptions we made, I didn’t feel like mine
was right so I didn’t want to share it. Need to have more confidence, speak up” (DR, 11/10).
Philosophical Insight Paper data analysis. In the Philosophical Insight Paper (PIP)
Liko appreciated that everyone in the community listened actively to what others had to say.
“Everyone kept a record of what other people shared” (11/13). She criticized that “One thing we
didn't do well as a class was to make sure everyone in the discussion participated.” She would
like everyone could be able to share out their opinions. She also acknowledged their focus on
main ideas, and she commented, “we were able to branch out without branching out to acompletely different subject.” Liko sometimes experienced challenges in understanding topics
that they inquired. She hope that “everyone is on the same page.” Because “For half of the
discussion I was so lost that I had no idea where the discussion went, and I was just on a basic
state of confusion.”
Final Reflection Paper data analysis. Liko appreciated that the PI course helped her
become more open about herself than she would be with another class, because she was “able to133create some sort of friendship with [her] classmate” (12/19). She concluded that if she socialized
more in a class, she felt more comfortable and fun than in other classes. She shared that her
perspective was expanded. She was excited for her “huge improvement”, because in the
beginning of the class, she did not think her opinion was good enough, but the PI course madeher “feel like I matter”. She began to experience “things that I reflect on, often make sense.” Shealso learned to try and build up her confidence in her answers and her speaking abilities in theclass (12/19).
Focus Group data analysis. Liko was more engaged in learning in the PI course, andshe reported that in other classes, half of the students did not even care about what she wasdoing. Also, it was difficult to get the class started. She felt that History was boring, but in the PI
course, she could “get to reflect how we feel about it [subjects]” (12/18). Liko appreciated the classchallenged her to think outside box, and she looked forward to coming to this class in thesemester. In the PI course, she formed better relationships with her teacher than in other classes.
Qualitative data triangulation. Comparing the four types of qualitative data, classroom
discussions and daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, Final Reflection Paper, and focus
group interview, themes that appeared from Liko’s data are listed in table below.
Table 6
Triangulation of Liko’s qualitative data
Class Discussions and Daily
Reflections
Academic Engagement: Parent
involvement; a strong community;
build up confidence; relevance tolife; intellectually safe
environment; participation in
discussion; multiple perspectives;attentive listening; think andquestion; student and teacher

PhilosophicalInsight Papers
Community
Strength: Active
listening
Community
Weakness: Engage
peers to participate
in discussion more

134

Final Take
Home Reflection
Increased selfefficacy; bettersocialization;
expanded her
thinking

Focus Group
Data
More
engagementin learning in
the PI course;
think outside
the box; form
betterrelationships

relations
Meaning of Life: Allow things totake care of themselves
Challenges: Low self-efficacy;
confusion; difficulty in explaining
ideas; difficulty in organizing
thoughts.

Inquiry Strength:
Branch out ideas

with herteacher

Inquiry Weakness:
Make sureeveryone is on thesame duringinquiry

Summary. Parent involvement was an integral component of Liko’s education. It
improved her academic readiness and achievement, and at the same time, improved the parent
and child relationship. She often connected her learning with family education, which increased
her understanding of new concepts. The biggest takeaway for Liko was that she could trust her
ability to think and to speak up. Liko had experiences of being insulted while doing p4cHI inother classes, which made her feel afraid to share in the beginning of the PI class. But as time
went by, she believed in her capacity to think and considered that her thinking was validated andvalued by her teacher and peers. This in turn empowered her sense of responsibility and efficacy
as a learner. She was determined to apply what she had learned in the classroom to make positivechanges in her life by following what she believed was right and treating others the way theywanted to be treated. She sometimes examined the way she treated the world and decided toleave a better world for the next generation (DR, 12/17). Liko wanted to lead a balanced life, but
she realized that it would be better to allow things to happen naturally instead of making things
happen. Figure demonstrates significant themes that occurred in Liko’s data. Since Liko’s
thinking is simple, the picture was drawn using rectangular.

135

Figure 4: Liko’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
Makali
Makali, a male student, was enrolled in the 10th grade during the study. His ethnicity was
mixed, and included Caucasian, Japanese, and German. He had p4cHI experiences in classes in both
9th and 10th grade. Makali transferred to a private high school partway through the study, on Nov.
17/14. Themes that emerged from Makali’s data include (a) academic engagement, such as a strong
community, participation in discussion, multiple perspectives, think and question, relevance to life,
intellectually safe environment; and (b) meaning of life.
Academic engagement. Although Makali transferred to another school, he wanted to learn
about p4cHI. He reported that he introduced p4cHI to his new English teacher, showing his strong
interest and high-level engagement in the PI course. Before he transferred to the new school, heshared his feelings with his classmates and teacher,
I actually really sad now because I have to leave. Because I finally realized that I actually
think differently…. I realized that you know you can actually question stuff, it’s cool. We

136

have a great community, there is always a way to grow. I really sad that I have to leave. (CD,11/6/14)
He wrote in his daily reflections that,
We have a great community but as always there is much to improve and I’m sorry I won’t
be here to see it. We have amazing discussions in this class that always leave me wanting
more. I wish everyone has that feeling. (DR, 11 6/14)
All those remarks demonstrated how Makali enjoyed the PI course. The following section explains
the reasons why he was engaged in studying while in the PI course.
A strong community. Makali realized that building up a community fostered a welcoming
environment. “It [community building] does have an affect on what people are willing to share”(CD, 10/16/14). In the beginning, Makali imagined that he would just sit in the class because all theother students were seniors, but it turned out that he could communicate with other PI participants.
He changed his original thought, and said “in this class I am going to get along very well” (CD,
10/21/14). When the class began to build community, they learned more about each other. Makali
liked the PI course, “because there are actual community” (DR, 10/30/14). He used a counterexample to describe a class he disliked, “In ethnic studies, last year I didn’t know anyone and I
hated that class” (DR, 10/20/14). Makali described that, “In a bigger community, there are always
somebody who doesn’t like somebody else, like in more than ten people” (CD, 11/6/14). So asmaller class reduced distractions and gave Makali and his classmates a greater opportunity for
individual interaction.
Participation in discussion. Makali introduced a community of inquiry strength to a visitor,

137

There were very little falters [in this class]. Even though we did falter, we did back-on checkreally quickly, which is it doesn’t really happen that this class stops for five minutes tofigure out who goes next. Also everyone shared. (CD, 11/6/14)
He explained that his role in the class was “to be an active participant and try to keep the discussion
on track. And to try to be good so Ms. Shiroma [his teacher] doesn’t get fired.” When he
enthusiastically participated in discussions, he would give himself a high rating [for his participationin the community of inquiry], such as seven based on ten Likert scale (DR, 10/31/14). Furthermore,another reason that Makali stated he liked the PI course was “we have interesting discussions” (DR,10/30/14). Thus discussions made the PI class more enjoyable, which encouraged Makali to take amore active role in his learning.
Multiple perspectives. Makali learned to express his own ideas and listened to hisclassmates’ ideas, which enriched his learning experiences through this exchange. He
acknowledged gaining new perspectives from other participants, such as “I gained a newunderstanding” (DR, 11/6/14). He described how a changed perspective benefited his learning
process,
Another perspective I got was that debating does not really solve anything, it just creates
a whole new matter of problems and then just tried to explain your views to other people
to prove you are better and prove they are wrong. (CD, 10/16/14)
The open discussion gave Makali opportunities to approach the subject from different
perspectives rather than one view taught by the teacher or textbook. This made the PI course
more relevant and enjoyable for him.
Think and question. Makali appreciated that in the PI course he was able to branch out
topics and “apply to everything.” He suggested that one of the biggest tasks that students needed to138

work on was to “gain into a deeper part of a question” (CD, 11/6/14). He also remarked “That’s
very important when we are trying to dig deep and make our discussion beneath the surface level”(DR, 11/6/14). It can be inferred from Makali’s comments that the community of philosophicalinquiry created a setting that inspired deeper learning, which in turn fostered Makali’s ability tothink and to pursue further knowledge.
The PI course gave Makali permission to investigate open-ended and suggestive
questions. The discussion and inquiry aroused curiosity, stimulated interest, and motivated him
to seek new information. He began to explore more questions, “Is it really possible to consider
each and every one of these for every decision you could make?” (CD, 10/28/14) “Is it expected
for us to live our lives in only one way?” (CD, 10/29/14) “Can a philosopher get paid just for sitting
there and thinking?” (DR, 10/17/14).
Relevance to life. Because Makali received positive educational experiences in the PI
course, he was involved in p4cHI activities outside of the classroom.
I would say that this was the fun of this class in order to be able to take this outside.…
my friend…started to really use all the terms, like what are the reasons, can I assume….
We ended up having this kind of discussions after lunch after school. It’s reallyinteresting….That makes me think deeply about anything. (CD, 11/6/14)
For Makali, learning in the PI course did not just take place in an academic vacuum, rather it wasshared with the outside world. He and his peers looked beyond the teacher and the classroom foranswers. Makali appreciated the practical use of the PI course. He said, “I can use this in my life
because it gives me the ability to think things through” (DR, 11/12/14)
Intellectually safe environment. Makali considered intellectual safety as when “everyone
feels safe sharing ANY feelings or ideas they might have without fear of negative actions or139

impressions from fellow classmates.” He remarked that everyone in the community should be
responsible for maintaining the intellectual safety “by coming in with an open mind and taking
everyone’s ideas into account” (DR, 10/16/14). In the intellectually safe environment, Makali
felt comfortable with sharing about the death of his uncle and how it affected him during the firstweek of the class. He acknowledged, “I am glad that we have intellectual safety to share ideas”(CD, 10/16/14). This shows that the PI classroom created a positive environment where Makali
felt comfortable sharing ideas and opinions without fear of judgment. He believed that his
vulnerability would be protected because of the intellectually and psychologically safe classroom
culture.
Meaning of life. Being happy is Makali’s central theme of life. He pondered about
ways to search for happiness, and described that, “self-interest is one of the only ways tohappiness…. worrying about other is no way to live your life, especially if it’s at your own
expense. And it is definitely no way to be happy” (DR, 10/27/14). He thought, “the greatest
virtue is the knowledge of the situation you’re in” (DR, 10/31/14). He conceived that in general
he had to make choices about how he is going to live, “The point is that we are going to choose
something sometime and it will affect how we treat others, and as well as ourselves” (CD,
10/28/14). “You gonna to decide what you want and be happy, right?” (CD, 11/7/14)
Summary. There is strong indication that the community building in the PI classroom had
an enormous impact on Makali in the context of the learning process. Figure 5 presents Makali’s
academic engagement map. Since Makali participated in the PI course for half a semester, hisconcept map is not very complicated. Although Makali transferred to a private school after only
one month in the study, he developed emotional and psychological connections with his peers
and teacher. A good classroom environment encouraged him to develop loyalties and sentiments140

that went beyond the classroom. He even introduced p4cHI to his new English teacher, whichshowed his high level engagement in the PI course. Makali did not have a chance to share his
understanding of the meaning of life in the end of semester focus group interview, but, based on
his daily reflection and classroom discussion data, he was interested in the concept of happiness.
He considered self-interest as the only way to happiness.

Figure 5: Makali’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
Kanani
Kanani, a female student, was enrolled in 12th grade during the study. Her ethnicity was
mixed Hawaiian and Chinese. She had p4cHI experiences in classes from 9th to 12th grade.
Kanani dropped out of the PI course after Nov. 7, 2014. Themes that emerged from Kanani’s data
include (a) academic engagement, such as peer acknowledgement, participation in discussion; (b)meaning of life; and (c) challenges.
Academic engagement. For Kanani, it was very important for her peers to acknowledge
her contribution and understand her ideas. The benefit of taking the PI course for Kanani was tothink outside of the box.
Peer acknowledgement. Kanani appreciated peer support and explained that,141

Today I am walking away with that what my peers want from me in my class. They
would want me to be open-minded, and for myself what I would work with is to push
myself to understand more about our discussions. (CD, 11 6/14)
Kanani changed her behavior to match her peers’ expectation. She adopted the values andinterests of the group to maintain her identity in the class. She also showed her concern about herclassmate. When Liko could not get ready to share, Kanali comforted her, “If you don’t feel
intellectually safe, I can. I will go farther than it is now” (CD, 10/21/14).
Participation in discussion. Kanani grew to share the opinion of her peers that as acommunity, they should work together in order to accomplish goals. She felt it was her
responsibility to participate in class discussions and contribute her viewpoints. She described,“Going back to the beginning of the class, when I didn’t want to share, I didn’t want to help myclass, which could help us move forward, just kind of like breaking away from the community”(CD, 10/30/14).
Meaning of life. Kanani neither joined the end of semester focus group interview, norshared her understanding of the purpose or meaning of the life in class discussions. However she
respected a person who could be his or her self and recognized that being oneself is a right way
to live. She explained,
Selfishness is that people want to show who they are. That’s how they want to be. We
cannot say selfishness is bad, they judge people, because they are comfortable with being
themselves, they keep to be themselves instead of sharing with everybody else. (CD,
10/23/14)
Challenges. Kanani had difficulty in articulating her ideas. She could not findappropriate words to express her thoughts, which decreased her discussion participation. She

142

needed more time to organize her thinking. The following quotes described these challenges:“Um, when we did reflections, we should be more open. Because oh I wrote that in a wrong area,ok, um, can I come back? Ok” (CD, 11/6/14). “It made them think outside of the box, that’s evenbetter. I cannot find other words for it” (CD, 10/27/14)
Like Liko, Kanani also exhibited low self-efficacy in her thinking. “I wrote it,
but…because I…I wrote it, I don’t think it’s a good reflection. I don’t understand” (CD, 10/16/14).
She felt it was a risk to share her ideas in the classroom. She explained,“I said we need to take certain risk in order for us to move forward. When I didn’t wanna
share, I think this is the first day in our class, I didn’t wanna share, but then I also feel I haveto take the risk in sharing in order for our task to move on. (CD, 11/17/14)
Kanani had a unique challenge that other participants did not share in the PI course, which
was that she had to work almost 10 hours each day instead of focusing on study. This maybe thereason why she dropped out of the PI course after three weeks of the study. One day, she sharedwith the community,
I was so tired and drain. Um, what is that word? I didn’t know it was going to be thatstressful and tiring. It made me change my mind in working double now. From opening toclosing. We open at 9am, but the work you have to start at 8am. We close the store by 10pm.
(CD, 11/5/14)
Summary. Kanani’s data indicates that peer acknowledgement and support had a strong
positive impact on her academic engagement. She appreciated that the PI course inspired to her tothink outside of the box. Yet she also experienced many challenges she could not handle, such as
articulating her ideas and thinking deeply. Because Kanani had to work over 10 hours per day, she
had limited time and energy to focus on study. All these challenges may result in Kanani’s absence143from school. The following figure color-coded her concept map in a simple manner due to her
absence after the middle of the semester.

Figure 6: Kanani’s Academic Engagement Concept Map
Cross Case Analysis
In essence, each individual participant had different reasons to take the PI course anddifferent ways of engaging in learning at the class. Although participants’ data were analyzed
separately, similar themes emerged from four types of qualitative data, classroom discussions
and daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, Final Reflection Paper, and focus groupinterview. The following sections will consolidate, integrate, and compare the findings from thesix individual case studies.
Academic engagement
In order to present a synthesis of findings intuitively, Table 2 outlines shared reasons why
the six participants felt engaged in learning in the PI course based on the frequency count in the
NVivo software. Explicitly, they are a) the PI class created an intellectually safe environmentthat fostered students’ learning and development; b) participants inquired together into the topics
and questions that they are really interested; and c) participating in communities of philosophicalinquiries broadened their understandings of themselves and others. Besides that, listening144

attentively and carefully to their peers and teacher’s ideas benefited both themselves and others.
Building up a strong community helped them engage in their learning as well. The particularlyinteresting finding is that the participants needed to maintain intellectual safety in theircommunity of inquiry. Intellectual safety cultivated a classroom culture and created a safe spacefor students to connect to each other and share personal challenges.
Table 7Frequency count of six participants' shared themes in academic engagement
Emergent Themes
Count of Shared Themes
Creating an intellectually safe environment
5
Thinking deeply and asking questions
5
Actively participating in philosophical inquiry
5
Building up a strong community
4
Listening attentively
4
Building up relationship with his/her teacher
3
Changing perspectives or gaining new perspectives
3
Using community ball3
Gaining multiple perspectives
2
Making connections with learning2
p4cHI facilitation experience. The most significant event in students’ PI experiencesthat helped them make transitional changes in their learning was their Waimanalo Intermediate
School p4cHI facilitation experience. In this project they needed to facilitate a p4cHI session
with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders and helped them build up community within their new classroom. In
the debrief session, Nahele acknowledged how p4cHI could impact students, and realized theimportance of practicing community building and intellectual safety in the classroom. Liko built
up more confidence in communicating her ideas with others. Peleke realized that it wasnecessary to develop relationships with his students before real teaching in the philosophicalinquiry. Kalani recognized that what he and the community did could change the future using
p4cHI as an instrument. It took a year for Makali to know how to do philosophy, but after his145experience applying p4cHI with younger students, he understood philosophy and philosophicalinquiry much better.
In sum, the Waimanalo school experience not only empowered the participants to be
p4cHI facilitators but also helped them to become better PI participants. Furthermore, because ofthis event, more Kailua High School students were interested in registering for the PI course in
the following semester.
Seating format matters. In the PI course students would usually sit in a circle. If thecircle was smaller, students were more connected and engaged in their discussion. Therefore,seating arrangements influenced the classroom atmosphere and students’ learning process. This
smaller circular arrangement facilitated the flow of ideas, thoughts and expressions. It helped
foster group dynamics. It was observed from the traditional social studies classes that seating
arrangements played an effective role in student academic engagement. In some classes, if
students were seated in a row and column format, there were more disruptive and inattentive
behaviors. Thus seating was an effective classroom management tactic.
Meaning of life
Table 8 summarizes the shared understanding of the meaning of life among the six
participants. The results indicate that adolescence can be a time of both discovery and selfunderstanding. The students all expressed interest in searching for a coherent meaning in life.
The transitional period in adolescence brought up issues of self-identity and happiness.
The participants acknowledged that the PI course provided them with opportunities and tools tobuild a sense of meaning and purpose. They recognized that the meaning of life would be acontinuously evolving concept over their lifetime. The findings suggest that the participants
focused more on self and emphasized personal dignity in their current lives. They developed the146ability to make and follow through on their own decisions and to formulate their own principles
about what a “right life” meant to them.
Table 8Frequency count of six participants' themes in meaning of life
Emergent Themes
Count of Shared Themes
To be yourself is the right way to live
3
Striving for a balanced life
2
Happy life is a balanced life
1
Staying in a state of neutrality
1
Self-interest is the only way to happiness
1
Challenges
On the whole, the commonly shared themes regarding participants’ challenges arepresented in Table 9. As has been noted, in the PI course, although students developed the ability
to gather and assess information and evidence in a balanced and reflective way, they still had
challenges in organizing their thoughts and justifying their ideas based on available evidence andresources. The PI curriculum exposed students to challenging questions and materials. It
involved participants in identifying related experiences or prior knowledge and connecting theminto a meaningful whole. Students also needed to anticipate hidden complications and think
deeply. If they felt that the new learning did not relate to them, they had a high probability ofgetting confused. At times, each student had difficulty articulating their thoughts in words or
thinking clearly about the ideas. Intellectual disequilibrium was the primary challenge theyencountered within the learning process.
Table 9Frequency count of six participants' shared themes in challenges
Emergent Themes
Count of Shared Themes
Struggling with organizing his/her thinking
3
Feeling confused
3147

Struggling with articulating ideas
Demonstrating low self-efficacy
Feeling disconnected with visitors
Working for part-time job
Not wanting to share her thoughts

3
2
1
1
1

Summary: The Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework
A conceptual framework of student perceptions of academic engagement in the PI class ispresented in Figure 7. This was created based on each student’s color-coded concept maps. In
general, the six participants’ perceptions of an engaging philosophical inquiry classroom can be
categorized into three main themes, which correspond to the three parts of this conceptual
framework of a house.

148

Figure 7: Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework
Social cultural context of learning. Maintaining a safe and positive classroom
environment is a fundamental condition for learning. In the conceptual framework, this part iscolored in green, representing that a positive classroom culture creates a nurturing foundation forlearning. The intellectually safe environment developed a constructive, creative, andmethodological culture of thinking and communication.
In the PI course, students and teacher co-created a social-cultural learning context that
ensured a deep philosophical inquiry could occur. Prior to the PI class, students and teacher coconstructed a definition of intellectual safety and made a community ball to facilitate their turntaking. While making the community ball, they began to know each other personally. While
engaging in a number of reflective activities and readings that reiterated the importance ofintellectual safety and community building, the students began to build up a strong community
and a good relationship with their teacher. Living the concept of intellectual safety, students
transformed their learning into an art of democracy. They respected each other’s ideas, interests,
and needs. They listened attentively to what others had to say, and shared their thoughts
genuinely. They were continuously working on cultivating and nurturing a sense of
belongingness and connectedness in the class and beyond. This social context of learning sets a
psychological foundation for students’ further learning in the philosophical inquiry.
Learning process in philosophical inquiry. The learning process in the concept model
is colored in yellow, representing the “aha” and mind “sparkling” moments that students
experienced. Because the community ball is a symbol of empowerment, it is painted an orange
color. The challenges take the shape of a cloud, which means that although the students
experienced confusion and struggles, these could nurture new realizations. These activities are in149the living area of the house model, representing the daily work of learning and realizing.
The Philosophical Inquiry class worked to create a learning environment that maximized
each learner’s ability to interact with each other. Students were seated in a circle and engaged inphilosophical inquiry through social interaction and communication. The class put a premium on
students’ interests and needs, so students were able to raise questions that they genuinely
wondered about. Although there was not always a definitive answer to each question, students
were eager to explore the solutions and think alongside each other, appreciating peers who weremore able to articulate ideas and explain thoughts. Using the community ball to issue theinvitation, students were empowered to share their personal stories, challenges, raw thoughts,
and not clearly formulated ideas. Students enjoyed the academic freedom to explore meaningful
and controversial issues that arose from their interests. The PI community of inquiry also createdthe space and the opportunity for students to make fundamental connections within themselves
and with other people. They connected with their prior experiences, thoughts, feelings and ideas,
and learned through these experiences in the classroom. Because of this encouraging and safe
community of learners, Liko was able to get over her experiences of insults in other classes.
The Philosophical Inquiry participants were sometimes confused by their own questions
and by those of others during their discussions. They experienced challenges in organizing theirthoughts and articulating their ideas. Some students initially lacked confidence in sharing theirthoughts. Yet in the end, students all learned certain reasoning skills (i.e., to make assumptions,to use evidence, to apply the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit), as well as to make decisions and solve
problems. Students expressed that they appreciated the multiple perspectives gained from theirpeers, teachers and guests, because they developed an understanding of ideas from a range of150

areas and obtained the skills, knowledge, and attitude to interpret these ideas and to live theirlives better.
Application of learning. When engaging in discussions, participants were exposed tomultiple perspectives, which inspired them to reflect on their thinking, examine their beliefs, andthen make changes in their lives. The class awaked students’ inner selves and helped themrealize their own unique potentials. They began to think about the purpose and meaning of theirlives. Each student actively chose his or her own way to construct the meaning of his or her
particular life. They created a living philosophy and applied new learning in how they madedecisions and lived their lives. For example, they engaged in philosophical inquiry with friends,
and brought the concept of intellectual safety to their family and community. In class, theyinterrogated the social, political, economical and moral imperatives of society. They discovered
the hidden voices of women, children, minorities, nature, and of those who are marginalized.
The Philosophical Inquiry participants not only took into account their own inclinations
and options for a meaningful life, but also took into consideration the need for a more humaneand democratic society. They started to build a more holistic and integral understanding ofthemselves and the society. They learned to put their engaging and dynamic reflections into
practice. They were interested in personal happiness and wanted to lead balanced and peaceful
lives. They were inspired to strive for ideals of social justice, democracy, and multiculturalism,
and to contribute to the public good. These characteristics are placed just under the roof of thehouse, the highest place. The roof is shaped like a triangle, similar to Maslow’s hierarchy ofneeds. These skills and purposes will hopefully help students to develop increased self-esteem
and self-actualization. This is also one goal of education, making students use the newknowledge and resources around them, and helped them transcend their thinking and living. The

151

color is purple, commemorating royalty, or the best in each of us.
Study Two: Survey Findings
This section will report findings from the Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire (PIQ) and theSense of Coherence Scale (SOC). It will compare pre and post test scores of the four participants
who completed the entire study, and present their means and standard deviation. Then it explores thecomponents in each survey that improved the most and the least. Since the traditional social studies
group (33 participants) only completed the pretest, their pretest average score will be compared withthat of the PI group.
Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire Findings
Survey reliability. Although this research only collected 39 participants’ data, it is stillnecessary to examine the instrument’s reliability based on 48 items’ internal consistency, since ameasurement that lacks reliability will often lack validity (Fink, 1995; Fink & Litwin, 1995). The
Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire included 48 questions designed to examine participants’
perceptions of their learning experiences in the Philosophical Inquiry course. This survey
consists of six components, namely Making Decisions, Being an Ethical and Responsible
Community Member, Philosophical Reflection, Empathy, Transformative Learning, and Joyous
Learning. After examining Cronbach’s alpha, which is based on the mean inter-item correlation,
the survey items showed high consistency in measuring the same underlying construct –students’ learning experiences in the PI course, because the alpha value is 0.94. This indicatesthat each survey question means almost the same thing to every participant. Yet, the high value
for alpha does not imply this survey as unidimensional.
The Cronbach’s alpha of Making Decision is 0.67, Being an Ethical and Responsible
Community Member is 0.80, Philosophical Reflection is 0.76, Empathy is 0.82, Transformative152

Learning is 0.90, and Joyous Learning is 0.85, which suggests acceptable or satisfactory level ofcorrelation among each of the eight items under these six dimensions. It also means each set ofeight items measures a single characteristic of student learning experienced in the PI course(Hinkin, 1998). While examining the inter-item correlation matrix in the Making Decision
dimension, a negative correlated item 5 (I made good judgment) was noticed. This implies item 5
maybe measured a concept that is different from other seven items. When I deleted item 5, theMaking Decision’s component’s internal consistency increased from 0.67 to 0.78, and the wholesurvey’s reliability coefficient increased from 0.94 to 0.97.
Since eliminating item 5 strongly increases PIQ’s reliability, the survey results wereanalyzed and reported using the remaining 47 items in the following sections, PhilosophicalInquiry Questionnaire Results and Sense of Coherence Survey Results.
Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire results. Table 10 shows the result from item 3.50 (Ifeel more engaged in my learning in Philosophical Inquiry class), which indicates students’ levels of
engagement in the PI course. In the beginning of the semester, their level of average engagement
was 4.00 based on a five point Likert scale. At the end of the semester there is a 0.75 increase,which indicates that students became more engaged in the PI course over the course of the semester.
This positive increase was reflected in participants’ comments in focus group interview. Liko,
Kalani, Peleke, and Nahele all acknowledged that the PI course motivated them to come to school,
encouraged them to think outside box, and helped them make social connections with each other.
Table 10
Changes in PI students’ academic engagement scores
Name
PretestPosttest
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4
4.00
1.33
4.75
0.50

153

Table 11 demonstrates the result from item 49 (I would recommend the PhilosophicalInquiry class to others). At the end of the semester, every participant wanted to recommend the
PI course to others. This reveals students’ positive feelings about the class. There is a 0.50
increase between the average pre and posttest results.
Table 11
Changes in PI students' attitude toward the PI course
Name
PretestPosttest
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4
4.50
0.82
5.00
0.50
Table 12 explains the change in Philosophical Inquiry participants’ average pretest andposttest scores as a whole. At the beginning of the semester, students’ average score was 3.91,
and at the end it was 4.19. The results suggest that students perceived that global learning
outcomes such as their abilities to engage in philosophical reflection, make decisions, to be a
responsible and ethical member of the community, and to show empathy to others was improved
after the PI experience. They also had transformative learning and joyous learning experiences in
the class. The six participants shared in their class that the PI course challenged their thinking, sothey began to think differently and holistically. Since they learned the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
and utilized it in their class discussions and home lives, they gradually learned how to make a
good/better decision. They especially appreciated learning about 10 philosophical lenses, which
helped them view the world from different perspectives. Informed by cross-case study results,
participants appreciated that they were able to build a caring and safe community building on theconcept of intellectual safety. They realized the importance of respecting, helping, and uniting
with others.

154

Table 12
PI group PIQ average pre and post test comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4
3.91
0.52
4.19
0.43
Table 13 presents in details about each participant’s pre and post test scores. Among thefour participants, Nahele’s score improved the most (0.46), and Liko the least (0.02). Kalani and
Peleke improved 0.40 and 0.27 respectively. The reason why Nahele improved the most may due
to his active participation in the community of inquiry. He was often the first one to share in the
beginning of the semester. Although Liko responded in her final paper and focus group that she
gained confidence in sharing her ideas, she still had the lowest participation rate in the inquiry.
Table 13
PI participants PIQ pre and post test comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Kalani
4.20
0.47
4.60
0.31
Nahele
3.84
0.27
4.30
0.38
Peleke
3.79
0.26
4.06
0.35
Liko
3.79
0.39
3.81
0.23
Table 14 displays four participants’ total increases in the ten items that had substantial
improvement between the pre and post-test. On these items, at least 50% of the participants
increased at least one level of their ratings. The increase in one level of rating increases one scoreequivalently in the data. Taking item 3.18 as an example, the total of six score increase means all
participants raised their ratings. If there is a total of three score increase, it means three out offour participants improved their ratings. Students reported learning the most about the following
areas in the PI class: (a) Students formed a habit to wonder and question when they learn; (b)The PI course inspired them to think about their own thinking; and (c) They would refer back to155their prior experiences and used what they learned to make good decisions. In another words, thePI course greatly developed students’ cognitive abilities.
Table 14Substantial changes in some items in PIQ
Components
Items
3.18 I wonder when I learn.
3.19 I think about my own thinking.
Philosophical3.17 I ask philosophical questions.
Reflection
3.21 I live the examined life.
3.24 I have a questioning attitude.

Increase b/t pre & post
6
4
3
3
3

3.3 I use what I learn in school to makedifficult decisions about my future.
3.8 I refer back to prior experiences tomake good decisions.
Joyous Learning 3.43 I can't stop thinking about what I learn
in school.
Decision
MakingEmpathy
Being aResponsible
Ethical Memberof a Community3333.28 Learning the perspectives of others
helps me understand myself better.

3

3.9 I am responsible for the learning of mypeers.

3

As Table 15 indicates, among the six components of the PIQ, the four participants
improved the most in Philosophical Reflection. This is their abilities to reflect, think, andquestion. The average increase was 0.60. The average increase for Decision Making was 0.41,
which suggests that students felt that they were better able to connect to their prior experiences
and use what they learned to make informed decisions. Although the other four components,
joyous learning, empathy, being a responsible ethical member of the community, andtransformative experience did not improve substantially, they all increased slightly, implying that
the PI participants had positive learning experiences in the classroom.

156

Table 15
Rank of improvement in the six components in PIQ
Components
Philosophical Reflection
Decision Making
Joyous Learning
Empathy
Being a Responsible Ethical Member of a Community
Transformative Experience

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Increase
0.60
0.41
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.13

Although students made the most significant improvement between the pre and posttest
in Philosophical Reflection and Decision Making, they had higher average ratings on
Transformative Experience and Joyous Learning in both the pre and post tests as is presented inTable 16. Those scores are accordingly 4.28 and 4.38, 4.00 and 4.19. This means that althoughstudents reported high initial scores in these areas, the PI class helped the participants reshape
their understanding of learning, themselves and the world, and that participants really engaged intheir learning.
Table 16
Average scores on pre and post test in PIQ
Components
Transformative Experience
Joyous Learning
Decision Making
Empathy
Being a Responsible Ethical Member of a Community
Philosophical Reflection

PretestPosttest
Mean SD Mean SD
4.28 0.25 4.38 0.26
4.00 0.57 4.19 0.30
3.93 0.32 4.36 0.32
3.88 0.44 4.03 0.40
3.72 0.43 3.88 0.28
3.57 0.75 4.16 0.44

Comparison between PI and traditional social studies groups. The average pretest
scores in the PI group and the traditional social studies group were respectively 3.73 and 3.85 as isindicated in Table 17, which may imply that the PI group had a little bit lower self-efficacy level157

in regard to the aforementioned abilities in the pretest.
Table 17
PI group and traditional group average pretest scores
6 PI Pretest
33 Traditional Pretest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.73
0.39
3.85
0.24
However, since the PI group had a higher Joyous Learning score, it may indicate that the
PI group had a slightly higher expectation to enjoy their learning experience in the PI class (seeTable 18). In addition, the score on the “Responsible Ethical Member of A Community” sectionin the PI group was higher than that of the traditional social studies group, suggesting that the PI
group believed that they were slightly more ready to contribute to and build a better community.
Table 18
PI group and traditional social studies group pretest scores
Components
Transformative Experience
Joyous Learning
Decision Making
Empathy
Being a Responsible Ethical Member of a Community
Philosophical Reflection

PI Pretest
Mean SD
3.77 0.27
3.65 0.47
3.82 0.28
3.73 0.36
3.92 0.38
3.79 0.51

Traditional
Pretest
Mean
SD
3.86
0.18
3.61
0.22
3.86
0.20
3.97
0.15
3.85
0.24
3.98
0.26

Sense of Coherence Scale Findings
As shown in Table 19, on average PI participants’ sense of coherence score improved 0.25
points based on a five point Likert scale. The pretest average score was 3.17 and the posttest was
3,42. These results suggest that the PI group’s global sense of coherence improved after thephilosophical inquiry class. Participants believed they could make more sense of world and things
that happened in their daily lives, and they felt they were more able to manage resources to solve158

problems and make decisions. The qualitative data explained this trend. Participants expressed that
the PI course gave them opportunities to think about the world problems, their prior experiences,and the meaning of life. Since the class taught them how to think using the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
and the 10 lenses of philosophical inquiry, they learned to analyze situations and make better
judgments while considering different perspectives.
Table 19
PI group SOC average pre and post test comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4
3.17
0.38
3.42
0.20
From Table 20, we can see that among the four participants, Peleke improved the most
(0.62), and then Liko (0.31). Nahele improved 0.07, and Kalani did not show any change. Students’improvements on the survey echoed their qualitative findings. In the beginning of the class, Likoand Peleke participated less in discussions compared with Nahele and Kalani. Both Liko and Peleke
remarked that they did not want to share, although they were required to do so in their dailyreflections at the beginning of the class. With peers and teacher’s encouragement, they began toappreciate their own ideas and gained more confidence in sharing as the semester progressed.
Table 20
PI participants SOC pre and post test comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Kalani
3.23
0.93
3.23
0.60
Nahele
3.62
0.51
3.69
0.48
Peleke
2.69
0.95
3.31
0.75
Liko
3.15
0.90
3.46
0.66
Tables 21, 22, and 23 present scores relating to meaningfulness, comprehensibility, andmanageability, and compare results between pre and post tests for each participant. Table 21 shows

159

students’ pre and posttest means and difference in the Meaningfulness component in the SOC scale.
The reason why Kalani’s score decreased 0.25 may be found in his response to the open-ended
question “Do you find meaning in your life?” He remarked,
Right now I am a little scared about my future and making that transition from being
taken care of to being independent. But I know I can be successful and hopefully one day
give back to my community and prepare the future generations for upcoming events.
(PIQ, 12/16/14)
The stress and adjustments needed during the transition from adolescence to adulthood decreased
Kalani’s sense of belief in his capacity to accomplish his perceived life goals. In light of this quote,
Kalani’s meaning or purpose of life was to devote himself to community development and tocontribute to human welfare.
The other three participants did not improve their meaningfulness score, indicating that there
was almost no difference in Nahele, Peleke, and Liko’s understandings about their future lives, andwhether their life challenges are worthy of commitment. The reasons why there is no improvementin this component may be caused by findings that are presented in Study One. The scores may nothave changed because the participants were still in the process of figuring out their identities, thepurposes of their lives, and where they would fit in the world.
Table 21
Meaningfulness average score comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Kalani
4.00
0.00
3.75
0.50
Nahele
3.50
0.58
3.50
0.58
Peleke
3.33
0.71
3.33
0.71
Liko
3.75
0.50
3.75
0.58

160

Table 22 shows the average comprehensibility score in the pre and post test among thefour participants. There is a significance increase (0.53) between PI students’ pre and postscores, on average. The result suggests that through learning in the PI course, students perceived
the world as making more logical sense, and their perception of the environment was morestructured, predictable, and understandable. At the beginning of the class, Peleke’s score was thelowest, 2.00, but at the end of the semester, it improved 1.40. Liko’s score was 2.80, and in theend it became 3.33. The results were consistent with Peleke and Liko’s classroom performances.
Although they struggled the most, they were the ones who improved the most in their thinking
ability. The strong evidence is that they could think and articulate their ideas faster and took the
initiative more to use the community ball. They both built up more confidence in trusting theirown ideas and spoke up more in the community as time went by.
Table 22
Comprehensibility average score comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Kalani
2.80
1.14
3.00
0.71
Nahele
3.60
1.00
3.80
1.14
Peleke
2.00
0.55
3.40
0.45
Liko
2.80
1.10
3.33
0.84
Table 23 displays each participant’s pre and posttest manageability score. As can be seen, the PI
participants had a slight improvement 0.13 overall after taking the PI course. This means that tosome extent the PI course improved their decision-making ability and helped them cope withchallenging situations. They had better ability and more resources available to overcome
obstacles. However, Kalani’s posttest score decreased 0.25. The reason why his score dropped
off could be explained by his SOC survey ratings. He indicated that sometimes he had feelings
that he is not sure he can keep under control (item 4.13). This response serves as evidence that161

adolescence is a time of big social and emotional development. Kalani may have experienced
emotional up and downs during the pre and posttest.
Table 23
Manageability average score comparison
Name
PretestPosttest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Kalani
3.25
0.50
3.00
0.00
Nahele
3.75
0.82
3.75
0.50
Peleke
3.00
0.50
3.25
0.50
Liko
3.00
0.82
3.50
0.58
Items on which the PI participants improved the most are listed in Table 24. At least two
students increased one rating on each of the following items in the pretest. The most substantial
improvement occurred in the Comprehensibility component, indicating that participants
understood themselves, others, and the world better after their experiences in the PI class. The
increase in Manageability suggests that the PI course enhanced their ability to manage andbalance their emotions and behaviors, and deal with complicated situations.
Table 24
Rank of improvement in specific items in SOC
Components
Items
4.8 How often does it happen that you don’tquite understand your own feelings andideas?
4.9 How often does it happen that you havefeelings inside that you would rather not
feel?
Comprehensibility
4.11 How often does it happen that you havethe feeling that you don’t know exactly
what’s about to happen?
4.2 How often has it happened in the past thatyou were surprised by the behavior of people
who you thought you knew well?
4.3 How often has it happened that people
Manageability
whom you counted on disappointed you?

162

Total Increase
3
3

3

2
2

4.10 Many people-even those with a strong
characteristics feel like losers in certain
situations. How often have you felt this way
in the past?

2

Table 25 presents a comparison of the PI group and traditional social studies grouppretest average scores. The pretest average score between these groups were respectively 3.08 and
2.85, which indicates that overall the PI group had a better sense of coherence than the traditionalsocial studies students on the pretest.
Table 25
PI group and traditional group average pretest scores
6 PI Pretest
33 Traditional Pretest
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.08
0.61
2.85
0.60
The PI students may have had more resilience in dealing with difficult situations and astronger belief that life’s struggles and demands were seen as worthwhile of investment andengagement (see Table 26). However, the traditional social studies group had a slight higher scorein comprehensibility than the PI group on the pretest, which implies that the traditional social
studies group may have had a stronger belief that the environment was structured, predictable,
explicable, and understandable than the PI group. This may suggest that because the PI group
could not make good sense of the world, they were motivated to take the PI course. Of the six
areas on the SOC, the PI group improved their comprehensibility score the most, with a 0.58
increase in the post test. This could mean that the class was particularly helpful for them in thisarea.
Table 26
PI group and traditional social studies group pretest scores in each component
Components
PI Pretest
Traditional Pretest

163

Meaningfulness
Manageability
Comprehensibility

Mean
3.47
3.08
2.70

SD
0.36
0.49
0.53

Mean
3.12
2.83
2.80

SD
0.54
0.29
0.18

Summary
To conclude, the PI students felt very engaged in learning in the “Philosophical Inquiry”
class. Their post test rating of this item was 4.75 based on a five point Likert scale, 0.75 increase
compared with the pretest. At the end of the class, the PI students wanted to recommend the classto others, and they provided the highest possible score (5.00) on this item. In addition, there was
0.5 increase compared with the pretest. Participants also shared in their end of semester focus
group that the PI course was very different from other social studies classes, because it
stimulated their interest, challenged their thinking, and encouraged them to build a better
community. They were motivated to come to this class, because they felt they matter and had
opportunities to express their feelings and comments not just memorizing facts and listening towhat teachers had to say.
The PI group’s average posttest rating in PIQ was 4.19, which increased 0.28 comparedwith the average pretest score of 3.91. The rating indicates that PI participants’ perceptions of
their global learning outcomes such as their abilities to engage in philosophical reflection, tomake decisions, to be a responsible and ethical member of the community, and to show empathy
to others was improved after the PI experience. They also indicated improvement intransformative learning and joyous learning experiences through the class, since the posttest
rating for these two components were 4.38 and 4.19 respectively.
Among the six components, students reported improvement in their ability to think andreflect the most, because there was a 0.60 increase between the pre and posttest scores on these
items. The reasons why they improved their philosophical reflection score maybe because they164

formed a habit of thinking and reflection in the PI course. In the beginning of the class, students
would reflect on a quote, a poem, or a video that connects with the day’s topic. And at the end of
the class, they reflected on their community of inquiry and how they applied new learning intheir life. The second ranked improvement occurred in students’ perceptions of their abilities tomake decisions since the average increase was 0.41 between the pre and posttest scores. This
result indicates that students were more able to evaluate situations, solve problems, and makejudgments. In the PI course, students were encouraged to pose questions that they genuinely
wondered about. Then in the philosophical inquiry, students engaged in thinking with each otherto address these questions and concerns. In other words, they learned a systematic way of solving
problems. They also learned to listen, to share, and to understand themselves and others. They
began to trust their own thinking and appreciate different points of view as well. All these factors
contributed to their thinking abilities, so they had a stronger belief in making better decisions.
In contrast with the traditional social studies group’s pretest average on the PIQ 3.85.
Since the average pretest score for the PI group was 3.73, it was slightly lower than the social
studies students at the beginning of the class. But after the PI intervention, PI group’s scoreincreased to 4.19.
The PI group’s average posttest rating on the SOC was 3.42, which increased 0.25
comparing with the pretest 3.17. The result implies that the PI group’s global sense of coherence
improved after the philosophical inquiry class. Participants could make more sense of world andthings that happened in their daily lives, and they were more able to manage resources to solve
problems and make decisions. The most significant improvement happened in theComprehensibility component. The increase was 0.58 from the pretest 2.80 to posttest 3.38. This165

result is consistent with PIQ’s findings, which shows that participants’ ability in philosophicalreflection and making decision improved.
The most interesting finding in the SOC was that the PI participants did not improve their
Meaningfulness score, which suggests that these teenagers were still in the process figuring out theiridentities and what their future life directions. The average SOC pretest scores in the PI and
traditional social studies group were correspondingly 3.08 and 2.85, which indicates that overall the
PI group had a better sense of coherence than the traditional social studies on the pretest. However,their comprehensibility score was -0.10 lower than the traditional group, which may suggest that
because the PI participants want to understand themselves, others, and the world better, so they
were motivated to select the Philosophical Inquiry course.

166

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This dissertation used mixed methods to examine the impact of a Philosophical Inquiry
course on student academic engagement and student perceptions of personally meaningful life.
Applying both qualitative and quantitative methods, this study developed a deeper understandingof what classroom contexts, conditions, discourses, tools and practices promote adolescentlearning experience. Through six individual case studies and cross case analysis, Study One
summarized qualitative reasons why the PI participants engaged in learning and their perceptionsof a meaningful life. Study Two included two surveys with the same six PI participants and 33
traditional social studies participants. Results suggested that PI students’ global sense ofcoherence was improved after the PI experience, and their abilities to engage in philosophicalthinking and make informed decisions were improved as well.
Based on emergent themes that appeared in students’ data, a conceptual framework ofphilosophical inquiry student academic engagement was constructed. This section will discuss
the applicability of this theoretical framework. It will discuss the findings that are particularly
important to educators and that are unique and interesting for readers to know.
The Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework
Referring to the Philosophical Inquiry Student Academic Engagement Framework, thispart first addresses conditions that promote students’ learning, including creating an
intellectually safe community of inquiry context, building up relationships among thecommunity, and encouraging every student to share. Then it discusses students’ learning
processes in the philosophical inquiry. During the community of inquiry, students used thecommunity ball to encourage thoughts and discussions, and to reinforce the quality of social
interactions. Students’ cognitive processes involved raising questions, connecting to their former

167

knowledge and prior experiences, organizing thoughts, analyzing information, and articulatingideas. Although students experienced challenges, such as feeling confused, struggling withexpressing ideas, they learned from appreciating multiple perspectives, engaging in active
learning, and reconstructing their meaning of life and experiences in the classroom. At the end of
this section, I discuss how students applied their new learning in their lives and the world.

A Socio-cultural Context of Learning
In the student qualitative data, the most important reason for students to engage inlearning, or the most salient theme that appeared was that the PI class created an intellectuallysafe environment that fostered students’ learning and development. Echoing Vygotsky’s theory,168

the context of a social-historical environment can significantly influence students’ learning(Vygotsky, 1994). Frankl (1969) stated that “the human being is completely and unavoidably
influenced by his surroundings” (p. 99). Maintaining a positive classroom environment is afundamental condition for students to thrive in learning. Each individual is a socially grounded
self, and is “in the ongoing process of living in a social environment” (Campbell, 1995, p. 40). It
is necessary for students and teachers to create an intellectually safe environment in theclassroom. “Creativity and innovation can occur once the more basic needs have been satisfied”(Dreyfus, 1972, p. 3).
In the Philosophical Inquiry classroom, participants desire acceptance by their peers andteachers. They fear being judged because it may threaten their social standing. To some students,
it is more important not to be bullied, ignored, or alienated, than it is to be an active participant inclassroom activities (Miller, 2013). Participants indicated that the circular seating format andsmaller class size helped establish an environment that could free them from some social andemotional stresses. The intellectually safe community provided them with ongoing opportunities
to build up connections and relationships among each other. The removal of judgment and fear
created a space where, despite their different ethnic backgrounds, beliefs and worldviews, they
could openly share their personal experiences and explore controversial issues with their peers(Makaiau, 2010; Miller, 2013).
In an intellectually safe environment, the PI participants felt comfortable and were able tosafely share, explore, and question ideas. In this “perfect context” students improved theircommunication skills without feeling unwelcome pressure (Lukey, 2012, p. 36). Their statements
were treated with respect and care. Neither the speaker nor the audience could simply dismiss
ideas that they disagreed with. Rather than judging, ignoring, or belittling someone, the169participants were willing to listen to each other attentively with a beginner’s mind (Jackson,
2013; Suzuki, 2010). They were willing to accept and appreciate ideas that were different fromtheir own in order to have a wider perspective possible on a question or issue. They werecomfortable with engaging different formats of knowledge, the known, the strange, and theunknown (Foss & Foss, 2011). This intellectually and emotionally safe classroom culture helped
the participants build a strong community (Lukey, 2012), and gain greater self-understanding byviewing themselves from different perspectives (Banks, 2013)
Enhancing learning by building relations. Research showed that “persons withsignificant difficulties relating to others interpersonally often have related academic struggles in
the classroom particularly as they get older” (Winner, 2011, p. 4). Freire (1970) wrote,“Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling thepoles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (p. 72).
Deliberate and reciprocal student-teacher interactions in the PI classroom environment had aneffect on both groups (Grant, 1979). The teacher added an important dimension to students’social relationships. Teachers were often the more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978) in theclassroom, especially in the beginning that pushed students to think deeper and broader.
Teachers are not only facilitators through asking questions such as, “What do you mean by…” or“Could you use a specific example to explain…,” but also participants by contributing their own
thinking and ideas to the inquiry. As co-participant, teachers become “real” with their students,
so an atmosphere of trust is built (Purkey & Novak, 1996, p. 50). As the community matures, therole between teachers and students began to blur, as students’ opinions increasingly influenced
their teacher or changed their teacher’s thinking. Through social interaction, participants,
teachers and students actively created, interpreted, reorganized, and reconstructed knowledge in170

individual and meaningful ways. The fundamental norms and culture of a classroom weretransformed, because the PI classroom was achieved a new pattern of teacher and student
relationship and interaction, making students and teacher more connected.
Encouraging students to share. The inquiry is unable to thrive if there is no community.
The sense of community is a precondition for participating actively in a democratic society(Sharp, 1993). If the teacher or student is not caring and conscientious enough to attend to each
student’s voice, it is very easy for a class to neglect some silent students whose thoughts arenever heard. “Commitment to an intellectually safe classroom is a commitment to inclusivity inwhich all participants are valued” (Lukey, 2012, p. 34). In the PI classroom, Nahele and Makali
often raised their voices and frequently volunteered to contribute. Kalani and Peleke were morereflective learners who typically developed ideas and questions in their minds before speaking.
Liko was a shy student who felt uncomfortable speaking in front of groups, at least initially inthe first week of the class. Kanani was not confident in sharing her ideas. These differences may
be due to learning preferences as well as personalities. However, a strong community enabled
Liko and Kanani and other students with different learning styles and personalities to contribute.
Active participants such as Nahele and Makali were able to use the community ball to invite
Liko and Kanani to share.
In this socio-cultural learning environment, every student began to “think for themselves,to form independent judgments, to be proud of his [or her] personal insights, to be proud of
having a point of view he [or she] can call his [or her] own” (Lipman, 1993). It helped students
who lacked confidence realize their value (Lukey, 2012). The classroom fulfilled students’
psychological needs, such as autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which are the conditions
that nurture intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

171

The Philosophical Inquiry Learning Process
Described in the foundation part of the house model, when students’ basic psychologicalneeds of safety, belongingness, and esteem are satisfied in the classroom, they developed bettersocially and cognitively in the PI class (Maslow, 1968, 1987). In the p4cHI philosophical inquiry
process, participants thought and inquired alongside their peers and their teacher into the topics
and questions that they genuinely wondered about. They “gr[e]w in their own natural selfactualizing ways” rather than getting trained by imposed knowledge and skills (Schiro, 2008, p.
98). Participants criticized other social studies classes, like history, where they had to memorize
facts and events. Knowing students’ concerns and motives, the PI course was designed toinclude, but not limit, and to integrate students’ experiences and prior knowledge, consider theirinterests and needs, support active participation and discussion, deepen their thinking andinquiry, and encourage multiple perspectives. The class created opportunities for students towonder, discover, explore and imagine and allowed students to experience what that feels like.
These purposes resonated with Sharp’s (1993) purpose of education:
The purpose of education is not only to transmit a body of knowledge but also to equip
children with the skills and dispositions they need to create new knowledge and makebetter practical judgment, then the traditional classroom of “telling” is not appropriate. (p.
341).
The PI participants had enthusiastic desires to come to the class, engage in communities ofinquiries, and share questions with their friends and parents. They simply found their chosen
topics and learning interesting. Referring to their comments and survey responses, they
performed their tasks better, achieved a greater sense of wellbeing, and had better personal andsocial integration and growth in the class.

172

The community ball makes connections. The PI participants appreciated that thecommunity ball empowered them to share and to trust their own thoughts. While making the ballin the first one or two classes, students introduced themselves and shared their personal interests
or stories that helped to build the intellectually safe classroom community (Jackson, 1998).
Referring back to Table 9, participants improved their scores in item 3.9 (I am responsible for thelearning of my peers). Maybe it is because the power of the community ball making students
becomes a more responsible and ethical community member than they first enrolled into theclass. The physical creation of this ball of yarn has been an instrument for group interaction(Lukey, 2012). As the learning progresses, the community ball becomes “a tool of instructionthat is used to facilitate philosophical inquiry” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012). Mediated by thecommunity ball, each student contributed to the community of inquiry (Kim, 2012). There ispositive growth in students since they had become more confident in their responses.
The community ball is also “a means of assigning the power to speak” (Lukey, 2012, p.
32). It became a classroom management tool that made the whole class more regulated and moreengaged. “Students were becoming better at waiting patiently for the community ball instead ofinterrupting, and some of the reluctant speakers began to raising their hands to share” (Kim,
2012, p. 26). Students learned to take turns and give other people an opportunity to share.
Gradually students felt comfortable and responsible enough to use the ball to invite others to
speak up and take their ownership in the inquiry. The ball “gives each student a sense of place
and purpose that supports further classroom inquiry where the learning and discovery expands
far beyond the content of the text” (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p. 15). During the PI class,participants developed a sense of attachment to the ball. Peleke one day picked up a cord of theyarn outside of the class and brought it back to the classroom. Since Nahele will transfer to a173mainland school at the end of the PI course, he made a bracelet using yarn from the community
ball. He even took a picture with all the community balls together in the PI classroom.
Social interaction promotes learning. Students’ cognitive development occurs withsocial, emotional, motivational investment during activities (Vygotsky, 1978). Kalani expressedthat building up a community helped his learning. Nahele enjoyed making connections with histeacher and peers. Peleke shared with the visiting scholar that the community of inquiry madehim engage in learning. Liko reflected in class that she learned from appreciating different
perspectives. So the social interaction plays a fundamental and inseparable role in the process ofparticipants’ intellectual development (Oakes & Lipton, 1999). In the beginning of the semester,
Liko and Kalani did not want to share their ideas, especially Liko was not confident enough intrusting her own thinking, yet with the support and encouragement from their more confident
peers and teachers, they were able to actively participate in discussions. “When working incooperation with others to address problems with which they are familiar, even those individuals
who are not so intellectually gifted can attain high levels of success” (Campbell, 1995, p. 233).
Student academic achievement is positively influenced by the amount of active and collaborative
participation in the learning process (Coates, 2007). The level of engagement and collaboration,
the excitement among the PI participants while engaging in Plain Vanilla activities reshaped
their learning into an aesthetic experience because it was full of life and its own form of beautyand spontaneity. Participants started to articulate their “inner language” in the class (Lukey,
2012, p. 34). They transformed from passive participants to active agents of thought and change
in their class and life.
Questioning reinforces deep learning. The spirit of p4cHI is in fostering wonder,
questioning and inquiry. Research has shown that learning how to format good questions in174

relation to what students want to explore developed meaningful understanding of content (Graig,
Sullins, Witherspoon, & Gholson, 2006). The PI participants criticized that in the other social
studies classes, they lacked opportunity to ask questions and explore what they were interested
in. But in the PI course, they were able to go deeper into an issue and develop a meaningfullearning. In the PIQ survey, their scores in item 3.24 (I have a questioning attitude) improved;
they asked more philosophical, insightful, authentic questions. They turned their learning into ajourney of discovery (Azer, Guerrero, & Walsh, 2013).
Since the design of the PI course provides students with opportunities to think, ask
questions, research issues, make decisions, and construct new meanings, students’ began toengage in deep learning (Azer, 2008, 2009). When seeking, asking or making inquiries into
information and knowledge, students restructure their thoughts, integrate and apply knowledge,
elaborate ideas using critical appraisal, and analyze reasoning behind what is said, and consider.
These questions opened up possibilities of meaning and reinforced deep understanding oflearning (Gadamer, 1980, 1994; Heijne-Penninga, Kuks, Hoffman, & Cohen-Schotanus, 2010)
Confusion facilitates learning. In the shared life and shared experience of the PI class,students experienced some cognitive challenges. They had challenges in summarizing,clarifying, and paraphrasing their thoughts and opinions, as well as others. Although theyexperienced confusion, their Philosophical Reflection and Decision Making scores in the PIQ,
and Comprehensibility and Manageability scores in the SOC improved substantially comparing
with the pretest. This implies the “intellectual order [comes] out of the confusion of beliefs”(Campbell, 1995, p. 91). Learning to respond to confusion helps students understand themselves,
others, and the world better. In their intellectually safe community, generally participants
reported they learned to understand their own feelings and ideas better (see Table 19, item 4.8).

175

They understood their life situation better since they knew better what was going to happen in
their life (item 4.11).
These findings indicate that confusion is a necessary process for learning. When a person
experiences a new event, disequilibrium comes in until he/she is able to assimilate andaccommodate new information and then attain equilibrium. The equilibration involves the person
striking a balance between him/herself and the environment, and gets through the process of
assimilation, disequilibrium, and accommodation (Dasen, 1984; Lavatelli, 1973). Althoughsometimes participants felt puzzled, confused, unable to act, and uncertain about what is
intended or meant, it is actually an initial and basic stage to reach accurate or real understandingof something. In their intellectually safe community, not knowing the solution to resolve a
problem inspired participants to explore a variety of potential explanations, which gave them adeeper and broader sense to understand the issue. They reported that they thought about theirown thinking more than that in the beginning of the semester (see Table 9, item 3.19).
Multiple perspectives benefit learning. In the context of global movement andpluralism, the scope of education must be broadened to include diverse cultures and multiple
perspectives. Based on the premise that we live in an increasingly diverse society, multicultural
scholars advocated the notion that “multiculturalism is simply a fact-a condition of culture”(Oakes & Lipton, 1999, p. 3). Banks (2013) encouraged students to view concepts, issues,
themes, and problems from diverse backgrounds and different perspectives.
Nowadays we interact with a greater diversity of people and views than ever before. We
confront different values, skills, knowledge, and attitudes every day. We compare ourselves todifferent standards more than ever before because we have opportunity to engage more ineducational exchange among countries and international education than ever before. Thus we176

need to have awareness and develop the ability to accept and truly celebrate human diversity,
which is a trend of our emerging global society. If we lack education and experiences regarding
this reality, will students be able to obtain the skills, knowledge, and attitude to survive in thisfast growing diversified world? It is now a responsibility for teachers and educators to help
students and themselves transcend thinking beyond their accustomed narrow and partial
perspectives.
The Philosophical Inquiry class addressed this issue by exposing students to multiple
perspectives. Appreciation of learning from multiple perspectives permeated the students’qualitative data, including class inquiries, daily reflections, Philosophical Insight Papers, and the
Final Take-Home Reflection. Different perspectives made the class community of inquiry moreinteresting (Ikeda, 2012). Participants considered the emotions, thoughts, beliefs, priorknowledge, motives and intentions of others as well as themselves. They agreed that learning theperspectives of others helped them understand themselves better (see Table 9, item 3.28). So theself-corrective nature of philosophical inquiry helped participants revise and improve theirthinking (Matsuoka, 2012). They “see the beauty of dialogue; it is both a testing and challenging
of our perspectives as well as a playful and joyful pursuit for truth” (Lukey, 2012, p. 31).
Listening helps learning. Krishnamurti (1970) said that listening is one of the highest
and one of the greatest arts in life. When people communicate, they should listen with
understanding, with various depths of their being, not with memory, a preconception, a frozen
thought, or a particular form or view. Listening is not simple; there will always be intervening
scenes of our own thoughts, biases, prejudices, and conclusions. Students need to learn to listen
so that they can better listen to learn (Vandergrift, 2004). Yet nowadays, “We are losing our177listening. We spend roughly 60 percent of our communication time listening, but we’re not very
good at it. We retain just 25 percent of what we hear” (Treasure, 2011).
The PI class emphasized listening. The teacher asked the students to listen attentively
with empathy and care. Students also expressed that they listened with understanding andattention. When they exhibited good listening in the class, they would rate themselves a good
philosophical inquiry participant in the Philosophical Insight Paper. In other words, theparticipants considered listening as an important quality for classroom engagement. They
acknowledged that listening helped them build community and make connections (Toyoda, 2012;
Miller, 2013). Because of listening, students felt they were respected and mattered in the class.
Listening to their peers’ ideas, concerns, struggles, and successes helped them become more
empathic human beings.
Sense of coherence improves learning. According to Antonovsky (1987, 1991), senseof coherence is strengthened by life experiences with three specific features: predictability,
underload or overload balance, and participation in socially valued decision-making. Identity
refers to more than just how adolescents see themselves right now; it also includes what has beentermed the “possible self”—what individuals might become and who they would like to become(Markus & Nurius, 1986). Establishing a sense of identity has traditionally been thought of as thecentral task of adolescence (Erikson, 1968), although it is now commonly accepted that identity
formation neither begins nor ends during adolescence. Adolescents who are allowed the space
and time to explore various possibilities are able to establish a clear sense of identity and selfawareness. The PI participants established a realistic and coherent sense of identity by relating toothers and understanding themselves in an intellectually safe context. In the class, they
developed their thinking ability, which is evidenced in the PIQ and SOC surveys, to consciously178sort through who they are and what they can be. They wanted to be themselves, were interested
in gaining happiness and achieving success, and determined to live a balanced and selfactualizing life. They wanted to unite with others to create a better community and a better world.
The clearer understanding of their future and the world strengthened their comprehensibility. PI
participants gained confidence and felt a sense of continuity and security in the class as well
(Modin, Ostberg, Toivanen, & Sundell, 2011).
Adolescent cognitive enhancements lay the groundwork for moral reasoning (Eisenberg,
Carlo, Murphy, & Van Court, 1995). The PI participants developed a moral sense of helping andcaring for others, and values of ethical behaviors. The process of philosophical enquiry leads tomoral action and positive social conduct in the form of respecting others, taking differences, andbehaving ethically and responsibly (Makaiau, 2010). In the class, participants felt an optimalbalance of class demands, an availability of resources for accomplishing a task, an ability to use
their skills and knowledge to question and inquire, and a sense of autonomy to direct inquiries,
their manageability is enhanced (Modin, Ostberg, Toivanen, & Sundell, 2011). They found abalance in learning at the PI course.
The PI participants were concerned about building and maintaining relationships with
their classmates and teachers through sharing, trust, respect, and support. They learned to takeother people’s perspectives and intentions into account when posing questions, engaging incommunities of inquiries. Kohlberg (1969, 1981), Reimer, Paolitto, and Hersh (1983), andSnarey’s (1995) research also supported these findings. When participants found studying andinteracting with their peers an important source of meaningfulness, their motivation andengagement in learning were increased (Modin, Ostberg, Toivanen, & Sundell, 2011).

179

Meaning of life in adolescence. Adolescents become “increasingly aware of theirconcern with values, identity, religion, morality, politics, marriage, family, education, careers,and interpersonal relations” (Dreyfus, 1972, p. 1). “They can no longer pin their hopes anddreams on their parents and the promise offered” (p. 4). In the PI course, each participant
searched for meaning in his/her own way. Liko wanted to follow nature’s way, Makali
considered that an accurate evaluation of his life situation and good decision-making would lead
him to a better life; Peleke thought life’s pattern was like Yin and Yang, and he should always
stay in a state of neutrality; Nahele and Kalani were interested searching for balanced and happy
lives. The research findings suggested that these six adolescents were searching, choosing andcommitting themselves to goals and meanings and expected a better future ahead but also anxiety
about moving to an independent life and reconstructing their own life on the other.
Maughn (2011) described that in Philosophy for Children, students usually practice“political and ethical interdependence”, aim to gain practical wisdom, and contemplate betterways to live (p. 206). They “continually seek out the true, the beautiful and the good ascategories of existential meaning – the kind of meaning that can be lived”. The “hidden
curriculum” of P4C has to do with the ethical, the aesthetic, and the political aspects of humanexperience (p. 207). Students are willing to correct their beliefs and values, and rediscover themeaning in their own ways. The PI participants seemed to search for meaning through“interpersonal and intrapersonal harmony” and peace (p. 2). They wanted meaning throughintimacy with their peers, their teacher, and themselves. They were concerned with building upsocial and emotional relationships and connections within the class and beyond. Each of themdeveloped a firmer and more cohesive sense of personal identity and wanted to be themselves.

180

They wanted to define and construct their own meaning of life. The future task for them “is to
explore what in himself [and herself] gives meaning to the world” (Dreyfus, 1972, p. 5).
The participants were concerned with social injustice, ethical problems, increased
technology and pollution, racism, and world politics in their cooperative inquiry. It seemed that
all the serious questions raised in the class grew out of their “different conceptions, expressed or
implicit, of what society [and human being] is and should be” (Campbell, 1995, p. 243). Theydeveloped awareness of “the unity of humanity,” the oneness of mankind (Frankl, 1969, p. 98),
since they questioned whether the white man has color and why people could only see their own
ethnic group arise. In the process of discovery they encountered apparent chaos, confusion, andanxiety. This is possibly the reason why their meaningfulness score did not improve. Dewey
described,
the joy of constant discovery and of constant growing…is possible even in the midst oftrouble and defeat, whenever life-experiences are treated as potential disclosures ofmeanings and values that are to be used as means to a fuller and more significant future
experience. (Campbell, 1995, p. 64).
Their life goals and life meanings were reconstructed or reexamined during the philosophicalinquiry course because of their social constructive learning experiences. Their personal task andpersonal commitment provided them with a basis for a new meaning of life with which to informtheir future living.
Application of Learning
After reading about the philosophical inquiry learning process, it may be of your interest
to know what behaviors the PI participants exhibited, what dispositions they manifested, or whatsocial, ethical or political consequences they had. The communities of inquiries supported an181

engaging and dynamic reflection into practice. It has been conducive to a paradigmatic shift intheir consciousness. Their ability to consolidate and use the information they learned from otherclasses was strengthened during the process of sharing their thoughts and ideas, listening toothers, and formulating responses. When they learned from multiple perspectives, they also
demonstrated willingness to re-think and revise their own ideas and viewpoints, and put this into
practice. They used the GTTK questions in their PI course and beyond. They kept wondering
about the questions they discussed in the classroom, and even shared them with their parents andfriends.
Their posttest average transformative learning score (4.38) strongly suggest that their
existence became more authentic. As Frankl explained, “Self-transcendence is the essence of[human] existence. Being human is directed to something other than itself” (p. 50). They wereable to mold for themselves a more meaningful and significant life experience, because they not
only realized their freedom, but they were also fully aware of their responsibility. There is plentyof meaning waiting for their responses, such as the polluted environment, underprivileged people,
or with respect to social justice. Their growth resonates with Dewey’s theory that “Education is
the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (Campbell, 1995, p. 214).
In this interdisciplinary course, students and teachers worked together to improve theirthinking and community, and constructed their meaning and purpose. In the community ofinquiry, students connected to their self, to the world, and built up relationships with the self andthe world. They did not have to memorize dates, facts and events, but participated in democracy
and making changes in the world. They approached the subjects matter with deeper thinking, andused the new mind to direct their future decisions and lives. The teacher-facilitated, inquiry-182based curriculum encouraged “the continuity of plasticity and the growth of a reflective mind”(Schertz, 2007, p. 196).
Learning by doing. Having the PI students teach others what they have learned benefitedthem immensely. The Waimanalo Intermediate school experience not only challenged them to bea real p4cHI facilitator but also helped them to become better PI participants. The experience
helped them realize “the ties that bind them to all the other members of the community,
recognizing the responsibility they have to contribute to the upbuilding of the life of thecommunity” (Campbell, 1995, p. 218). For example, I had chance to observe Makali’sfacilitation in a classroom. In his inquiry with students, he used a term discussed in the PI course,“ethical egoist,” to question: what will happen if no one makes sacrifice, and everyone just wants
to be happy?” This showed that he transferred his new learning to his life and his teaching. In thedebrief session back at KHS, he shared that: “It took a year for me to know how to dophilosophy. But just after one operation, I understand it much better. I would prefer schools start
doing philosophy earlier from 6th grade.”
Learning by doing helped the PI participants understand the concept and pedagogy of
p4cHI better. They strengthened their sense of self-worth and competence when they received
recognition, approval, appreciation, and respect from their students. This experience created aninterest in all students in “furthering the general good, so that they will find their own happinessrealized in what they can do to improve the conditions of others” (Campbell, 1995, p. 217).
Students learned to think as an ethical member of the community. They are responsible forthemselves and the people around them.
Coming Back to Dewey and Vygotsky
The research questions presented in this study – high school students’ academic

183

engagement and understanding of their life meaning, requires a theoretical perspective that
accounts for both aspects. In the 1930s, Dewey (1938) proposed the radical transformation ofschools that contributed to the creation of career and technical education courses in order topromote student engagement (Fletcher, 2014). According to Dewey, first, academic achievement
is positively influenced by the amount of active and collaborative participation in the learning
process (Coates, 2007). Second, authentic interest can be best achieved when teachers are able tofind the students preferences, needs, and skills in the subject matter. The planning and teaching,
the studies and topics included in the course of study should enrich students’ lives and consider
their direct interest. Third, one way to reinvigorate schooling is to make more use of students’
out-of-school experiences, as they are more likely to encourage reflection. Engagement occurs
when students engage in activities related to their interests and competence (Marcum, 2014).
In the context of the Kailua High School Philosophical Inquiry social studies curriculum,
students actively engage in their community of inquiry and take the major responsibility for theirlearning. Learning by doing (Comenius, 1896), or the incorporation of activity and experience inthe classrooms is at the heart of Philosophical Inquiry class. Philosophical Inquiry students“grow[ed] in their own natural self-actualizing ways” rather than getting trained by imposed
knowledge and skills (Schiro, 2008, p. 98). The Philosophical Inquiry class integrated students’prior experiences and knowledge structures, considered their interests and needs, encouraged
their active participation, deepened and broadened their thinking and inquiry, and inspired
multiple perspectives, their academic engagement improved substantially at the end of thesemester, which is both supported by student quantitative and qualitative data. Students had aexperience (Dewey, 1938) in the PI course, because they started from building a community andasking questions, and eventually they learned to cope with emotions, trust their own thinking,184

and better solve problems. Their learning experiences culminated in their application of newlearning and transformation of living philosophies.
According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, first, academic engagement requires
intellectual and affective involvement. Students’ cognitive development occurs with social,emotional, motivational investment during activities. Second, a social constructivist classroom ishighly literate place where students and teachers can exchange ideas effectively. Third, theactivities designed in the classrooms no matter it is reading or writing, are shared socially(Palinscar, 1998). When students participate in challenging activities, the more capable peers andteachers will guide and support the learners’ learning and thinking. Social interaction thus plays
a fundamental and inseparable role in the process of cognitive development (Oakes & Lipton,1999). Fourth, since environmental factors affect students learning experiences it’s necessary tocreate a safe and supportive environment in the classroom.
The main Vygotskian theories at work in the Philosophical Inquiry classroom is the ideathat a student’s cultural development appears in two levels. First, they raised their own questions
on an individual level. Then they voted and discussed questions on a social level in their Plain
Vanilla inquiries. They internalized new knowledge and reconstructed their understandings froman interpsychological to an intrapsychological level (Vygotsky, 1978). The PI participants “cometo think for themselves through the internalization of social practices” (Cam, 2006, p. 45). As
Philip Cam writes, “it would be a natural extension of Vygotskian psychology to suggest thatchildren come to think for themselves through the internalization of social practices” (p. 45).
In PI students’ learning process, collaboration, cooperation, and assisted performance
were commonplace (Makaiau, 2010). Social interaction played an important role in thedevelopment of students’ cognitive improvement. According to Vygotsky (1978), much

185

important learning by the person occurs through social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor
may model behaviors and/or provide semiotic mediations as they interact with each other (Tharp& Gallimore, 1991). Through the cooperative or collaborative dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978), social
interaction and the process of cooperative activity, the higher cognitive processes arise from theactions and speech of others (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Students’ improvement in philosophicalreflection, academic engagement, sense of coherence, and transformative experience in thesurveys provided strong evidence that students’ learning outcomes could be maximized when
they work cooperatively in a community of inquiry and engage in intellectual work
collaboratively (Lipman, 1988; Miller, 2012)
The development of PI participants’ learning is integrally related to the second importantprinciple of Vygotsky (1978), the Zone of Proximal Development. This is an important conceptthat relates to the difference between what an individual can achieve independently and what anindividual can achieve with guidance and collaboration from capable peers and teachers (Tharp& Gallimore, 1991). In each Plain Vanilla discussion, students would raise questions they
wondered about. At the beginning, they always wanted to explore more possible answers within
the community of inquiry. After collaborative inquiry, they could transcend the Zone of
Proximal Development by assimilating different perspectives and internalizing new/changed
ideas. They consolidated their understanding of questions and issues in and beyond theclassroom. Participants reported that their transformative learning experience improved in the
PIQ survey. The transformations in their knowledge structures and functions occurred after theclass.

186

Educational Significance and Implications
Building on Makaiau’s study (2010), this research investigated student academic
engagement and meaning construction across disciplines that included philosophy, education,and psychology. This collaboration extends her study in the area of curriculum-based identity
interventions. Furthermore, no published studies were found examining student’s
psychological wellbeing - their sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1987) in the field ofPhilosophy for Children. Most previous studies were designed to better understand students’cognitive development. Attention to students’ psychological and emotional development
tended to be limited to consideration of such factors as empathy, being a responsible ethicalcommunity member, and the joyous learning and transformative learning experiences. The
author developed a Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire to investigate student cognitive andsocio-affective development and perceptions of their learning experiences in a philosophicalinquiry class. Although it is a pilot study, it will inform future survey design and alongitudinal study on the community of philosophical inquiry.
“It is the job of the educational system to help foster freedom by helping individuals tothink better, to observe more clearly and to judge more adequately.” This freedom in Dewey’s
sense is “not the right of each individual to do as he pleases,” but freedom of intelligence that“enable[s] an individual to make his own special contribution to the interests of society.” A
genuine freedom rests in “the trained power of thought, in ability to ‘turn things over’ (Campbell,
1995, p. 170-171). If educators give students opportunities to “think for themselves,” (Lipman,
Sharp, & Oscanyam, 1980, p. 13) and think in “responsible, respectful ways” (Jackson, 2012, p.
5), authentic thinking and inquiry will take place (Makaiau & Miller, 2012; Jones, 2012; Lukey,2012).

187

The sense of wonder is “the mark of the philosopher. Philosophy indeed has no otherorigin” (Plato, 1961, p. 155). Inquiries grow out of students’ genuine wondering and questioning(Jackson, 2001). “This natural disposition to wonder is the first step in a process of making senseof our world,” and the heart of philosophical inquiry. However, because of the high stakes
testing, students and their teachers often only have time to get through materials in order to pass
the test. Their genuine sense of wonder, awe, and appreciation of learning is ignored. Teachersconsequently cannot fulfill their convictions about good education (Makaiau & Miller, 2012, p.
10; Jason, 2001). In the p4cHI environment, students awakened their spirit to wonder, toquestion, to explore, and to experiment. Imagining a world, wouldn’t it be nice if educators could
make classroom environments grounded in our human curiosity for exploration, own enthusiastic
desire to construct our own self-defined meaning?
One current crisis in education is that students lack real interpersonal connections.
Although contemporary formal education helps students gain tremendous external knowledge,
accumulate skills and wealth to become good citizens and become members of the working
force, emphasis on the basics of human life and existence such as health, happiness, and humanvalues are too often overlooked or entrirely missing throughout the worldwide educational
systems (Ozmon & Craver, 2007). While education and schooling increasingly strives tointegrates technology into teaching and learning, the high-speed Internet and social
communication tools seem not to strengthen the internal and physical connections among
students and communities (Xu, 2013). Younger generations experience this lack of intimacy to amuch greater extent. Many adolescents are out of touch with themselves, with others, withnature, with the environment, and with the time they live (Roberts, Henriksen, & Foehr, 2009).

188

“Man, by temperament a social being, cannot easily tolerate such isolation; he wants andstrives for companionship, intimacy, and relatedness – with himself and others – and today [he]feels thwarted and frustrated in these attempts” (Dreyfus, 1972, p. 31). So it is necessary forhuman beings to build a more caring, connected and compassionate world through education thatis based on patience, tolerance and forgiveness (Dalai Lama, 2014). p4cHI practitioners areconcerned with how to live responsibly, creatively, and cooperatively as human beings. The
p4cHI community of inquiry creates the space and the opportunity for students to makefundamental connections within their individual selves and with other people. It assists students
in making connections in their own thinking, between their emotions and their thinking, andother aspects of their self. It fosters better student and teacher connections as they participate incooperative learning. Students get a sense of belonging, sharing, and being together in the class.
Education now cannot fully satisfy students’ psychological and social needs. That’s one
reason that students do not feel engaged in their schooling, or even cannot construct meaning thatguides and motivates their future development. Human beings have strong needs for identity,either identify the meaning of our life or have a sense of purpose (Frankl, 1969). We also have afundamental need to explore the world and pursue personal growth (Dewey, 1997). Deci and
Ryan’s (1991, 2008) research summarized that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are theconditions that nurture intrinsic motivation. When students experience autonomy, competence
and relatedness in areas of their lives, they are more likely to perform their tasks better, achieve agreater sense of well being, and have better personal and social integration and growth instead ofhigher levels of coercion, frustration, and alienation. Authentic interest for learning is achieved
by giving students autonomy to direct their own learning.

189

To learn, adolescents need to feel safe and supported. Without these conditions, the mind
reverts to a focus on tension, stress, or anxiety. Starting on the first day of class, the p4cHI circle
uses the community ball to encourage each participant to define an intellectually safe and unsafe
environment. Then a comfortable and healthy classroom dynamic is established. “Explicitly
creating safe and caring communities of inquiry is primary and essential” educational practice(Makaiau & Miller, 2012). It is the very heart of p4cHI inquiry (Ikeda, 2012). The researchfindings presented here provide evidence that an intellectually safe environment promoted
innovation, inquiry, and risk taking.
One goal of education is to cultivate citizens with empathy and compassion with others
and the world (Damon, 1988; Noddings, 2002; Nussbaum, 1995; Verducci, 2000a, 2000b). In thecontext of multiculturalism, empathy is “promoted as a bridge between differences, the affective
reason for engaging in democratic dialogue with the other” (Boler, 1999, p. 156). However
empathy’s educability and acquisition within the classroom remains an area that needs further
exploration (Verducci, 2000b). The community of inquiry, the inquiry-based pedagogy used in
the Philosophy for Children approach to education provided students with means to engage ininteractions that support the sharing of affective states, which had shown to promote further
development of empathy (Schertz, 2007). The Philosophical Inquiry course supported a“fundamental communicative process that allows for the intersubjective sharing of feeling statesand subjectivities” and fostered “personal and societal growth and transformation” (p. 187). In
the PI course, students learned to appreciate and accept multiple subjectivities, and engage withbeliefs that may hold completely different opinions. In the PIQ survey, results showed thatperspective taking, listening, and caring others improved students’ empathy. Nahele and Kalani
were active participants in the community of inquiry, but they knew that they should give Liko

190

and Kalani opportunities to share. Role taking is human’s most advanced empathic ability,
because it needs deliberate effort and practice (Hoffman, 2000; Ickes, 1997). Ultimately the
Philosophical Inquiry classroom became a place “of collective transition…, a nurturing
environment for interwoven body consciousness” (Schertz, 2007, p. 198).
Public schools are represented as “the promise of a democratic future and offeredpedagogical opportunities to provide the knowledge and skills for students to become criticallyengaged citizens” (Giroux, 2008, p. 8). However, students currently are often being treated asconsumers and test takers. The Philosophical Inquiry course constructed pedagogical approaches
that connect to students’ needs, interests, and contexts. It is a curriculum not only designed byeducational researchers, teachers, but more importantly by students in the State of Hawaiʻi(Makaiau et al., 2014). They transformed the traditional education that used prescribedcurriculum and established protocals into a deliberate democratic education that affirmed andenriched the “meaning, language, and knowledge forms that students actually use to negotiate
and inform their lives” (p. 17). Students became agents in their learning process and socialchange (Aronowitz, 1994; Said, 2004). The Philosophical Inquiry course made education “ notonly about issues of work and economics, but also about questions of justice, social freedom, andthe capacity for democratic agency, action, and change as well as the related issues of power,
exclusion, and citizenship” (Giroux, 2008, p. 15). If the school is to remain a site of public good,
critical thinking, and humanistic collaboration, educators will have to redefine the knowledge,
skills, attitudes, and practices currently being favored in high school’s social studies class inorder to bridge the gap between secondary education and the broader society.

191Limitations of the Study
It is important to note the quantitative methodological limitations involved in this study.
As previously discussed, an important limitation in this research is a limited sample size. The six
PI participants and thirty-three traditional social studies participants limited the ability to utilize
sophisticated statistical methodologies to conduct a quasi-experimental study (Shadish, Cook, &Campbell, 2002). Thus Study Two could not examine the complex relationships between theconstructs, such as examine whether there were significant differences between the two the PI
and traditional social studies groups after the PI experience, or check correlation between the
PIQ and SOC, or variables in these surveys to examine whether the psychological factors served
as mediators for student academic engagement. Future research would benefit from the use of alarger sample of both groups. Then the study could draw statistical inferences and make broader
generalizations from data analysis results.
Another important limitation of Study Two is that the PIQ is a newly createdquestionnaire for which psychometric properties have not yet been fully examined. Although thesurvey’s reliability coefficient 0.97 is satisfactory, it used only 39 students’ data. Thus future
study may consider the development of this survey and reliable measures for examining such
constructs based on at least 300 students’ response in order to draw rigorous statisticalconclusions regarding survey validation.
The third limitation of Study Two is the attrition of two participants due to absenteeism(Makali and Kanani), which is a threat to the internal validity. The attrition may lead toalternative explanations of data that account for the observed differences. Although students
improved their comprehensibility of SOC, decision-making and philosophical reflection
substantially after the PI intervention, these changes may be attributed to the compounding192

effects of their maturation and cognitive development. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the
PI and traditional social studies group may due to the age differences (Brewer, 2000).
The first limitation for Study One may be due to the researcher’s position. She was amember of the PI class community, so she built up social relationships with the participants. Inclass discussions, she had opportunities to share her understandings of a meaningful life and theright way to live, which may have introduced some bias during data collection.
Secondly, the findings from the six participants may not be generalizable to the larger
population because each participant brought into the PI course a unique background. Kalani
loved playing soccer, so he often emphasized community building. Peleke was interested in
Taoism, and he always stressed neutrality. Nahele lived in Korean for almost 10 years, and histhought was influenced by Buddhism. Liko always connected her family education into thelearning. Because Makali had to transfer to another school, during the middle semester he built
up more emotional connections with the class. Kanani needed to work for at least 10 hours perday, so she could not focus on study or come to the class. Due to these differences among theparticipants, it is appropriate to use multiple case studies to study each participant in depth. But
when PI classes recruit more participants, future studies may apply grounded theory or
phenomenological approach.
Lastly, it has been implied throughout this study that adolescents were interested insearching for a balanced life and the concepts of success and happiness. These ideas might beinfluenced by the teacher’s self-imposed moralistic demand or values. Although the teacher is a
co-participant with the PI students, she spent longer time in expressing her ideas and facilitating
the discussion. She chose the quote: “balance leads to success” to the class, and shared thatbalance is an important goal in her life. So students might be influenced by her opinions.

193

Recommendations for Future Research
Although the results of the present study are robust due to its rigourous empiricalresearch design, there remain many questions about the role of philosophical inquiry inpromoting students’ academic engagement and meaning construction that will need to beconsidered in future research efforts. The Kailua High School is a suburban public high school at
Honolulu, it will fill research gap if researchers consider conducting research in high performing
public schools, private schools, and urban schools in Hawaiʻi and beyond among all grade levels.
Makaiau, Leng and Fukui (2015)’s research showed that p4cHI approach to education could help
educators and researchers from different ethnic background reduce prejudice, facilitate
intercultural communication, and strengthen international collaboration, it will be important in
future research efforts to consider whether p4cHI exerts a similar effect upon K-12 or univeristy
students from different cultures. Millett and Tapper’s (2011) meta-analysis of the benefits ofcollaborative philosophical inquiry in schools also recommended that future research could
best adds to the scholarship of Philosophical for Children if it studies ethnically andgeographically diverse population of students. Incorporating non-Western philosophicaltraditions to broaden Philosophical for Children research is also recommended by Maughn(2011).
Youth violence is a world concern worthy of deeper understanding and community
intervention and support. The Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center
investigated various forms of interpersonal youth violence with communities in Hawaiʻi. They
found that p4cHI was instrumental in reducing and preventing interpersonal youth violence
problems. The p4cHI curriculum used in the Ethnic Studies course promoted cultural tolerance
and resilience through critical thinking, conflict resolution, and understanding diversity (Adler,

194

Chung, & Ongalibang, 2008; Carlton, B. S., Goebert, Miyamoto, Andrade, Hishinuma, Makini,& Nishimura, 2006). Nishinakada Elementary School in Japan incorporated p4cHI in theirclassroom discussions, researchers found that p4cHI helped students recover from thepsychological trauma that was created by the 2011 Tsunami. Students who lost their parents
began to share their inner emotions and experienced emotional catharsis. p4cHI revealed many
problems that orphans suffer and had become a tool for psychological counseling (UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015). Further research is needed to design and evaluate
p4cHI approach that promotes emotional and psychological well being regarding resilience andmental health in culturally appropriate ways.
In April, 2012, the Dalai Lama visited the Kailua High School when he learned that theunique p4cHI instructional method, which is a departure from the traditional top-down modeland prescribed curriculum, created a community of engaged student thinkers. The principal
remarked that there had been violent incidents and related suspensions, but because of thepositive influence of p4cHI, students gradually became peace contributors to the world (Eagle,2012). Future research could focus on examining p4cHI’s impact on peace education using
rigorous research design.
The Philosophical Inquiry naturally drew students and teachers’ attention to significant
aspects of classroom interaction, highlighted critical episodes of educational interaction: themeaning of intellectual safety, the necessity to question, freedom of thought and expression, thecultivation of caring and responsibility human beings, difficulty and controversy and theconditions that enable thinking and inquiry to flourish. In the philosophical community ofinquiry, students and teachers made important connections to much wider debates in society
about democracy, equality, human rights, education, power, nature, and pollution: debates that195

impinge on their identity and role, and future development. It provided an exceptional forum toexplore the risks and responsibilities that are entailed as a student and a citizen and the courageand determination required to bring about a cultural and societal change (Haynes & Murris,2012). Moments of disequilibrium in the collaborative community of philosophical inquiry were
to be expected and were educative in each participant (Murris, 2008). Critical episodes
experienced in the context of incorporating philosophical inquiry into the compulsory school
curricula and classroom are particularly valuable ‘resources’ for both students and teachers’
professional development. “Teacher education needs to provide a much stronger foundation inphilosophical methods that can inform professional practical judgments, by embedding them in theongoing investigation of classroom practice and the lives of teachers and students in educational
communities” (Haynes & Murris, 2011, p. 299).
Most of the teachers who have engaged with Philosophy for Children and used it withstudents over a period of time felt that they had gained skills as facilitators (Darrens, 2013). They
realized that their teaching style had been more collaborative. They ability to prompt students’
thinking and questioning improved as well. Teachers were more aware skills that students weredeveloping, and students who were not participating. This highlighted students that may needextra support or encouragement. The mostly commonly reported changes were adopting a lessteacher-lead approach, focusing more on the students, not providing answers or fillingknowledge but allowing students to express their feelings and thoughts, and giving students
opportunities to wonder and reflect. Daniel and Auriac (2009) reported that experienced teachers
who experienced the community of philosophical inquiry widened and deepened their teachingknowledge, developed their thinking skills and a personal and critical re-appropriation of theirteaching experience, and their self-esteem. Thus it would be valuable if future research could196

investigate the Philosophical Inquiry classroom teacher’s professional development and teaching
and learning experiences.
China is undergoing an educational reform that calls for a change from a rigid, fixedcurriculum and didactic pedagogy to a more flexible, student-centered curriculum and inquirybased pedagogy. The rigid text-based curriculum mandated from top down and the didactic
nature of teaching that deeply rooted in Chinese educational system are seen as at odds with themain goals of educational reform and holistic student development (Lan, 2010). Wang (2010)
argued that in order to shift emphasis from exams to student abilities, there is a need to rebuild
the school culture that motivates administrators, teachers, and students in an entirely different
direction, a culture that values a set of student qualities beyond basic knowledge and skills.
Many people in China now advocate for democratic citizenship and the critical and creative
thinking ability. Hence, p4cHI fits into the big picture of Chinese educational reform. Therefore
research that studies the implications of Philosophical Inquiry class to Chinese education isfavorable in Chinese educational context.
Conclusion
To the extent that I have offered a perspective to those who want to engage inphilosophical inquiry, who wants to learn p4cHI more, or who are trying to understand youth andtheir concerns, I have achieved my goal. I intended to portray a picture of six adolescents, theirperceptions and their philosophies in an engaging philosophical inquiry classroom, and theirsearch for meaning, as I have grown to understand from them through my role as a student,
researcher, and friend.
In determining an appropriate and holistic approach to investigating students’ learning
experiences, this study involves multiple forms of data collection, specifically survey

197questionnaires, student work, focus group interview, classroom discussions, and reflective notes.
These data collection methods make sure the quantity, quality and sufficiency of the data
gathered captured, interpreted, and explained students’ complex learning experiences. Applying
both qualitative and quantitative methods, this study developed a deeper understanding of whatclassroom contexts, conditions, discourses, tools and practices promote adolescent learning
experiences.
Through six real-life case studies and a cross case analysis, Study One summarizedreasons why the PI participants engaged in learning and their perceptions of a meaningful life. It
developed a conceptual framework of student academic engagement in the Philosophical Inquiry
class based on salient themes that appeared in student data. In brief, the six participants’
perceptions of an engaging philosophical inquiry classroom can be categorized into three main
themes: First, maintaining a safe and positive classroom environment is a fundamental condition
for learning. Second, asking questions, sharing ideas, listening attentively, thinking deeply, andmaking connections are the manifestations of an engaging classroom in the philosophical inquiry
process. Third, students transcend their learning experiences by living a new philosophy.
Study Two conducted two surveys with these six Philosophical Inquiry participants andthirty-three traditional social studies participants. The Philosophical Inquiry Questionnairefindings indicated that PI participants’ global learning outcomes that include students’ ability toengage in philosophical reflection, to make decisions, to be a responsible and ethical member ofthe community, and to show empathy to others were improved after the PI experience. The Sense
of Coherence Scale results suggested that PI students’ global sense of coherence was improved
after the PI experience as well. Participants could make more sense of the world and the events that
happened in their daily lives. They were more able to manage resources to solve problems and make198

informed decisions. The most interesting finding in the Sense of Coherence Scale was thatparticipants did not improve their Meaningfulness score, which suggests that these teenagers werestill in the process figuring out their identity and what their future life will be.
Personal Reflection
Every time I went into the philosophical inquiry classroom, hearing the birds singing,watching students writing their reflections and inquiring deeply into the questions they genuinely
wondered about with each other, I felt that I dived into a peaceful sea of consciousness. This
research was a healing and unique experience for me. Because of researching and learning in theclass, I was mindful of my thinking, my heart, and my life. I felt I was living in the present
moment and developing a sense of cohesiveness. The Philosophical Inquiry course resonatedwith my philosophy of life, which is a life of enjoyment, a life of learning, and a life ofreflection. The class fulfilled the three dimensions of my life and helped me integrate myintuition, emotions, thoughts, past, present, and future together. It made me realize deeply that
education would cultivate a better self if we provide students with a time and space to reflect andreconnect within themselves, with others and the world.
Conducting this research was also my identity exploration process. From June 17, 2013, I
started my self-study journaling project with two of my colleagues in order to figure out myresearch questions and design. In the beginning, I did not know what I should write in thisdissertation but just knew that I want to contribute to the development of Chinese education andpursue my interests in education and psychology. I thought if I understood whom I am, where I
come from, and where I want to go, I could be able to find a dissertation topic I want to engage
with. Then I started to question what kind of human being I want to be and what kind of students
I want to nurture. As time went by and as I kept the journal with my colleagues, I decided to199narrow down my research focus on students’ academic engagement and meaning searching.
Based on the research questions, I began to design the research and form a dissertationcommittee.
I used the journal as a tool to reflect on my dissertation writing and data collection andanalysis process. I felt that I was communicating with my true self, a self that was not affected by
the worldly phenomenon but realized by my true heart. On June 25, 2013, I recorded that “I feelI am a chicken with head cutting off. I keep running around, but forget where to head for.” On
October 19, 2013, I wrote, “I just feel more power and momentum to do PI and p4cHI
research…. I hope one day you two…go with me to China to spread the PI and p4cHI seeds andwatch it growing into a prosperous forest.” The journal I wrote one and a half years ago
reminded me why I came to the U.S. to study, what resonated with my deep heart, and where I
wanted to go in the future.
In the Philosophical Inquiry class, there was a revolution in teacher and student
relationships and educational structures. According to research findings, the philosophicalinquiry could motivate students because their own opinions, ideas, needs, and contributions
could shape the evolution of the dialogue and curriculum. The class freed students from being
forced to accept teacher-derived preconceptions of moral truth. They could be themselves andfree thinkers. Education became a site of cultural reproduction. The Philosophical Inquirytransforms the fundamental norms and traditional culture of a classroom into a community ofinquiry. The teacher facilitator believed that learners could be able to actively create, interpret,
reorganize, and reconstruct knowledge in individual and meaningful ways. This nature ofteaching made me reflect on what kind of educator I want to be in the future. I want to be an200

educator who helps students keep their sense of wonderment, and who fires students’ passion inpursuing their dreams and interests.
I am a product of Chinese traditional education that advocates knowledge transmission
and diligent learning without much questioning. I was exposed to teacher-centered instruction,
one correct answer-based subject matter, and never-ending test drills and practice. My personal
education history furnished me with a mental model of teaching unconsciously. Influenced by
Confucius style teaching, I tend to teach students how to think and behave, but not on what theyshould think. Sometimes it is more comfortable to use this model to imagine course objectives,
develop student activities and plan for assessments. This makes me feel I do the right and proper
thing in a Chinese classroom. But in p4cHI, I need to break those chains and learn to ask myself:“Is my role to transmit knowledge or nurture independent and critical thinkers? Can I reallyshow respect to every student’s ideas? Am I here to learn from my students? Am I flexible
enough to allow students to guide their own learning process? Am I sensible enough to respondto students’ needs and interests?”
I feel a p4cHI facilitator should make the learning space as comfortable and intellectuallysafe as possible. My role is to cove the community of inquiry forward, but within a broad rangeof parameters that stresses critical thinking, reflection, clarity, open-mindedness, and good
judgment. The facilitator keeps philosophical inquiry on track, respects the natural flow of
inquiry, enriches the discussion, and gently direct the discussion, but without imposing his or her
ideas and agenda. Learning from p4cHI, I am forming a new teaching philosophy, which is toconnect to students’ prior knowledge and experience and relate to their interests. Based on astrong psychological foundation, I can be able to transmit all the big ideas to students, make surestudents master the knowledge, and gain the skills in an exploratory way. Further, in my future201

teaching, I always need to assess and examine my teaching practice, and also give students
opportunities to assess their learning and development together, especially areas for
improvement.
The contradicted cultural values in Chinese and U.S. education made me think what is
culturally valuable enough in thought, feeling, and action as to deserve transmission to the next
generation. Besides thinking of my teaching styles, I also consider the purpose of education.
Probably the goal of education is to aid every individual to achieve their unique potential thatthey may make their unique contribution to society. The result is an aristocracy of everyone.

202

REFERENCES
Adler, C., Chung-Do, J., & Ongalibang, O. (2008). Safe school task force: University–community partnership to promote student development and a safer school environment.
Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 2(4),301-306.
Albertini, T. (2012). “What do you want to talk about?”- p4c lessons in the family. Educational
Perspectives, 44(1&2), 51.
Alexander, T. M. (1993). The human eros. In Stuhr J. J. (Ed.), Philosophy and the reconstructionof culture: Pragmatic essays after Dewey (pp. 203-222). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 93108.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping: New perspectives on mental and physicalwell-being. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and staywell. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1991). The structural sources of salutogenic strengths. In C. L. Cooper, & R.
Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: Individual differences on the stress process (pp. 67104). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social
Science and Medicine, 36, 725-733.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

203

Armes, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk& J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Aronowitz, S. (1994). A different perspective on educational inequality. The Review of
Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 16(2), 135-151.
Astin, A., & Astin, H. (2003). The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college
students’ search for meaning and purpose. The Dallas Morning News.
Azer, S. A. (2008). Use of portfolios by medical students: significance of critical thinking. The
Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 24(7), 361-366.
Azer, S. A. (2009). Interactions between students and tutor in problem-based learning: The
significance of deep learning. The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 25(5), 240249.
Azer, S. A., Guerrero, A. P., & Walsh, A. (2013). Enhancing learning approaches: Practical tips
for students and teachers. Medical teacher, 35(6), 433-443.
Ballantyne, R., Bain, J. D., & Packer J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia:
Themes and issues in academics’ reflections. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 237-257.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood
Cliffs.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Banks, J. (2013). An introduction to multicultural education. Seattle: Pearson.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: The Free Press.
Bengtsson, J. (1995). What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher
education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 23-33.
204

Benson, P. L., & Saito, R. N. (2001). The scientific foundations of youth development. In Trends
in Youth Development (pp. 135-154). Springer US.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education. America Online: College Online.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualizationof educational practice. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm ofinstructional theory, 2, 269-292.
Biesta, G. (2009). Philosophy, exposure, and children: How to resist the instrumentalisation ofphilosophy in education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British
Educational Research Association, Engsleigh Gardens, London.
Bleazby, J. (2007). Social construction learning: Using Philosophy for Children and John
Dewey to overcome problematic dualisms in education and philosophy (Doctoral
dissertation, University of New South Wales).
Bleazby, J. (2011). Overcoming relativism and absolutism: Dewey’s ideals of truth and meaningin philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 453.
Bleazby, J. (2012). Dewey’s notion of imagination in Philosophy for Children.
Education and Culture, 28(2), 95-111.
Bluestein, J. (2001). Creating emotionally safe schools: A guide for educators and parents.
Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Brady, M. (2006). Why thinking ‘outside the box’ is not so easy. Education Week, 47- 49.
Brassai, L., Piko, B. F., & Steger, M. F. (2012). Existential Attitudes and Eastern European
Adolescents' Problem and Health Behaviors: Highlighting the Role of the Search for
Meaning in Life. Psychological Record, 62(4), 719.
Brewer, M. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In Reis, H. & Judd, C. (Eds.)

205

Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000). Ecological systems theory. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 129-133). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser &P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences(Vol. 10, pp. 6963-6970). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on humandevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Board of Children, Youth, and Families (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high schoolStudents’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: emotions and education. New York: Routledge.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquirybased teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research &Development, 22(1), 3-18.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.
McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and research.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, B. B. & Larson (2009). Adolescent peer relationships. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 74-103). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative
ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child206

development, 1101-1113.
Bühler, C. (1968). The course of human life as a psychological problem. Human Development,
11(3), 184-200.
Burgh, G., Field, T. & Freakley, M. (2006). Ethics and the community of inquiry: Education for
deliberative democracy. Melbourne: Thompson Social Science Press.
Butnor, A. (2012). Critical communities: Intellectual safety and the power of disagreement.
Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 29-31.
Cam, P. (2006). Philosophy and the school curriculum: Some general remarks. Critical andCreative Thinking, 14(1), 35–51.
Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago:
Open Court Publishing Company.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E. & Regalia, C. (2006). The impact of perceived family efficacy
beliefs on adolescent development. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefsof adolescents (pp. 97-115). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Carlton, B. S., Goebert, D. A., Miyamoto, R. H., Andrade, N. N., Hishinuma, E. S., Makini, G.
K., & Nishimura, S. T. (2006). Resilience, family adversity and well-being among
Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian adolescents. International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
52(4), 291-308.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
Coffey, A. M. (2014). Using video to develop skills in reflection in teacher education students.

207

Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(9), 86.
Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2005). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M.
Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 331361). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Colvin, A. (2004). Expanding the circle of inquiry: Introduction Philosophy for Children in the
People’s Republic of China. Thinking, 17(1&2), 37-39.
Comenius, J. A. (1896). The great didactic of John Amos Comenius. (M. W. Keatinge, Trans.).
London: Adam and Charles Black. (Original work published 1657).
Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). At the heart of what we do: Values education at the centerof schooling—The final report of the values education good practice schools project—
Stage 2. Carlton South: Curriculum Corporation.
Combs, A. W. (1965). The professional education of teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cook Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: Student voice in educational research andreform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-90.
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: concepts and applications. New Jersey: Prentic-Hall,Inc.
Crawford, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 43-62.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education.
New York: Knopf.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

208

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots ofsuccess and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for theworld of work. New York: Basic Books.
Crumbaugh, J. C. (1968). Cross-validation of purpose in life test based on Frankl’s concepts.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 24, 74-81.
Dahlbom, B., & Mathiassen, L. (1992). Systems development philosophy. ACM SIGCAS
Computers and Society, 22(1-4), 12-23.
Dalai Lama, (1999). “Education and the human heart.” In S. Glazer (Ed.), The heart of learning:
Spirituality in education (pp. 85-95). USA: Penguin Group.
Dalai Lama (2012). The Problem of Craving and Addiction [Video File]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/300-mind-and-life-xxvii---craving-desire-andaddiction
Dalai Lama (2014, August 24). Discussing Secular Ethics [Video File]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dalailama.com/news/post/1159-discussing-secular-ethics
Damon, W. (1998). Handbook of child psychology. New York: J. Wiley.
Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy,591, 13-24.
Daniel, M. F. & Auriac, E. (2009). Philosophy, critical thinking, and philosophy for

209

children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 10, 1–21.
Darrens, G. (2013). Philosophy for Children: Developing active learning in the primaryclassroom. SAGE publication.
Dasen, R. Pierre. (1984). The cross-cultural study of intelligence: Piaget and the Baoule.
International Journal of Psychology, 19, 407-434.
De Bono, E. (1991). The direct teaching of thinking in education and the CoRT method.
In Maclure, S. (Ed.), Learning to think: Thinking to learn. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation(pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological method. New
York: McGrawu-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Qualitative research. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). The process and product of reflective activity: Psychological process andlogical forms. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8, pp. 171-186).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reﬂective thinking to the210educative process. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier- Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum and the school and society. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
De Vogler, E. & Ebersole, P. (1985). Depth of meaning in life: Explicit rating criteria.
Psychological Reports, 56(1), 303-310.
Dreyfus, E. A. (1972). Youth: Search for meaning. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing
Company.
Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Eagle, N. (2012). Philosophy for children: promoting peace in the classroom. Civil Beat,
Honolulu, HI.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1992). The development of achievement-task values: A theoreticalanalysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Shiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Social, emotional, and personality development handbook of child psychology, volume 3(pp. 1017-1096). New York: Wiley.
Echeverria, E. (1992). El aprendizaje y la utilización del pensamiento crítico. Una
investigación etnográfica. En Aprender a pensar, 5, 60-69.
Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Court, P. (1995). Prosocial development in lateadolescence: a longitudinal study. Child development, 66(4), 1179-1197.

211

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Eriksson, N. G., & T. Lundin. (1996). Early traumatic stress reactions among Swedish survivorsof the m/s Estonia disaster. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169(6), 713-716.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian
agenda. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.
Fields, J. I. (1995). Empirical data research into claims for using philosophy techniques withyoung children. Early Childhood Development and Care, 107(1), 115-128.
Fielding, M. (2004). New wave student voice and the renewal of civic society. London Review of
Education, 2(3), 197-217.
Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fink, A. & Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Fisher, R. (2008). Teaching thinking: Philosophical inquiry in the classroom. Europe:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Fletcher, A. (2014, March 16). Defining student engagement: A literature review [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.soundout.org/student-engagement-AF.pdf
Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Hormonal activation ofsocial and motivational tendencies. Brain and Cognition, 72, 66-72.
Foss, S. K., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Inviting transformation: Presentational speaking for achanging world. Waveland Press.
Fowler, J. (2014). Reflection: From staff nurse to nurse consultant. Part 1: the importance of212

reflection. British Journal of Nursing, 23(3), 1-2.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Frankl, V. E. (1955). The doctor and the soul. New York: Knoft.
Frankl, V. E. (1958). The will to meaning. Journal of Pastoral Care, 12, 82-88.
Frankl, V. E. (1959). From death-camp to existentialism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1966). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications to logotherapy.
Penguin.
Frankl, V. E. (1969). Psychotherapy and existentialism: Selected papers on logotherapy. New
York: A Plume Book.
Freese, A. R., & Strong, A. P. (2008). Establishing a learning community as a site to explore ourmulticultural selves. In Learning communities in practice (pp. 103-116). Springer
Netherlands.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Developmental benefits of extracurricular involvement:
Do peer characteristics mediate the link between activities and youth outcomes?. Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 507-520.
Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. In R. Eissler, A. Freud, H. Hartman, & M. Kris (Eds.),
Psychoanalytic study of the child (pp. 255-278). New York: International Universities
Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1980). Dialogue and dialectic: Eight hermeneutical studies on Plato.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1994). Truth and method. New York, NY: Continuum.
Garcia-Moriyon, F., Robello, I. & Colom, R. (2005). Evaluating Philosophy for Children: A
meta-analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4),14-22.

213

Giroux, H. A. (2008). Education and the crisis of youth: Schooling and the promise of
democracy. The Educational Forum, 73(1), 8-18.
Glazer, S. (1999). The heart of learning: Spirituality in education. USA: Penguin Group.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Goudge, T. A. (1950). The thought of C. S. Peirce. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering orcompelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233–258.
Graig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A. & Gholson, B. (2006). Deep level reasoning questions
effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level reasoning questions vicarious learning.
Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 563-589.
Granger, D. (2000). Before objectivism and relativism: Dewey on the meanings of growth.
Philosophy of Education, 164-167.
Grant, C. A. (1979). Classroom socialization: The other side of a two-way street. Educational
Leadership, 36(7), 470-73.
Greely, K. (2000). Why fly that way? Linking community and academic achievement.
New York: NY. Teachers College Press.
Groeben, N. (1994). Humanistic models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N.
Postlewhaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 2689-2692). New York:
Harper and Row.
Haas (1975). In Lipman,M. Sharp, A.M. & Oscanyo, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

214

Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hagemans, M. G., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). The effects of a concept map-based
support tool on simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of educational psychology,
105(1), 1.
Hall, G. S. (1969). Adolescence. New York: Arno Books.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods (Vol. 32). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Harter, S. (1988). Developmental processes in the construction of the self. In T.D. Yawkey & J.
E. Johnson (Eds.), Integrative processes and socialization: Early to middle childhood.
Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition andimplementation. Teaching and teacher education, 11(1), 33-49.
Hawaiʻi public schools course description catalog. (2014). Retrieved fromhttps://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/ACCNContentCourseDescription.
pdf
Healey, M., &, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry: Research
report to the higher education academy. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Heijne‐Penninga, M., Kuks, J., Hofman, W. H., & Cohen‐Schotanus, J. (2010). Assessment:
Influences of deep learning, need for cognition and preparation time on open‐and closed‐book test performance. Medical education, 44(9), 884-891.
Hergenhahn, B.R. (1976) An introduction to theories of learning, New Jersey, Prentice hall, Inc.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
Hinton, L. (2003a). Productive pedagogies: The links between new basics and philosophy in215

schools, Critical and Creative Thinking, 11(1), 24-30.
Hinton, L. (2003b). Reinventing a school. Critical and Creative Thinking, 11(2), 47-60.
Hirsch, Jr. (1996). The schools we need. New York: Doubleday.
Hittie, M. (2000). Building community in the classroom. International Education Summit,
Detroit, Michigan.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, B., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2006). Orchestrating interdependence in an international
online learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 733-748.
Hudson, B., Owen, D., & Veen, K. V. (2006). Working on educational research methods withMasters students in an international online learning community. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 37(4), 577-603.
Huntley, J., & Owens, L. (2006). I know they are manipulating me…Unmasking indirect
aggression in an adolescent girls’ friendship group: A case study. International Education
Journal, 7(4), 514-523.
Ickes, W. J. (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford Press.
Ikeda, J. (2012). The top 10 things I LOVE about p4c Hawai‘i. Educational Perspectives,44(1&2), 22-24.
Institute for the Advancement of P4C. (2002). IAPC research: Experimentation and qualitative
information. Retrieve from http://www.montclair.edu/pages/iapc/experimentalinfo.html
Jackson, T. (1998). Philosophy in the schools project: A guide for teachers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.p4cawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/TeachGuide.pdf
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “gently socratic” inquiry. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing216

minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, T. (2004). Philosophy for children Hawaiʻi an style – “On not being in a rush…”.
Thinking: Philosophy for Children, 17(1&2), 4-8.
Jackson, T. (2006). A gently Socratic enquiry. Journal of the Krishnamurti Schools, 7(10).
Jackson, T. (2011). P4C Hawaiian Style: We are not in a Rush. Paper presented at theAmerican Philosophical Association’s Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
Jackson, T. (2012). Home grown. Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 3-7.
Jackson. T. (2013). Philosophical rules of engagement. In S. Goering, N. Shudak & T.
Wartenberg (Eds.), Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers(pp. 99-109). New York: Routledge.
Jacobsen, B. (2007). Invitation to existential psychology: A psychology for the unique humanbeing and its application in therapy. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Jason, H. (2001). A heartfelt appeal: We need far more awe and wonder in our teaching!
Education for Health, 14(2), 153-155.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jones, T. (2005). This could have been the class from hell: The impact of philosophy for children
on students’ self-confidence and self-concept (Master’s thesis, University of Hawaiʻi at
Manoa).
Jones, T. (2012). Community in the classroom: An approach to curriculum and instruction as ameans for the development of student cognitive, social and emotional engagement in ahigh school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa).

217

Jones, H. (2008). Thoughts on teaching thinking: Perceptions of practitioners with a sharedculture of thinking skills education. Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 309 – 324.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jung, C. G. (1981). The archetypes and the collective unconsciou. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Justice, C., J. Rice, W. Warry, S. Inglis, S. Miller, & S. Sammon (2007). Inquiry in higher
education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovationin Higher Education, 31, 201-214.
Kailua High School (2013). Habits of Mind [Web log post]. Retrieved December 16, 2013, fromhttp://kailuahs.k12.hi.us/webmaster/pages/KAILUAHS_HOME.html
Keating, D. P., Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2004). Cognitive and brain development.
Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2, 45-84.
Kennedy. D. (1993). The community of inquiry and educational structure. In M. Lipman (Ed.),
Thinking Children in Education (pp. 352-357). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Kestenbaum, V. (1977). The phenomenological sense of John Dewey: Habit and meaning. New
Jersey: Humanities Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (1845). Stages on life’s way. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kim, A. (2012). Philosophy for children. Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 25-28.
Kinsella, E. A. (2001). Reflections on reflective practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 68(3), 195-198.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach tosocialization. Rand McNally.

218

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice.
Michigan: Harper & Row.
Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? Boston, MA: Beacon Publishers.
Krishnamurti, J. (1953). Education and the significance of life.
Krishnamurti, J. (1970). Talks and dialogues (Vol. 4). Castrovilli Giuseppe.
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools
versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 418–443.
Lavatelli, C. (1973). Piaget’s theory applied to an early childhood curriculum. Boston:
American Science and Engineering, Inc.
Lavrentbiva-Grass, N. (2006). Philosophy for children Hawaii and its influence on thedevelopment of students’ reflective thinking in classroom discussions (Master thesis,
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa).
Lerner, R. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1998). Adolescent development: Challenges andopportunities for research, programs and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 413446.
Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases.
In White paper prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health andDevelopment, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academies of Science.
Li, J. J. (2004). America’s Philosophy for Children teaching method and the development ofchildren’s character. Thinking, 17(1&2), 40-42.
Lien, C. M. (2004). Making sense of evaluation of Philosophy for Children. Thinking, 17(1&2),
73-78.

219

Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lincoln Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions andconcluences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. (1978). In M. Lipman & A. Sharp (Eds.), Growing up with philosophy(pp. 259-273). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (1989). The cultivation of reasoning through philosophy. In R. Brandt (Ed.),
Readings from educational leadership: Teaching thinking (pp. 144-149). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lipman, M. (1993). Philosophy for children. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking children andeducation (pp. 373–384). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (2004) Philosophy for Children’s debt to Dewey. Critical and Creative Thinking,12(1), 1–8.
Litwin, M. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Liu, K. (2013). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher
education. Educational Review, (ahead-of-print), 1-23.

220

Lockwood, A. (1978). The effects of values clarification and moral development curricula onschool age subjects: A critical review of recent research. Review of Educational Research,48(3), 325-364.
Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student
participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 125-146.
Lukey, B. (2004). Rethinking dialogue: Reflections on P4C with autistic children.
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(1&2), 24-29.
Lukey, B. (2012). Philosophy for children in Hawai‘i: A community circle discussion,
Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 32-37.
Lukey, B. (2012). The high school philosopher in residence: What philosophy and philosophers
can offer schools, Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 38-42.
Lukey, B. (2012). Philosophy beyond boundaries: A new model of philosophy in high schools.
In J.M. Lone & R. Israeloff (Eds.), Philosophy and education (pp. 27-38). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lukey. B. (2013). A p4c experiment: The high school philosopher in residence. In S. Goering, N.
Shudak & T. Wartenberg (Eds.), Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers
and teachers (pp. 42-55). New York: Routledge.
Lunenberg, M. & Samaras, A. (2011). Developing a pedagogy for teaching self-study research:
Lessons learned across the Atlantic. Teaching and Teacher Education 27, 841 -850.
Makaiau, S. A. P. (2004). Voyaging to the outer limits of education: Reflections on Philosophy
for Children in the secondary classroom. Thinking, 17(1&2), 56-64.

221

Makaiau, A. S. (2010). Adolescent identity exploration in a multicultural community context: An
educator’s approach to rethinking identity interventions (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa).
Makaiau, A. S. (2013). Incorporating the activity of philosophy into social studies: A seven-partphilosophical inquiry process. Questions: Philosophy for Young People, 13, 15-17.
Makaiau, A. S., & Freese, A. R. (2013). A transformational journey: Exploring our multicultural
identities through self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 141-151.
Makaiau, A. S., & Lukey, B. (2013). A philosopher’s pedagogy: A three-part model for school
betterment. Journal of Academic Perspectives, 3, 1-18. Retrieved fromhttp://www.journalofacademicperspectives.com/back-issues/volume-2013/volume-2013no-3/
Makaiau, A. S. (2014). Philosophical inquiry curriculum guide. Honolulu, HI: The Uehiro
Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education. Retrieved fromhttp://p4chawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/Philosophical-Inquiry-Standards-Ver.10.pdf
Makaiau, A. S., Leng, L., & Fukui, S. (2015). Journaling and self-Study in an international
research collective. Journal of Studying Teacher Education, 3, 1-17.
Makaiau, A. S., & Miller, C. (2012). The philosopher’s pedagogy. Educational Perspectives,44(1&2), 8-19.
Makaiau, A. S., Miller, C., & Shiroma, S. (2013). Philosophical inquiry course standards andcurriculum map.
Makaiau, A. S., Shiroma, S., Miller, C., & Fukuda, R. (2014). The daily record: Philosophicalinquiry student resources and workspace. Honolulu, HI: The Uehiro Academy for
Philosophy and Ethics in Education.

222

Marcum, J. W. (2014, March 16). Engagement theory [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://jameswmarcum.com/engagement-theory/
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,
middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American psychologist, 41(9), 954.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Matsuoka, C. (2004). Mindful habits and P4C: Cultivating thinking and problem-solving inchildren. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(1&2), 54-55.
Matsuoka, C. (2007). Thinking processes in middle-school students: Looking at habits of themind and philosophy for children Hawaiʻi (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻiat Mānoa).
Matsuoka, C. (2012). Thinking processes in middle school students. Educational Perspectives,44(1&2), 43-45.
Maughn, G. (2011). Philosophy for Children and its critics: A mendham dialogue. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 199-219.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: Aninteractive approach (Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom.
Learning and instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. JosseyBass: San Francisco.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative223

and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Miller, C. (2005). The impact of philosophy for children in a high school English class. In D.
Sheppard (Ed.), Creative engagements: Thinking with children (pp. 81-86). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Miller, C. (2013). Philosophy goes to high school: An inquiry into the philosopher’s pedagogy(Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa).
Millett, S. & Kay, G. (2001). A community of inquiry approach to values education in a middle
school for boys. Unicorn Online.
Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2011). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5).
Mitias, L. M. (2004). Philosophy for Children: Philosophy process, perspective and pluralism forchildren. Thinking, 17(1&2), 17-23.
Modin, B., Ostberg, V., Toivanen, S., & Sundell, K. (2011). Psychosocial working conditions,school sense of coherence and subjective health complaints. A multilevel analysis ofninth grade pupils in the Stockholm area. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 129-139.
Moll, L. C. (2014). L. S. Vygotsky and education. New York: Routledge.
Nakamoto, C. M. (2004). Administrative perspectives on Philosophy for Children. Thinking,17(1&2), 95-98.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Status dropout rates. The Condition of
Education 2014.
National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’224motivation to learn. Washintong, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
schools. New York: Teachers College Press Columbia University.
Nilsson, L., & Lindström, B. (1998). Learning as a health promoting process: The salutogenic
interpretation of the Swedish curricula in state education. The electronic journal of theInternational Union for Health Promotion and Education. Retrieved fromhttp://rhpeo.net/ijhp-articles/1998/14/index.htm
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Poetic justice. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
Odierna, R. (2012). Philosophy for Children Kenyan style. Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2),
46-50.
Oliver, R. (2008). Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning
setting. Higher Education, 55, 285-301.
Ozmon, H., & Craver, S. M. (2007). Philosophical foundations of education. Prentice Hall.
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 345 – 375.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

225

p4cHI website. (2014, February 8). What’s p4cHI [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://p4cHI.org
Peirce, C. S. (1955). The fixation of belief. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce(pp. 5-22). New York: Dover Publications.
Piaget, J. (1928). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pintrick, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education, theory research, and applications.
New York: NY: Pearson Education.
Plato. (1953). The dialogues of Plato. London: Oxford University Press.
Plato. (1961). In E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato: Including
the letters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach toteaching, learning, and democratic practice. Wadsworth, Inc., Distribution Center.
Reimer, J., Paolitto, D. P., & Hersh, R. H. (1983). Promoting moral growth: from Piaget toKohlberg. Longman Publishing Group.
Roberts, D. F., Henriksen, L., & Foehr, U. G. (2009). Adolescence, adolescents, and media.
Handbook of adolescent psychology.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Romano, C. (2012). America the philosophical. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management research news, 25(1), 16-27.
Ru, H. (2008). Classroom discussion: make teaching and learning more active. Retrieved
November 20, 2009. http://www.ht88.com/article/article_15682_1.html

226

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Said, E. W. (2004). Humanism and democratic criticism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Samaras, A. P., Freese, A. R., Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). Learning communities in practice.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Sartre, J. P. (1990). Existentialism and human emotions. New York: Carol Publishing Group.
Sasseville, M. (1994). Self-esteem: Logical skills and P4C. Thinking, 4(2), 30 – 32.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.
The journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Schenck, J. (2011). Teaching and the adolescent brain. New York: Norton.
Schertz, M. (2007). Avoiding ‘passive empathy’ with philosophy for children. Journal of Moral
Education, 36(2), 185-198.
Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126).
New York: Basic books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schoorman, D., & Bogotch, I. (2010). Conceptualization of multicultural education among
teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 1041-1048.

227

Schrag, F. (1995). Back to basics: Fundamental educational questions reexamined. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs forgeneralized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sharp, A. M. (1993). The Community of Inquiry: Education for democracy. In M. Lipman, (Ed.),
Thinking Children in Education (pp. 337–345). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Shumer, R. (1994). Community-based learning: Humanizing education. Journal of adolescence,17(4), 357-367.
Smith, C., & Carlson, B. E. (1997). Stress, coping and resilience in children and youth. Social
Service Review, 6, 231-256.
Snarey, J. (1995). In a communitarian voice: The sociological expansion of Kohlbergian theory,
research, and practice. Moral development: An introduction, 109-133.
Snauwaert, D. T. (2012). The importance of philosophy for education in a democratic society.
Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice, 6(2), 73-84.
Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2000). Psychology applied to teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE).
(2013). SAPERE and Philosophy for Children [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/#q=sapere+philosophy+for+children+ppt
Soames, S. (2010). What is meaning?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community ofinquiry. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

228

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links
between teaching and disciplinary practice?. Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723740.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of counselingpsychology, 53(1), 80.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels
and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 43-52.
Steinberg, L. D., Brown, B., & Dornbusch (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school
reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, D. (1981). How to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. New York:
Macmillan.
Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 9(2), 69-74.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Suarez-Orozco, C., Onaga, M., & de Lardemelle, C. (2010). Promoting academic engagement
among immigrant adolescents through school-family-community collaboration.
Professional School Counseling, 14(1).

229

Sylwester, R. (2007). Brain organization and development. In R. Sylwester (Ed.), The
Adolescent Brain: Reaching for Autonomy (pp. 15-39). Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks.
Sutcliffe, R. (2003). Is teaching philosophy a high road to cognitive enhancement? Educationaland Child Psychology, 20(2), 65-79.
Suzuki, S. (2010). Zen mind, beginner’s mind. Shambhala Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tharp, R. G.; & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning insocial activity. UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
The Education Testing Service (1978). In Lipman,M. Sharp, A.M. & Oscanyo, F. (1980).
Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Thompson, H. W. (1971). Report of a 1968-1971 feasibility study on high school philosophy.
New York: Central States College Association supported by Carnegie Corporation of
New York.
Topping, K.J., & Trickey S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for schoolchildren:
Cognitive gains at two-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
787-796.
Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Education
Digest, 78(1), 29.

230

Torsheim, T., Aaroe, L. E., & Wold, B. (2001). Sense of coherence and school-related stress as
predictors of subjective health complaints in early adolescence: Interactive, indirect ordirect relationships. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 603-614.
Toyoda, M. (2012). Practicing philosophy for children in the search for a better society.
Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 20-21.
Trickey, S. & Topping, K. J. (2004). Philosophy for children: A systematic review. Research
Papers in Education, 19(3), 365-380.
Trickey, S. & Topping, K. J. (2006). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children:
socio-emotional effects at 10–12 Years. School Psychology International, 27(5), 599614.
Trickey, S. & Topping, K. J. (2007). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children:
Participant evaluation at 11–12 years. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children,
18(3), 23-34.
Treasure, J. (2011, July). Julian Treasure: 5 ways to listen better [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_5_ways_to_listen_better/transcript?language=enTsuchiyama, E. (2004). Learning from children: A philosophical journey. Thinking, 17(1&2),
50-53.
Turgeon, W. (2004). Multiculturalism: Politics of difference, education and Philosophy forChildren. Analytic Teaching, 24(2), 96-109.
Turgeon, W. (2014). The challenges of moral education. Philosophy Now, 1&2.
Retrieved from http://philosophynow.org/issues/84/The_Challenge_of_Moral_Education
UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. (2015). Disaster prevention in Nishinakada

231

Elementary School. Sendai, Japan.
UNESCO. (2007). Philosophy: A school of freedom. Retrieved fromhttp://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.phpURL_ID=12633&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_S
ECTION=201.html
UNESCO. (2009). Thinking for the future: An action plan for the promotion ofphilosophy teaching in Asia and the Pacific. Retrived fromhttp://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/shs/Philosophy/aspacaction
philplandraft5.pdf
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. London, Ontario: Althouse Press.
Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 1(1), 33-50.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen?. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
Verducci, S. (2000a). A moral method? Thoughts on cultivating empathy through method acting.
Journal of Moral Education, 29(1), 87-99.
Verducci, S. (2000b) A conceptual history of empathy and a question it raises for moral
education. Educational Theory, 50(1), 63-80.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner232

(Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338-354). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published1935).
Waghid, Y. (2005). Action as an educational virtue: Toward a different understanding of
democratic citizenship education. Educational theory, 55(3), 323-343.
Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. In
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3, 2.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to
32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72-81.
Williams, S. (1993). Evaluating the effects of philosophical enquiry in a secondary school.
Derbyshire, England: Derbyshire County Council.
Winner, M. G. (2011). Social thinking. Department of Educational Services, Madison
Metroplitan School District. Retrived fromhttps://specialed.madison.k12.wi.us/files/specialed/Social%20Thinking%20Mini%20Ref
erence%20Module_0.pdf
Witt, P. A. (2002). Youth development: Going to the next level. Parks & Recreation, 37(3), 5259.
Wright, K., & Williams, S. (2003). Engaging Middle School Parents, Students, and Teachers in a
Learning Community a Case in Point. Childhood Education, 80(2), 54-58.
Xu, Di. (2013). Spiritual heritage and education today. International Journal of Humanity andSocial Sciences, 3(1), 42-51.
Xu, D., & Lum, B. (2012). A reading of Lao Zi for educational philosophers today. Philosophy
Study, 2(10), 712-728.

233

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Yos, T. B. (2004). Philosophy for Children and the cultivation of good judgment. Thinking, 17(1&2), 9-16.
Yos, T. B. (2012). Raising the bar: Love, the community of inquiry, and the flourishing life.
Educational Perspectives, 44(1&2), 52-57.
Yuan, J. M. (2004). The wisdom beyond languages. Thinking, 17(1&2), 43-46.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K.
Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher
education, (pp. 215-234). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zhan, Z., Xu, F., & Ye, H. (2011). Effects of an online learning community on active andreflective learners’ learning performance and attitudes in a face-to-face undergraduate
course. Computers & Education, 56(4), 961-968.
Zimmerman, B. & Schunk, D. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance.
New York, NY: Routledge.

234

APPENDIX A: Philosophical Inquiry Course Outline
I.

Creating a Community of Inquiry and Daily Practices
a. Introduction to the course & grading policies
b. Introduction to “Ethical Self-Assessment Rubric”
c. Introduction to “Daily Reflection” (POD & Reflection)d. Introduce Intellectual Safety (concept map activity)
e. Make a Community Ball using “Making a Community” questions
f. Introduction to the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit (handbook)g. Introduction to text annotations using “Philosophical Inquiry Text Annotations” andP4Teens, “Is Knowledge the Greatest Virtue?”h. Introduction to the Plain Vanilla discussion-based inquiry process & “Inquiry
Memos” using “Ethical Community Member?”/”Is Knowledge the Greatest Virtue?”i. Introduction the “Philosophic Insight Paper” #1 and “Insight Paper Graphic
Organizer” (w/ out lenses)

II.

The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquirya. Ten lenses glossary project using “10 Lenses of PI Glossary”
i. Termii.
Defineiii.
Essential Questioniv.
Apply to a philosopher (list provided)v.
Create Postervi.
Presentvii.
Create Glossary in Journalb. Text Annotations Philosophy for Teens, “How Should I Live?”c. “How Should I Live?”/Ten Lenses Plain Vanillad. “How Should I Live?”/Ten Lenses “Philosophic Insight Paper” #2 (include the ten
lenses section)

III.

Philosophical Inquiry: Racial Politics
a. Robert Kennedy to Dr. King Audio Recording
b. Dr. Martin Luther King, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”
c. Robert Nesta Marley, “War No More Trouble”
d. Race Statistics from Jonathan Okamura, “Race & Ethnicity in Hawaii”
e. Philosophy for Teens, “What if There Were No Governments?”
f. Racial Politics Plain Vanillag. Racial Politics “Philosophic Insight Paper” #3

IV.

Philosophical Inquiry: Class & The Environmenta. Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring”
b. Karl Marx, “..” & Globalizationc. Servyn Suzuki, “The Girl Stopped the World for Six Minutes”
d. “The 1%” statistics
e. Philosophy for Teens, “Who Will Take Care of the Environment?”

235

f.
g.

Class & The Environment Plain VanillaClass & The Environment “Philosophic Insight Paper” #4

V.

Philosophical Inquiry: Gender & Society
a. bel hooks, “Feminism is For Everyone”
b. Lupe Fiasco, “Bitch Bad”
c. Sheryl Sandberg, “Lean In” statistics
d. Philosophy for Teens, “What is it like to be somebody else?”e. Gender & Society Plain Vanillaf. Gender & Society “Philosophic Insight Paper” #5

VI.

Reflection, Assessment, and Future Action
a. Philosophy for Teens, “What is the meaning of life?”
i. In-class assessment practiceb. Take Home Reflection Finali. Gandhi, “Vol. 13” Be The Changeii.
Philosophy for Teens, “Am I the Same Person that I used to Be?”
c. In-Class Lens Analysis/Constructed Response Final

236

APPENDIX B: Philosophical Inquiry Daily Reflection

Prom
pt of
the
Day
(POD)

Exceeds theStandard

Meets theStandard2

Attempts to Meetthe Standard

Does Not Meetthe Standard

My response to the
POD demonstrated
that I thought about
my own thinking
and communicatedmy findings by:● Using textual
evidence AND
selfknowledge/expe
riences tosupport myresponse

My response to the
POD demonstrated
that I thought about
my own thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:● Using textual
evidence OR
selfknowledge/experiences to support
my response

My response to thePODdemonstrated that
I did not use
evidence tosupport myresponse.

I did notcomplete a
writtenreflection.

Name_______________________________________________________________
Date:______________

1. Reflect on the prompt of the day (POD) in writing. Use textual evidence and/or selfknowledge/experiences to support your response.

2

SSPI.4.1 Reflection, Oral and Written Philosophical Inquiry Reflection; SSPI4.2 Reflection - Personal Reflection; SSPI.4.4 Reflection - MetaCognition; SSPI.4.5 Reflection – Multiple Perspectives

237

Reflection

Exceeds the Standard

Meets the Standard3

Attempts to
Meet theStandard

Does Not
Meet theStandard

In my written reflection
I thought about my own
thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:● Connecting what I
learned to my lifeor the world I livein.
● Describing morethan one newperspective or pointof view.
● Using textual
evidence AND
ideas/quotes fromclassmates/teacher
to support myresponse.

In my written
reflection I thought
about my own thinking
and communicated myfindings by:● Connecting what I
learned to my lifeor the world I livein.
● Describing a newperspective ofpoint of view
● Using textual
evidence OR
ideas/quotes fromclassmates/teacher
to support myresponse.

In my written
reflections I
thought about myown thinking
during andcommunicated myfindings by:● Connecting
what I learned
to my life or
the world I
live in.
● Describing anewperspective orpoint of view.

I did notcomplete a
writtenreflection.

2. How does what you learned today connect to your life and the world you live in? Do you see a
different perspective or point of view? Use textual evidence AND ideas/quotes fromclassmates/teacher to support your response.

3

SSPI.4.1 Reflection, Oral and Written Philosophical Inquiry Reflection; SSPI4.2 Reflection - Personal Reflection; SSPI.4.4 Reflection - MetaCognition; SSPI.4.5 Reflection – Multiple Perspectives

238

APPENDIX C: Philosophical Insight Paper
This assignment will follow a unit of study, which consists of several readings, and philosophicaldialogues (Plain Vanilla).
After each unit, you will be asked to reflect on your experience in writing. The purpose of thisPIP is to continue our thinking about the topic we philosophized about. Please type your PIP andorganize it into the five sections described below. ATTACH ALL OF YOUR ANNOTATEDREADINGS AND YOUR INQUIRY MEMOS FROM THE UNIT TO THE BACK OF YOURPIP.
PART ONE
Evaluation of the Community of Inquiry – Take some time to think about how we are doing in
our community of inquiry. Focus your evaluation on the community as a whole. When you
evaluate COMMUNITY think about: listening, intellectual safety and participation. When you
evaluate INQUIRY think about: our focus, whether the inquiry was interesting or not, use of theGood Thinker’s Tool Kit to scratch beneath the surface of the topic, and whether or not wechallenged our thinking. Use the following questions to guide your response:
a. COMMUNITY STRENGTHS- What do we do well as a community?
b. COMMUNITY CHALLENGES -What do we need to improve on as a community?
c. INQUIRY STRENGTHS - What was a strength of our inquiry?
d. INQUIRY CHALLENGES - What was a challenge in our inquiry?
Make sure to apply the notes that you took in your inquiry memos to support your evaluation.
This means USE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
PART TWO
Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry - Identify at least two lenses of philosophical inquiry4 that
relate to the text(s). Use examples and reasons to explain how and why each lens is connected tothe text(s).
a. LENS – Identify lens.
b. TEXTUAL EVIDENCE – Site direct textual evidence that relates to the lens.
c. LOGIC – Use reasons to explain how the textual evidence relates to the lens.
PART THREE
Constructed Response – Pick one idea or concept and write a constructed response.
a. CLAIM- Use concise language to write a one-sentence claim.
b. ASSUMPTION(S) - Next, acknowledge the assumptions embedded in your claim.
c. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE - Then, support your claim with textual evidence (e.g. direct
quotes from the readings or our inquires) and reasons that explain why the evidence
4

Social, political, economic, culture, interaction between humans and the environment, ethics,
epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and logic.

239

supports your claim. Be sure to use multiple texts (three to exceed) to support your claim.
d. COUNTER-EXAMPLES - Finally, acknowledge any counter-examples to your claim.
PART FOUR
Personal Reflection and Action – Use the following questions to guide your response:a. How did this inquiry connect to you and the world that you live in?
b. Do you now see a different perspective or point of view?
c. How will you apply what you learned to make positive change in your life or the world
around you?
PART FIVE
References – Use APA format to cite in-text references and to generate a reference list at the endof your response. (See the Purdue Online Writing Lab for assistance with APA format http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ ).
PIP Rubric
Exceeds theStandard

Meets theStandard

Attempts to Meetthe Standard

Does Not Meetthe Standard

PART I
Evaluationof theCommunit
y ofInquiry

I used more than
one specificexample (from myinquiry memos ormemory) to support
my written
evaluation of eachof the following
areas:
a. Community
strengthsb. Community
challengesc. Inquiry strengths
d. Inquiry
challenges

I used at least one
specific example(from my inquiry
memos or memory)
to support mywritten evaluationof each of thefollowing areas:a. Community
strengthsb. Community
challengesc. Inquiry strengths
d. Inquiry
challenges

I did use specificexamples tosupport my written
evaluation of someof the following
areas:
a. Community
strengthsb. Community
challengesc. Inquiry
strengths
d. Inquiry
challenges

I did not write
an evaluation ofeach of thefollowing areas:a. Community
strengthsb. Community
challengesc. Inquiry
strengths
d. Inquiry
challenges

PART II
Lenses ofPhilosophi
cal Inquiry

I identified morethan two lenses ofphilosophicalinquiry that related

I identified at least
two lenses ofphilosophicalinquiry that related

I identified at lessthan two lenses ofphilosophicalinquiry that related

I did notidentify at least
two lenses ofphilosophical240

PART III
ConstructedResponse

to the text(s). I useddirect textual
evidence to support
each lens I
identified. I usedexamples andreasons to explain
how and why eachlens is connected tothe text(s).

to the text(s). I useddirect textual
evidence to support
each lens I
identified. I usedexamples andreasons to explain
how and why eachlens is connected tothe text(s).

to the text(s). I
may or may nothave used direct
textual evidence tosupport each lens I
identified. I
attempted to use
examples andreasons to explain
how and why eachlens is connectedto the text(s).

inquiry that
related to thetext(s).

I brought together
multiple questions,
ideas, or concepts
discussed in ourphilosophicaldialogue to develop
a clear onesentence claim(argument).

In response to aquestion, idea, orconcept discussed
in our philosophicaldialogue I
developed a clear
one-sentence claim(argument).

In response to aquestion, idea, orconcept discussed
in ourphilosophicaldialogue I
developed a onesentence claim(argument).

I did notdevelop a claim
in response to aquestion, idea,
or concept
discussed in ourphilosophicaldialogue.

Using soundreasoning I
correctly identified
more than one
assumption
embedded in myclaim.

Using soundreasoning I
correctly identified
an assumption
embedded in myclaim.

I tried to identify
an assumption
embedded in myclaim but it isunclear andillogical.

I did notidentify anassumption
embedded in
my claim.

I supported myclaim with logicalreasons andevidence (concrete
details, quotations,and in-text
citations). My
evidence camefrom three or moredifferent texts (in-I supported myclaim with logicalreasons andevidence (concrete
details andquotations). My
evidence camefrom two or moredifferent texts (inclass readings, an

I supported myclaim with reasonsand evidence. My
evidence camefrom one of thetexts (in-classreadings, anadditional
scholarly source,inquiry memos).

I did notsupport myclaim withreasons andevidence.

241

class readings, anadditional scholarly
source, inquiry
memos).

additional scholarly
source, inquiry
memos).

I identified andexplained morethan one counterexample related to
my claim.

I identified andexplained at least
one counterexample related to
my claim.

I tried to explain atleast one counterexample related to
my claim but myreasoning was
confusing.

I did notidentify acounterexample related
to my claim.

In my written
reflection I thought
about my own
thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:● Connecting theinquiry to mylife or the world
I live in.
● Describing
more than one
new perspective
or point ofview.
● Detailing how I
will apply what
I learned tomaking a
positive change
in my life or theworld aroundme.

In my written
reflection I thought
about my own
thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:● Connecting theinquiry to mylife or the world
I live in.
● Describing a
new perspective
or point ofview.
● Detailing how I
will apply what
I learned tomaking a
positive change
in my life or theworld aroundme.

In my written
reflections I
thought about myown thinking
during andcommunicated myfindings by:● Connecting theinquiry to mylife or theworld I live in.
● Describing anewperspective orpoint of view.
● Detailing how
I will apply
what I learned
to making a
positivechange in mylife or theworld aroundme.

I did notcomplete a
writtenreflection.

PART V I accurately apply
References the APA style guideto document
sources in-text andin my reference list.

I accurately apply
the APA style guideto document
sources in myreference list.

I made errors
I did notwhen applying the document
APA style guide to sources.
document sources
my reference list.

PART IV
Personal
Reflection

242

ANNOTATEDRESOUR
CES

I attached all of myannotated readings
and inquiry memos
to my PIP.

I did not attach allof my annotatedreadings andinquiry memos to
my PIP.

243

APPENDIX D: Inquiry Memos5*

Date of Philosophical Dialogue:_________________
Topic of Philosophical Dialogue: _____________________________Your Question (include your name):_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Selected Question (include author):______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial Response to the Question:

During our philosophical dialogue write memos (notes). Record your thoughts and questions, aswell as those of your peers. Make sure to cite specific spoken evidence that you find interestingor important. You will use your memos (notes) to write Part One of your PIP.
Key Points & Questions

5∗

Details
Include: specific spoken evidence, and examples of from yourown thinking.

SS.PI.2.4 Philosophical Dialogue- Philosophical Dialogue Annotations and Memos244

In your DR, refer back to your initial response to the selected question. What progress was made:What new ideas emerged? Were new connections made? Did you get more confused or see thecomplexity of the topic? Did a possible answer emerge? What new questions do you have?

245

APPENDIX E: Philosophical Inquiry Final Take-Home Reflection
In 1913 Mahatma K. Gandhi wrote,
We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to befound in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in
the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does theattitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A
wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see
what others do.6
Reflect on your experience in Philosophical Inquiry this semester. Answer each of thefollowing questions.
Is there truth to Gandhi’s philosophy that social transformation begins with personaltransformation? Use evidence from your own experiences in this course, selfknowledge, assigned text from this course (including p4teens, “Am I the Same Personthat I Used to Be?”), and an additional outside (scholarly) source to support yourthinking.

••

What personal transformation have you experienced (or are you beginning toexperience) from your participation in this course?

•

How does what you experienced in this course give you a new perspective or help you
to see a different perspective from your own?

•

How will you use what you learned from your experience in this course in your future?

Exceeds

Meets

Attempts

Does Not
Meet

Response In my written
reflection I thought
about my own
thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:

In my written
reflection I thought
about my own
thinking andcommunicated myfindings by:

In my written
reflection I
thought about
my own thinking
andcommunicatedmy findings by:

In my written
reflection I
did not think
about my own
thinking andcommunicate
my findings.

Clearly addressing
each question in thepromptClearly addressing
each question in theprompt6

Addressing eachquestion in the

VOL 13, Ch 153, General Knowledge About Health; Page 241, Printed in the Indian Opinion on 8/9/1913 From The Collected Works of
M.K.Gandhi; published by The Publications Division, New Delhi, India.

246

prompt
Using evidence frommy own experience,
self-knowledge,
assigned text fromthis course, and an
additional outside(scholarly) source tosupport my thinking

Using evidence frommy own experience,
self-knowledge, andassigned text fromthis course to support
my thinking

247

Using evidence
from my own
experience, andself-knowledge
to support mythinking

APPENDIX F: Focus Group Questions
Location/Setting. All focus group meetings will be held on campus at Kailua High School. They
will be held in a private room where doors can be closed to ensure participant privacy.
Time. Each focus group meeting will last approximately one hour.
When will we meet? At the end of the Fall 2014 semester
Facilitator. The Key Research Personnel for this study will lead and facilitate focus groupsessions.
What will be the procedures followed during the focus group? Recruitment for all focus
group participants will take place at the beginning of the first semester of the 2014 – 2015 school
year. During recruitment, and throughout the focus group process the students will be remindedthat participation in the research is voluntary. Participant consent and assent forms are attachedto this application as well. The participants will not need to fill out a demographic survey prior to
the focus group because this information will be collected on the quantitative survey. At the
beginning of the focus group participants will be informed that:•
You will be able to take a break during the focus group when you need one.
•
Whether or not you answer questions or participate in the focus groups will have no impact
on your grades in your classes.
•
If at any time you are not comfortable answering a question, you will have the option of not
answering it.
•
If, at any time during the focus group, you feel uncomfortable and want to stop participating,you may do so without any penalty.
•
If you require any treatment as a result of your participation in the focus group, treatment
consisting of the normal range of services offered by the school will be available. The lattermay include being referred to a school counselor or another school official.
•
To ensure confidentiality you are being asked not to use your last name or the last names ofothers in this group. Keep the discussion anonymous by not to listing the names of people or
the places they talk about.
•
To ensure confidentiality we must all agree that the information discussed during the focus
group must remain confidential, “what we talk about during this focus group stays in thisfocus group.”•
The entire focus group session will be audio recorded and transcribed, and a small portion of
the discussion after the reading will be video recorded. We wil keep all recorded materials
and transcriptions in a secure and locked area.
•
Brief video recordings of this focus group may be used in conference and community
presentations to show the possible value of this philosophical inquiry class. Such a focus
would be on the philosophical inquiry course, and not on any particular individual or on aparticular individual’s belief regarding philosophical inquiry. No video footage will beshown that shows harmful statements. Researchers will be careful about how video footage
will be portrayed to audiences in order to protect my youth, while still presenting positive
and negative aspects of the philosophical inquiry course.

248

General discussion topics/specific questions. The two main purposes for the focus groups are
to: 1) explore more deeply into the philosophical inquiry course experience for students who
participated in the class; and 2) study KHS philosophical inquiry students’ progress, if any inacademic engagement, identification of meaning in their schooling and lives, and sense ofcoherence (Antonovsky, 1987). The following questions/prompts may or may not be used tofacilitate discussion during the focus group meetings.
1. What is your biggest take-away from this Philosophical Inquiry class?
2. What is the difference between Philosophical Inquiry course and other social studies
courses?
3. Do you feel more engaged in this class? Please use specific examples to support yourthinking.
a. Engaged/engagement both behaviors (i.e., you want to come to this class, youwork harder, you pay attention to your peers, you complete your homework, youhave a positive attitude toward philosophical inquiry course and school, think
about your thinking) and emotions (i.e., enthusiasm, interest, social relationship,
making connections to previous knowledge and experience, pride in success).
4. Have you ever thought about the meaning of your life? Or what is a meaningful life? Or
do you have a purpose in your life?
5. Does this class help you figure out what is a meaningful life?
6. Did this class help you find learning more interesting?
7. Describe how the philosophical inquiry experience has or has not transformed you.
8. Describe the philosophical inquiry experience has or has not changed the way that you
see your self, your future, your life in general.

249

APPENDIX G: Sense of Coherence Scale
Here is a series of questions relating to various aspects of our lives. Each question has fivepossible answers. For each question, please mark the answer which best expresses your feelings
about your life.
1.

How often do you have a feeling that you don’t really care about what goes on around you?
(1 = never, 5 = very often) ME

2.

How often in the past were you surprised by the behavior of people whom you thought you
knew well? (1 = never, 5 = very often) C

3.

How often have people you counted on disappointed you? (1 = never, 5 = very often) MA

4.

How do you think you are going to feel about the things you will do in the future? (1 =don’t like it at all, 5 = like it a lot) ME

5.

How often do you have the feeling you’re being treated unfairly? (1 = never, 5 = very
often) MA

6.

How often do you have the feeling you are in an unfamiliar situation and don’t know what
to do? (1 = never, 5 = very often) C

7.

How often do you feel about the things you do every day? (1 = don’t like it at all, 5 = like ita lot) ME

8.

How often does it happen that you don’t quite understand your own feelings and ideas? (1 =never, 5 = very often) C

9.

How often does it happen that you have feelings inside that you would rather not feel? (1 =never, 5 = very often) C

10. Many people-even those with a strong character- sometimes feel like losers in certain
situations. How often have you felt this way in the past? (1 = never, 5 = very often) MA
11. How often does it happen that you have the feeling that you don’t know exactly what’s
about to happen? (1 = never, 5 = very often) C
12. How often do you have the feeling that there is little meaning in the things you do in yourdaily life? (1 = never, 5 = very often) ME
13. How often do you have feelings that you’re not sure you can keep under control. (1 = never,
5 = very often) MA
Please go to page 16 of 19 in Appendix H to view the exact testing format.

250

APPENDIX H: Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

Philosophical Inquiry QuestionnaireThis is a survey about "Philosophical Inquiry." Answer the questions the best you can. There are a variety ofquestion and answer formats. Please make sure to read the instructions of each section.
* RequiredYour Philosophical Inquiry Number: *Section 1: Demographics
You may mark more than one answer.

1.1 What is your gender? *MaleFemale1.2 What grade are you currently in? * 9th
10th

11th
12th

1.3 What is your ethnicity? *Hawaiian
Filipino251

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

African-American

TonganNative American/Alaska Native

SamoanPortuguese

Chinese
Hispanic

Vietnamese
Caucasian

Japanese
Puerto Rican

KoreanMicronesian
Other PaciRc Islander
Part-Hawaiian
Mixed
Other:

Section 2: Prior Experiences with Philosophy for Children Hawaii
You may mark more than one answer.

2.1 In which grade(s) did you use a community ball? Mark all grade(s) that apply, including
the grade you are in now. *
9th
10th
11th
12th
N/A

2.2 In which class(es) did you use a community ball? Mark all class(es) that apply, including
the class(es) you are in now. *EnglishMath Science
Social Studies
World Languages

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 2 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Physical Education

Music
Art
Other:

2.3 In which grade(s) have you used the "Plain Vanilla" format to have a discussion? Mark all
grade(s) that apply, including the grade you are in now. *
9th

10th
11th

12th
N/A

2.4 In which class(es) have you used the "Plain Vanilla" format to have a discussion? Mark allclass(es) that apply, including the class(es) you are in now. *EnglishMath Science
Social Studies
World Languages

Physical Education
Music

Art
Other:

2.5 In which grade(s) have you used the "Good Thinker's Toolkit"? Mark all grade(s) that apply,
including the grade you are in now. *
9th
10th

11th
12th

N/A

2.6 In which class(es) have you used the "Good Thinker's Toolkit"? Mark all class(es) that apply,
including the class(es) you are in now. *Englishhttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 3 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

MathScience
Social Studies

World Languages
Physical Education

Music
Art
Other:

2.7 In which grade(s) have you discussed and practiced "Intellectual Safety" with your peers andteachers? Mark all grade(s) that apply, including the grade you are in now. *
9th

10th
11th
12th
N/A

2.8 In which class(es) have you discussed and practiced "Intellectual Safety" with your peers andteachers? Mark all class(es) that apply, including the class(es) you are in now. *EnglishMath

Science
Social Studies

World Languages
Physical Education

Music
Art
Other:

2.9 In which grade(s) have you made philosophical annotations while reading? Mark all grade(s)that apply, including the grade you are in now. *
9th
10th

11th
12th

N/A

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 4 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

2.10 In which class(es) have you made philosophical annotations while reading? Mark all class(es) that
apply, including the class(es) you are in now. *EnglishMath

Science
Social Studies

World Languages
Physical Education

Music
Art
Other:

2.11 In which grade(s) have you reflected on and/or evaluated your "Plain Vanilla" discussions?
Mark all grade(s) that apply, including the grade you are in now. *
9th
10th
11th
12th
N/A

2.12 In which class(es) have you reflected on and/or evaluated your "Plain Vanilla" discussions?
Mark all class(es) that apply, including the class(es) you are in now. *EnglishMath Science
Social Studies

World Languages
Physical Education

Music
Art
Other:

Section 3: Self Perception about Philosophical Inquiry
Bubble in your response on a five point scale, one represents "strongly disagree", and five represents"strongly agree". You may only have one answer.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 5 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

3.1 In tough situations, I make good choices. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.2 I consider other perspectives when making judgments. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.3 I use what I learn in school to make difficult decisions about my future.
* Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.4 I can think my way through a problem I've never experienced before. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.5 I make good judgments. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 6 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

3.6 I use what I learn in school to solve complex problems. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.7 When I get stuck in my thinking, I think flexibly to make good judgments. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.8 I refer back to prior experiences to make good decisions. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.9 I am responsible for the learning of my peers. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.10 I am responsible for sharing my thinking with others. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 7 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

3.11 I contribute to positive changes in my community.
Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.12 When I talk with others, I treat them with respect. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.13 I am a responsible member of my community. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.14 I am an ethical member of my community. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.15 I do what is “right” because it helps my community. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.16 In my community we work as team to make positive changes. *https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 8 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.17 I ask philosophical questions. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.18 I wonder when I learn. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.19 I think about my own thinking. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.20 I reflect on my experiences. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.21 I live the examined life. *Strongly disagree
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 9 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.22 Sometimes, the best answer to a question is more questions. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.23 Confusion is a part of the thinking process. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.24 I have a questioning attitude. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.25 I am connected with other people. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.26 I care about my peer's ideas. *Strongly disagree
Disagreehttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 10 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.27 I understand other people's emotions. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.28 Learning the perspectives of others helps me understand myself better. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.29 Listening connects me to others. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.30 I feel for the struggles of others. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.31 I care about other people's points of view that are different from mine. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutralhttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 11 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Agree

Strongly agree

3.32 I do my best to reduce my prejudices. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.33 Philosophical Inquiry helps me improve myself. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.34 Philosophical Inquiry transforms my thinking. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.35 Philosophical Inquiry helps me understand myself better. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.36 Philosophical Inquiry helps me see the world differently. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 12 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Strongly agree

3.37 Philosophical Inquiry changes my understanding of things. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.38 Philosophical Inquiry supports my growth as person. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.39 Philosophical Inquiry makes me a better person. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.40 Philosophical Inquiry is meaningful. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.41 Learning is interesting. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 13 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

3.42 Learning is a worthwhile lifelong commitment.
* Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.43 I can't stop thinking about what I learn in school. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.44 I find joy in learning.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.45 What I learn in school connects to my life. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.46 I am an engaged learner. *Strongly disagree
Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly agree

3.47 I have a positive attitude towards learning. *https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 14 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.48 School has meaning in my life. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

3.49 I would recommend a "Philosophical Inquiry" class to others. *Strongly disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly agree

I don't know

3.50 I feel more engaged in my learning in "Philosophical Inquiry" class. *Strongly disagree
Disagree
NeutralStrongly agree

I don't know

3.51 What are the reasons for taking a "Philosophical Inquiry" course? *https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 15 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

3.52 What is "philosophical inquiry?" *Section 4: Sense of Coherence Scale
Here is a series of questions relating to various aspects of our lives. Each question has five possible
answers. For each question, please mark the answer which best expresses your feelings about your life.
You may only have one answer.

4.1 How often do you have the feeling that you don’t really care about what goes on around you?
*
Very often

Often
Sometimes

SeldomNever

4.2 How often has it happened in the past that you were surprised by the behavior of people who
you thought you knew well? *Very often
Often
Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.3 How often has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you? *Very often
Often

Sometimes
SeldomNever

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 16 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

4.4 How do you think you are going to feel about the things you will do in the future? *Like it a lot
Like it

It’s OK
Don’t like it

Don’t like it all

4.5 How often do you have the feeling that you are being treated unfairly? *Very often
Often

Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.6 How often do you have the feeling that you are in an unfamiliar situation and don’t know what
to do? *Very often
Often
Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.7 How do you feel about the things you do every day? *Like it a lot

Like it
It’s OK

Don’t like it
Don’t like it all

4.8 How often does it happen that you don’t quite understand your own feelings and ideas? *Very often

Often
Sometimes
SeldomNever

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 17 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

4.9 How often does it happen that you have feelings inside that you would rather not feel? *Very often
Often

Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.10 Many people-even those with a strong character- sometimes feel like losers in certain
situations. How often have you felt this way in the past? *Very often
Often
Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.11 How often does it happen that you have the feeling that you don’t know exactly what’s
about to happen? *Very often
Often

Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.12 How often do you have the feeling that there is little meaning in the things you do in your daily life?
*

Very often
Often

Sometimes
SeldomNever

4.13 How often do you have feelings that you’re not sure you can keep under control?
*
Very often
Often

Sometimes

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 18 of 19

Philosophical Inquiry Questionnaire

3/16/15, 5:01 PM

SeldomNever

4.14 In general, how do you feel about school? *Use examples and reasons to support your response.

4.15 In general, how do you feel about your future? *Use examples and reasons to support your response.

SubmitNever submit passwords through Google Forms.

Powered byhttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uh6c3HkZ8BsuoQ3fJf0nizkDEvNSiQjkwO2cdzZLZT0/viewform

Page 19 of 19