PSY 781

Philosophy for Children and Ethnic Studies at Kailua High School; A
Phenomenological Study
Amber Strong Makaiau
October 29, 2008

Introduction
In the summer of 2004, I, along with a fellow social studies teacher at Kailua
High School (KHS), was commissioned by the Asian Pacific Islander Youth ViolencePrevention Center (APIYVPC), University of Hawaii at Manoa, to write a school - based
violence prevention curriculum for students on our campus. We were selected, notbecause we were knowledgeable about universal violence prevention programs (Hahn et.
al., 2007) but based on: our positions in the social studies department, our strengths as
innovative curriculum designers, and our commitment to social justice education. In
hindsight it would have helped if we were more informed by research on youth violence
but at the time we were so focused on our role as teachers, selected to create a brand new
ethnic studies course, that we simply capitalized on our background knowledge ineducation.
Designing this new ethnic studies course, that incorporated the findings from theapplied research agenda of the APIYVPC (see Mark et. al., 2004; Sobredo, 2008) as well
as a culturally relevant version of ethnic studies, was labor intensive and required
multiple pedagogical judgment calls. Among these early curriculum decisions was the
choice to incorporate Philosophy for Children (P4C), as this approach to education
seamlessly overlapped with the theoretical objectives of the course. At the time, I was
deeply invested in the P4C approach and had been conducting my own research on theutility of P4C in the secondary social studies setting since 2000. P4C, an international
movement in education (Lipman, 1988; 1989; 1991; 1993; Lipman & Sharp, 1978; 1985;
Reed & Sharp, 1992) has a strong base at the University of Hawaii, and is headed by Dr.
Thomas Jackson who has been the director of the Philosophy in the Schools project since1984. P4C in Hawaii is defined by the four guiding principles of: 1) building community;
2) critical philosophical inquiry; 3) student-centered; and 4) fostering reflection (Jackson,
1984; 2001). Since the inception of ethnic studies, P4C has been at the core of the course
curriculum and has remained central to the course’s success as evidenced in its
stronghold despite major course revisions. In particular, P4C has been observed as themost important element in the course in regards to the course’s purpose as a violence
prevention initiative. The purpose of this study is to use a phenomenological research
approach (Creswell, 2007, pp. 57 – 62), as it is most appropriate considering the searchfor “meaning,” and understanding of the role, impact and longevity that P4C has had in
ethnic studies classroom at KHS.
Review of the Literature(For the sake of space, I am not including a review of the literature on
P4C. If you would like, I could give this to you but it is quite extensive.)1

Purpose of the Study
Over the past four years approximately five hundred students have andcontinue to experience the phenomenon of P4C in the context of the ethnic studies
course that they are (or had been) enrolled in at KHS. Primarily this study aims at
uncovering or describing their shared “lived experience,” (Creswell, 2007, pp. 57)
as they participated in a classroom community that fostered the four guiding
principles of P4C. In addition to the students’ experiences with P4C, this study isalso interested in documenting teachers’ experiences as they design, implement
and evaluate curriculum that incorporates P4C principles. Are there unique
impacts of P4C that are experienced by students and not teachers? Does P4C playa similar role in the learning contexts of both teachers and students? Answers toquestions like these, through the use of phenomenological inquiry intend to shedlight on the experiences of both teachers and students as they engage in the P4C
approach. There is a definite gap in the literature, regarding the systematic studyof the impact of a P4C approach to education, and in this case the impact of P4C
in the context of a violence-intervention curriculum. By gaining insight into theexperiences of students and teachers at KHS, new knowledge about the role that
P4C has in meeting the KHS ethnic studies course objectives, could ultimately
broaden our understanding of the relationship between a P4C approach toeducation and universal violence prevention programs.
Research Question and Sub-Questions
Moustakas (1994) describes the types of questions used to frame aphenomenological study by giving the following examples: “What have you
experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What contexts or situations havetypically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?” In the caseof this study these questions were helpful in framing the central research question,
which was:•

In what ways does a P4C approach to education impact experiences ofteachers and students participating in ethnic studies at Kailua High School?

However, in consideration of the nature of the P4C phenomenon, this central
research question could not stand on it’s own as the only guide for the study. P4C
is not only a theoretical phenomenon, but is also defined by actual classroom
practices. Understanding the variety of activities associated with P4C wasessential for me, as the researcher whose task it was to identify and observe theP4C phenomenon in practice. For example, one of the major conceptual themesthat define the P4C phenomenon is “Community.” Community, in the context of
P4C, is then applied to create actual classroom activities experienced by bothteachers and students. Some examples of these P4C “community activities” are:creating a community ball, using the community ball during class discussions, theintellectual safety introductory activity, and discussion-evaluation question2

exercises. These activities are observable, and can be differentiated between P4C
classroom activities and non- P4C activities.
In an effort to facilitate the process of collecting data, throughobservations a set of sub-questions were created. These sub-questions took into
consideration the various classroom activities that are associated with a “P4C
approach” to education. In particular, one sub-question was created for each of thefour P4C conceptual themes (Community, Philosophical Inquiry, StudentCentered, Reflection). By framing these themes and their accompanying
activities, in the form of questions, I, as a researcher became more prepared as I
entered the field.
The sub-questions were:••••

How are community activities (creating the community ball, intellectual
safety, community reflection questions) impacting the experiences of theteacher/learners in the classroom observed?
How are inquiry activities (plain vanilla, historical inquiry, the good thinker’s
tool kit, inquiry reflection questions) impacting the experiences of theteacher/learners in the classroom observed?
How are student-centered activities (plain vanilla, historical inquiry)
impacting the experiences of the teacher/learners in the classroom observed?
How are reflective activities (plain vanilla reflections, historical inquiry
reflections) impacting the experiences of the teacher/learners in the classroom
observed?

•
By developing these, in addition to the central research question I was able tomove closer to the “rigorous preparation” required of “scientific inquiry using
observational methods” (Patton, 2003, p. 260).
Role of the Researcher
In his guide to qualitative research, Creswell (2007) warns,
To study one’s own workplace, for example, raises questions about whether good data
can be collected when the act of data collection may introduce a power imbalance
between the researcher and the individuals being studied” (p. 122)

In this study, I play an interesting role. I am researching a phenomenon at theschool in which I formerly taught, and as Creswell (2007) put it, issues of power
could arise between myself, and participants in the classrooms I am observing. In
addition to these issues of power, as an insider to the context I am studying, I also
bring biases and perspectives that will ultimately shape the way in which I
observe the phenomenon being studied. An important task, as I positioned myself
at various points in the study, became constantly checking in with myself or being“reflexive” (Patton, 2003, p. 299). For these reasons, the process of memoing(Creswell, 2007) was employed so that I could consistently record my internalfeelings, biases, and observations about my relationship to the participants. These
memos will be discussed in the analysis of data, as they provided insights into the3impact that I was having, as the primary instrument for data collection, on the
study’s findings.
What’s additionally important to mention, is that at this point in time, I am
not teaching at the school where this study takes place (I’m on sabbatical leave).
This put me in a unique position to distance myself as an insider. Because of mysabbatical I was able to alleviate my relationship with the teachers being
observed, as I could not assert power over their authority as the teacher in each of
their classrooms. This meant that my observational notes could not be used toevaluate their practice, by myself or by administrators outside of the classroom.
Accompanying my unique position this year, was the fact that I could selectclassroom contexts where students did not know who I am (both classes observed
are of ninth graders who are new to the school). This allowed me to be
introduced, to the classroom context, as a visitor from the University of Hawaii,
who is interested in the teaching and learning going on in their class. It was withhigh hopes, that these small gestures eased some of the power issues that Creswell(2007) cautioned against.
In a positive light, the standpoint that research is a subjective, and“intensely personal endeavor” (Cole & Knowles, 2001, p. 46) helps to change theperspective that studying one’s own backyard can only lead to methodologicalshortcomings. With careful scrutiny, it becomes apparent that an outsider to thisresearch context could have had equivalent limitations. For example, gaining
access to this site would be very difficult for an outsider, as it is blocked by a hostof gatekeepers, which include the principals and classroom teachers. I was able touse my relationship with the school to gain access and to pledge that I would be
able to authentically give back to the school in return. Another outsider obstacle
could have been a cultural deficit. The types of language (Patton, 2003, p. 288290), community references, and colloquial teenage slang used by most of theparticipants in this study, are unique to their cultural context and could present
barriers to those outside of the community. My experiences, as an insider to
Hawaii, and to this unique community, for the past eight years, provided a bridge
to my understanding of these types of cultural particulars that would be otherwise
hard to learn in the short time that the traditional researcher associates with thecommunities they observe.
There was an additional benefit to my position as an insider. In the field ofqualitative research the researcher is seen as the “key instrument” (Creswell, 2007, p. 38).
In this study, the background or insider knowledge that I bring to the context will allow
me a better vantage point from which to observe the phenomenon of P4C. As was
described earlier, P4C is not just a theoretical approach to teaching but also a series ofclassroom activities. Because of my “expert knowledge” regarding the identification andclassification of these activities, I am able to observe the phenomenon when it isoccurring in the research setting. Patton (2006) confirms, “A strength of naturalistic
inquiry is that the observer is sufficiently part of the situation to be able to understandpersonally what is happening” (p. 236). If I were not an insider to this knowledge, as thecentral instrument to the study, I would have to be trained in identifying P4C activities
and even then I would not be sensitive to the nuances of this approach to education. So,
although there are many preconceived biases, and power issues that I bring to the table as4

an insider to the context I am researching, the benefits of my insider perspective have thepotential to balance out the playing field.
Finally, it is important to mention that just because I was an insider to thisresearch I am in no way near being a participant observer (Patton, 2003, p. 265 – 257).
My unique position this school year allowed me some distance from the classrooms I
observed, and brought me somewhat closer to seeing things from the outside. In the end,
what I have realized is that the real issue may not be with how close or far away one isfrom those they are studying. Instead, the bigger issue is in recognizing the overall effects
that one has on the context that they are studying and “how to monitor those effects andtake them into consideration when interpreting data” (Patton, 2003, p. 326).
Community Context
The high school in this study is located on the windward side of Oahu, in the stateof Hawaii. It serves four communities that range from suburban to rural, andcharacterized by a broad socio – economic range – from low income to upper middle
class. Within these communities are Hawaiian Homestead lands attributing to 55%(School Data Report, 2007) of the students, who attend this school, being Native
Hawaiian, more than twice the state’s average (23.33%) of Native Hawaiians and PacificIslanders (The U.S. Proximity Census, 2000). The remaining students are of Asiandescent (Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Indo-Chinese) 22%, Whites 13%, andHispanics/Latino 2% according to the 2003-04 MacSchool database. In general students
from this high school tend to self - identify with two main communities- Kailua or
Waimanalo (sometimes referred to as Nalo by students from both communities).
Although these two communities are close in proximity, they do not share anintermediate or middle school. It is at this high school that students from the more
affluent community of Kailua meet students from the more rural community of
Waimanalo for the first time. In minutes from Parent Community Collaboration Day(October, 2007) participants rated “communities fighting communities- Kailua vs. Nalomentality,” as one of the top five challenges facing Kailua High School. This helps toemphasize both the geographic boundaries that exist between the two communities aswell as the socially constructed differences in self – identification that students from
Kailua and Waimanalo bring as freshmen to the school campus.
In 2000, the U.S. Census data listed the median household income of the entire
school community to be $57, 623 as compared to the State of Hawaii’s average of $49,
820 and a the same time the at – risk population1 in the school community was 4.5%,
more than double the State of Hawaii’s average of 2.1%. These figures are approximately
the same now and around 45%2 of the students receive free and reduced lunch.
Academically, students have shown an increase in performance on the Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA), given to 10th graders statewide every spring. It was in the 2006-07
1

An “At – risk,” school aged child is defined as an individual, age four to nineteen, and living with his/hermother, who is not a high school graduate; single, divorced or separated; and subsisting below the poverty
level.
2Students who receive free and reduced lunches increased from 27% in the 1995 –96-school year to a highof 45% in the 2003-04 school year. The increase in the number of students applying and receiving free or
reduced lunch is directly related to the school’s concerted effort for all students to apply regardless of
income.

5school year that students met Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left BehindAct. These descriptors provide some insight into the extraneous variables, cultural
conditions and sources of personal identification that may or may not have had some
impact on the findings of the study.
MethodResearch Design and Tradition to be Used
The methods used for this study are qualitative because of the need to “obtain the
intricate details about phenomena such as feelings, thought processes, and emotions”
associated with the complexities of teaching and learning (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Using a more conventional research method would be inappropriate for a study like thisone, which aims to uncover the human impact of an educational approach. Instead, thestudy of teaching and learning calls for a research paradigm supported by such basic
assumptions like: listening to human dialogue is valued; observing and recording
behaviors are rich data sources; and that the need to address the researcher as the main
research instrument is essential to any inquiry. This is the qualitative paradigm. Essential
to the study of humans, by humans, proponents of qualitative research are unafraid toadmit to the subjective nature of research, and that researching is, “an activity that is anextension of who we are as individuals” (Cole & Knowles, 2001, p. 25). This is contrary
to the positivist tradition, which strives to separate researcher from the researched andwho claim that objective methodologies are successful for seeking “truth.” In this study,
the theory is, is that truth is not “out there.” Instead, answers to the research questions areembedded in participants observable behaviors and making meaning of those behaviors
are contingent on my own understanding, as I am the main research instrument (Creswell,2007; Patton, 2003; Cole & Knowles, 2001; Seidman, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Considering the researcher as an instrument calls for reflexivity,and incorporating this need for reflexivity into the methodology is a hallmark of arigorous qualitative approach.
In relation to being a qualitative study, a phenomenological approach wastaken. “A phenomenological study describes the meaning for several individualsof their lived experiences of a concept or phenomenon” (Creswell, 2007, p. 57 –62). The phenomenon being studied is a P4C approach to education and throughcareful observation and analysis of data; commonalities between participants will
be examined. It is the goal of this phenomenological study, to “reduce individual
experiences with a phenomena [P4C] to a description of the universal essence”(Creswell, 2007, p. 58).
Participant Sample
This study takes place during the 2008 – 2009 school year, during which
two teachers have been assigned to teach ethnic studies/philosophy at the highschool visited for this study. Due to their unique positions, these two teachers
were approached to be participants in this research, and through verbal consent
agreed to engage in the study. One of the teachers, is 32, female and Japanese-

6

Hawaiian. She was one of two original ethnic studies course designers and hastaught the course since 2004. This year, she was assigned four ethnic
studies/philosophy student sections for the fall semester. She agreed to have meobserve one of those sections of students. The section she selected had
approximately fourteen students (on the days that I visited) and the period met
from 9:35 am to 10:45 am. Of those fourteen students, seven were boys and seven
were girls. The students’ ages ranged from between fourteen to eighteen years.
Their socio-economic and ethnic descriptions are representative of the students
described in the contextual portion of this study.
The second teacher, observed in this study is new to his position as ateacher at the high school observed. He is a Portuguese-Hawaiian male who istwenty-five years of age. An important fact about this teacher is that he was a
graduate of the high school himself, and chose the school to teach at because of
his alumni status. This teacher has participated in two formal ethnic studies
training courses and is currently being mentored by the female “expert” teacher
previously described. This second teacher has three sections of ethnic studies andlike the first teacher he selected the section that he wanted me to observe. The
section that he selected has five students in the class (on the days that I visited)
three of which were girls and two, which were boys. Like the female teacher’sclass, the students’ socio-economic status and ethnic identifications are
representative of the students described in the contextual portion of this study.
Of final note, it is important to mention that descriptions of the students
are approximations due to the fact that IRB approval was not obtained for thisstudy. Approval to observe these classrooms was given by the vice-principal of
the school and by the teachers whose classrooms were observed. Therefore,
individual and confidential student records were not obtained. This also meantthat individual student work was not examined. These could be limiting factors
for this study, and should be considered in the analysis of data.
Physical Setting
All observations took place in two classrooms, one for each teacher, at thehigh school campus where this study took place. These classrooms were locatedright next to each other, on the bottom floor of one of the school’s main classroombuildings. The building where these classrooms are located houses all of theschool’s social studies classes, with the exception of special education students.
The classrooms have two doors each, and louvered windows on two of the walls.
The windows opposite the doors provide views of the back of the school, which
consists mainly of trees and the neighboring farmers fields.
There is evidence of each individual teacher’s style in each of theclassrooms. In the first classroom, belonging to the experienced female teacher,there is an overwhelming amount of books and other instructional materials. She
has decorated the walls with student work, state standard requirements, andinstructional cues for the students, and posters. Most of the posters are related to
Hawaiian issues and themes. It is also clear, when looking around her room that
she teaches both ethnic studies/philosophy and world history. In her room, there is7

a teacher desk at the front and the back of the room. All of the student seats are inrows in the middle of the room. While teaching, this teacher usually stood at thefront of the room to give instruction, and circulated throughout the desks to help
the students during class time. She also houses the department’s mobile computerlab in her classroom. Of final note, her classroom is closest to the bathroom, andtherefore she experiences the most student traffic passing by her classroom at any
given time during the day.
The second teacher’s classroom is a bit sparse. It is clear that he is a newteacher, and does not have the same amount of instructional materials as the otherteacher. He has written a few things on the board, such as the classes’ agenda, andstate standards. There is evidence that in addition to ethnic studies he teaches
psychology as well. There is some student work on the walls, mostly relating to
ethnic studies. There is one desk at the front of the room, and one teacher
computer. While I was observing he had made a small circle of chairs at the frontof the room, for the students, and the rest of the chairs remained in rows. While
teaching this teacher sat in the circle with the students and remained there withthem throughout the majority of the class period.
Gaining Entrée to the Observational Setting
As was previously described, I have a relationship with the teachers at myobservation site. When I first became interested in this project I mentioned it to
the teachers in person. I explained to them that I had an assignment for a course at
the University of Hawaii, and asked them what they thought about me coming toobserve their ethnic studies classes. I was completely overt in explaining myreasons for wanting to observe their classrooms (Patton, 2003, p. 269 – 273). I
described my research question to them, and explained that I would not be there
to evaluate their teaching. Instead I was interested in the implementation of P4C
and would be paying attention to the way in which it manifested itself into
practice and impacted the students. I also explained, that if they wanted myobservation notes after the study, I would make copies for them. They both agreed
that it would be fine and I told them that I would give them more detail about the
specifics of my visits. At this point I also asked the social studies department head
what she thought about the possibility of my observations, giving her some of thesame detail about my research question, and she agreed that it would be fine.
After gaining approval from the department head, I sent a more formal e-mail toeach of the teachers and invited them to participate. They both responded inwriting, and gave possible dates for observation. The next time I saw them inperson, we discussed when the best times for observations would be and arranged
a schedule that we both agreed upon. It was at this point that they signed theconsent forms for participation in the study.
On the day of the observations, I visited the vice-principal of the school,as the principal was not available. I explained to him my interest in observing theethnic studies classes and he agreed that it was fine. Each time I visited the school
I was required to sign in at the front office as a visitor, and was given a clip on tag
as a visual cue of my purpose on campus. Finally, on each day that I observed, I8would visit with the teachers before class started, find my place in the back of theroom, and when class started the teachers would usually introduce me to thestudents. They would usually say something like, “this is Mrs. Strong, she used toteach here, and she is hear to watch our class today.” Most of the students would
usually wave to acknowledge my presence and then check me out periodicallythroughout the class period. For the most part the students were engaged in theinteractions with their peers and teachers and would forget that I was observing.
At the end of each observation, I would briefly debrief with the teachers, thankthem and then return to the office to sign out to record my visit. If I ran into any
other teachers, or students on campus that knew me, I would explain that I wasdoing a project for a class at the University.
Procedures for Collecting and Analyzing Data
After gaining entry into the research site, I decided to break the process ofdata collection and the analysis into two phases. Patton (2003) explains that, “datagathering and analysis flow together in fieldwork, for there is usually no definite,fully anticipated point at which data collection stops and analysis begins. One
process flows into the other” (p. 323). However, it became apparent during thecourse of this study, that after two observations in each classroom, the datacollected thus far, had to be analyzed to help focus the third and final observationin each classroom. In this way, the data and analysis process was seen as having
two phases. The first phase consisted of the first (which was somewhat
unfocused) and second (more focused) observation. This first phase also included
the analysis of that first set of data. The second phase then applied the analyzed
data to focus the third and final observation. Details of these data collection andanalysis phases are described below.
Phase One:I made preparations before going into my first observation. I began bycreating a template for recording my observational data. On this template I had aplace to mark down: the date; time of observation; the precise location of theobservation; and the role assumed by the observer. After the first, observation,and right before the second, I added a place for my research question. I had
reflected on my first visit and decided that I need to be constantly thinking about
my research question as I made observations. This was one amendment to thetemplate over the course of the study. All of this information was located at the
top of the page. Below, I created a table with the following columns: descriptions,personal thoughts while observing, and reflections (notes about: hunches, myexperience, my feelings, learnings). Patton (2003) explains that separating mydescriptions from my thoughts was important.
At all times it is critical that the observer record participants’ comments in quotation
marks, indicating the source-who said what?-so as to keep perceptions of participants
separate from the observer’s or evaluator’s own descriptions and interpretations (p. 284).

9

This design helped me to distinguish, as much as I possibly could between mydescriptive interpretations of what was going on, and my internal reflective
dialogue. For the most part, this table was modeled after an example observation
data log given by Creswell (2007, p. 137). This format for data collection wasused throughout the study.
Next, before I went into the first observation I thought about how I wanted
to collect data. I had done classroom observations before, and I remembered thatwriting down the direct quotes of the people I observed, helped me inremembering my experience at the site. Patton (2003) agrees, “field notes also
contain what people say. Direct quotations, or as near possible recall of direct
quotations, should be captured during fieldwork, recording what was said duringobserved activities” (p. 303). For these reasons, I went into all of my observations
conscientious about collecting quotes from individuals. However, after the firstobservation, I realized that writing down everything that everyone said was close
to impossible. It was at this point that I made the decision, for the second
observation, to only write down the quotes that I thought most related to myresearch question, which was gathering data about the implementation of P4C. I
focused my data collection by looking for examples of community, inquiry,
philosophy, student-centered activities, and reflection. All of these components
were outlined in my sub-questions at the onset of the study. This helped toalleviate some of the stress I experienced during the first observation.
The next thing that I became aware of, after my first observation, was that
I needed to be more conscientious about describing the setting when I first got tomy site. Patton (2003) explains,
The first-order purposes of observational data are to describe the setting that wasobserved, the activities that took place in that setting, the people who participated in those
activities, and the meanings of what was observed from the perspectives of thoseobserved (p. 262).

At the beginning of the first observation I jumped right into recording student andteacher behaviors and quotes without taking the time to map out what theclassroom looked like. When I went home to look at my notes, after that firstobservation, I realized that it would have helped to have, had a drawing of theroom and the placement of the teachers and students. Central to a P4C method is
the set up of the classroom and the physical positioning between teachers andstudents. So, at the beginning of the next two observations, I drew a map of thefurniture and people in the room. Then, throughout the observation, I recorded the
movement of teachers and students by drawing lines of their paths. I also recorded
the time in which they moved places.
In relationship to the content that I was looking for, I had to makeadjustments to my observations, based off of my first time in the field. In thisstudy, I am looking for the impact of P4C on students and teachers. At the
beginning of the project, I got real clear about the planned activities (Patton,
2003) that I would be looking for. These were examples of students and teachers
participating in classroom activities that related to: community, inquiry, being
student-centered, and reflection. However, when I began my observations, I

10couldn’t help but notice all of the classroom management issues that were goingon. I kept a record of a lot of the student and teacher behaviors and language
surrounding the issue of classroom management. In addition, a lot of my personal
thoughts while observing were related to classroom management and whenlooking at my first observation notes, it is clear that I am very irritated by the lackof classroom management in some of the settings. Later, when I reflected on myfirst visit I had to remind myself that I was not doing a general evaluation of thehappenings in these classrooms. Instead, I was looking for P4C related events,
and although some of the P4C ideologies relate to classroom management(intellectual safety and the community ball in particular), focusing on classroom
management issues was not the purpose of my study. For these reasons, I madesure, as I went into the second and third observation, that I did not loose myfocus, which was to examine the impact of P4C.
These reflections help to highlight some of the ways in which myexperiences in the first observation helped to inform later observations. Most ofthese, “changes in focus” were due to obvious shortcomings of my firstobservation and entailed being more detailed and systematic in my datacollection. In addition to these obvious changes that I wanted to make in the way
in which I collected data, I began to realize that it would be important for me toanalyze the data I had collected, during the first and second observation, before I
went into my third and final observation. This “zigzag” process that Creswell(2007) talks about seemed essential for the qualitative methods I was employing. I
wanted to use the first sets of data that I had gathered to inform my last visit to thefield. I was hoping that I could find some emergent themes in those first two setsof data and then attempt to “saturate” the themes, in my final stage of datacollection. This is how the first phase of data collection (observations one andtwo) was distinct from the second phase of data collection (observation three).
Phase Two:
Going into my last observation, I added additional focus to my observationcollection template. I had analyzed the first two visits, using the methods ofconstant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and found three emergent themes.
These themes were:
1) Use of critical thinking language (Good Thinker’s Tool Kit) by bothteachers and students in an effort to foster deeper thinking in the class.
2) Use of the term “intellectual safety” without student behavior
matching the theory behind this concept.
3) Student-centered and contextualized construction of knowledge.
I posted these themes at the top of my observation template. This prepared me tofocus my last observations on looking for more evidence to those themes, inaddition to any other observations that I made in relationship to my researchquestions. With this new lens, it was my third and final observation that was themost focused observation in the study.

11

Findings
Summary of the Observations
Before summarizing the findings it is important to clarify, at the beginningof the study, there were two distinct teachers, and classes of students that wereobserved. Both teachers and their classes were selected because of their use of the
P4C approach to education. When I went in for my third observation the twoteachers had decided to merge their class and team-teach. This means that theteachers brought all of their students together for the first period of the day, andthen took turns giving instruction throughout the class period. In the following
section, I am going to summarize my observations. Organizationally, in the firsttwo summaries, observations of each teacher will remain separate, while the thirdsummary will contain observations of both teachers as they co-taught.
Observations of Teacher One- Novice Male:On the first day that I visited, a small circle of chairs had been set up at thefront of the classroom. As students trickled into the class, they chose a seat in oneof the chairs in the circle, and when the bell rang the teacher joined them bysitting in the circle as well. For the remainder of the period, the teacher andstudents (five) sat in this configuration as they engaged in small group discussion
related to the class objectives. On this particular day the students were beginning
an inquiry project titled, “My self- concept from the perspective of ethnic
studies.” The beginning of the class was spent examining the Hawaii Content
Standards related to the project, the project requirements and the personal reasons
why the students themselves would benefit from participating in the project. Next,
the teacher provided an example of a “self-concept essay,” written by a Native
Hawaiian scholar. This example essay was similar to the essays that the students
were going to be required to produce at the end of the project. The students andteacher read through the essay and analyzed it for domains of the author’s
identity. While going through this process both the students and teachers
constructed a discussion around those themes. Here is an example of an exchange
during this process.
Teacher: ok from here what is she talking about.
Student: people are loosing their culture, she’s Hawaiian but she is having to do American stuff and she doesn’t likethat part of herself, she wants to learn more about Hawaiian culture.
Teacher: anything else you can think of. All right, so what are some things we have learned about her?
Students: she is curious about her culture and ethnicities…
Teacher: ok let’s pause there was a lot in that paragraph, what do you think they meant by ‘hapa haole’Students: maybe she wasn’t taught hula in the traditional way…maybe by like Hawaiian songs by Americans.

12Teacher: maybe hula that is Americanized and not traditional. Ok what did she mean by sexual vulnerability, ok so now
we are getting a better ideas about what time period this took place in? Ok what is she saying that she doesn’t like
about this kind of hulaStudent: that its sexual and that she is dancing for guys.
Teacher: ok that she is there to entertain the men, but why is that bad?
Students: because that is not what hula was all about, and maybe it is disrespecting the culture.
Teacher: so if a woman is dancing to please men…
Students: it makes her a slut.
Teacher: maybe but how do you think it makes her feel.
Students: uncomfortable, that she is…I don’t know the word for it. That she is being treated like a. …sexual object…
Teacher: so who is she fighting for?
Student: females
Teacher: have you heard of the word feminist? So how does this relate to her identity? And don’t just write this because
I said it.
Student: she is a strong woman because she is standing up.

There was much evidence of the teacher prompting the students’ discussion with
open-ended questions, and from time to time the students would solicit questionsof their own. The class ended when the bell rang, one hour after the class had
started.
On the second day that I observed, the classroom was still set up in a circle
that the students (five) and teacher sat in during the class period. At the beginningof the class the teacher stated, “So what we are going to be doing today is we aregoing to be writing actual questions.” The students were reminded about creating
their Good Thinker’s Tool Kit3 pamphlets last class, and about the purpose of theinquiry that they are engaging in. Then, the teacher modeled, on the white board
at the front of the room, the format that the students were to use while taking
notes during the inquiry. All of the students copied the format into their journals.
Then the teacher explained that the students would need to create Good Thinker’s
Tool Kit questions about themselves, based on the ethnic studies terms that they
had learned at the beginning of the semester. He then explained that the students
were going to use these questions to collect data during their inquiry. The teacher
then modeled what a question could look like by giving examples like, “what are
the reasons Hawaiians are racist towards Haole?” This got the students started andthey worked collaboratively throughout the remainder of the class period to create
questions about themselves. The students were writing their questions in theirjournals and made sure to verbalize when they were having a hard time phrasing a3

Created by Thomas Jackson (2001) the good thinker’s tool kit consists of seven indicators for criticalthinking which are: W- what do you mean by that? R- what are the reasons? A- what is being assumed? Or
what can I assume? I – can I infer ____ from _____? Or where are there inferences being made? 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 to disprove what is being said?

13question. Some of the student questions were: “Is it true that my family camefrom Tonga for a better life? Can I assume that since I am Hawaiian people arebiased towards me? Can I assume that since I was baptized Catholic that I am stilla Catholic?” This process allowed the students to generate ideas about questions
from one another. By the end of the class period, most students had written atleast seven questions that addressed the criteria provided at the beginning of theclass.
Observations of Teacher Two- Experienced Female:On the first day that I observed this class, the student desks wereorganized into rows and the teacher stood at the front of the room to give
instructions during most of the class period. The students (fourteen) were being
required to make a small pamphlet titled, “My Good Thinker’s Tool Kit.” Afterthey had each folded a set of blank pages, to make the book, the teacher structured
the class by requiring the students to take notes organized in the following
fashion: 1) the students would write a letter of the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit(WRAITEC), given by the teacher; the students would write the definition of that
letter of the tool kit, given by the teacher; and finally the students and teachers
would collaborate on coming up with examples of questions that applied eachletter of the tool kit. Although the class stuck to the task at hand, quite often thisprocess was interrupted by students’ inappropriate remarks. Here are someexamples.
Teacher: fold it down; make sure the opening is on the bottom, listening, you are going to rip from the top to thebottom. So everyone should have a large puka in the middle. Fold it in half and then fold it downStudent: it is a little book.
Student: You are so stupid…
Student: shut up…you are so stupid…
Teacher: now write on your cover, My Good Thinker’s Toolkit (name, date period, #, course name). So open your bookand on the left write W questions, clarifying questions” “Look at what _______wrote” “W questions, they areclarifying questions, and what does clarifying mean?”Student: to make clear
Teacher: ok so now I am going to give you some examples.
Students: do we need to write this down?
Teacher: yes.
Student: why are we doing this?
Teacher: to make you a better thinker. What W question do you not see here?
Student: why.
Teacher: good we are going to save that. Now I would like everyone to write a W question as an example.
Student: What do you mean by intellectually safe?

14

Student: What do you mean by doing work?
Student: What do you mean by doing work?
Student: What do you mean by Viagra?

The class lasted for one hour and by the time the bell rang the students had eachcompleted a booklet that contained each letter of the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit,
definitions of those letters and examples of questions that used each letter of thetool kit.
On the second day that I visited the classroom was still set up in rows. The
students (fourteen) each took their seat and at the beginning of the class theteacher gave instructions from the front. She reminded the students that during thelast time that they had met, they had started to develop Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
questions about themselves, using the ethnic studies terms as prompts. She thenexplained that by the end of this class period, the students would need to create
fifteen questions like the ones that they had talked about last class. However,before the students were set free to work on this objective, the teacher wanted one
example, of a question that met the criteria, from each student. She elicited thesequestions, from each individual student and wrote them up on the board at thefront of the room. Some examples of student questions were: 1) what are someexamples of my family being discriminating to other people? 2) What are someexamples of my family immigrating? 3) Can I assume that my family has beendisenfranchised of their rights? What are some reasons for racism towards me? Bygoing through this process the teacher was able to assess which students were
struggling with creating their questions and which were able to work more
independently. She then explained to all of the students that they could use theirclassmate’s questions as examples to help them make the remainder of the fifteenquestions that they were required to ask by the end of the class period. For the restof the period, the teacher circulated throughout the classroom and helped
individual students to construct their questions. The teacher was observed asking
the students to re-think the way they had asked their questions. This included
helping the students clarify what they had written and making sure that thestudents’ questions were personally meaningful. At the end of the class theteacher instructed the students to work on answering their questions forhomework. The students were encouraged to interview family members and use
introspection in this process.
Observations of Co-Teaching:
On the final day of my observations the two teachers had combined their classes.
When the school bell rang at 8:15 am, the novice male teacher brought his five students
over to the experienced female’s classroom. The room has been set up with all of thestudent desks in a circle. When the class finally settled down into their chairs, there weretwenty-two students, two teachers, and one student teacher from a nearby university.
Both teachers and students sat in the student chairs. The female teacher spent most of theclass period in her chair with the students, only to get up periodically to circulate around15

the class to answer questions and make sure that all of the students were working on theirwriting. The male teacher, once the class started writing, went up to the front of theclassroom and wrote with the students on the white board. He too circulated the room
throughout the class period to help students with their work.
The topic of today’s class was an analysis of the novel, The Tattoo, by Chris
McKinney. The students’ had read the prologue to the novel during their last class andthis class period they were learning how to do the homework assignment that
accompanied the book. For this assignment, the students were to use five of their
vocabulary words, from their student glossaries to analyze the book. The five vocabulary
words selected were the five indicators of violence in their community, based on a study
by the Asian Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Program. These words were:moodiness, impulsivity, substance abuse, sexism, and victimization.
To analyze the text the students, after defining the words, were required to find an
example, in the form of a direct quote from the book, of each of the words. Next they had
to think on their own, how could the character have handled the situation in the bookdifferently? They were then required to write their explanation. Finally, each student had
to create three Good Thinker’s Tool Kit questions that they would want to discuss with
their peers. To learn the required analysis process, the class went through this exercise
together. Sitting in a large circle, they were expected to use the community ball4 to taketurns sharing examples of their answers of each stage of the analysis. Word-by-word, theclass would find quotes together, and the male teacher would write them on the board.
Then the students would brainstorm and write their solutions on their own. Using thecommunity ball, they then took turns sharing their solutions. For the most part all of thestudents were engaged in the activity, however it was very challenging for them to use
the community ball to wait to speak. Here are my notes:
Teacher: all right, so next column, what changes could have been made by the characters so that a morepositive outcome could have come. So what could the character have said, be specific (students start to yellout). Wait and write it and then we will discuss after. Who wants to share a positive outcome?
Student: he could have been polite and asked him to look away.
Teacher: All right pass the ball to someone else who wants to share. (Pass the ball to boy) Christian is goingto share.
Student: instead of swearing at the guy he could have said, who you brah? (Some kids miss his answer
because they are talking amongst themselves)
Teacher: come on we want to participate and share (no one volunteers for the ball). All right are we ready for
impulsivity. Ok find an example in your bookStudent: the part where he killed the Filipinos.
Teacher: we want to be intellectually safe, so no rude gestures (one student apparently made a gesture toanother student about him being Filipino).

4

The community ball is a yarn ball that is created by the class on their first day together. The community
ball is used during large class discussions. The rules of the community ball are: 1) only the person with theball can speak; 2) the person with the ball gets to choose who speaks next; and 3) once given thecommunity ball, the person always has the right to pass (Jackson, 2001).

16

In the last ten minutes of class the students were then required to write out their three
Good Thinker’s Tool Kit questions that they wanted to talk about with the class. Thenthey selected the question they most wanted to talk about and wrote it on the board. At
this point the students ran up to the board, excited to share their questions. The class
ended with the male teacher reading through all of their questions and the students andteachers applauding because they had asked such good questions.
Analysis of the Data
Patton (2003) writes,
Getting close to the people in a setting through firsthand experience permits the inquirer
to draw on personal knowledge during the formal interpretation stage of analysis.
Reflection and introspection are important parts of field research. The impressions andfeelings of the observer become part of the data to be used in attempting to understand a
setting and the people to inhabit it. The observer takes in information and forms
impressions that go beyond what can be fully recorded in even the most detailed fieldnotes (p. 264).

When moving into the analysis stage of this study, I was reminded of how my role, andmy relationship to phenomenon that I was studying, not only impacted what I observed,
but the way in which I interpreted the data. Not only was I familiar with the setting, andthe teachers I observed, but I also was intimately familiar with the curriculum that they
were teaching. This made me constantly aware of both what I was observing and what I
wasn’t observing. Again Patton (2003) explains,
If social science theory, program goals, implementation designs, and/or proposals suggestthat certain things ought to happen or are expected to happen, then it is appropriate forthe observer or evaluator to note that those things did not happen (p. 295).

I found myself not only looking for the impact of the P4C approach on the classroom
environment, but because I had practiced P4C years, I was well aware of instances whena P4C strategy was missing and could have positively affected the classroom
environment. Both examples of the P4C approach’s impact, and examples of when a P4C
approach could have been utilized will be included in my analysis of the data. As I
describe the three main themes that emerged from this data, I must warn you that mypersonal lens, especially my teacher perspective, played a tremendous role in shaping thethematic outcomes.
I. Evidence of Critical Thinking
The first theme to emerge from the data was evidence of “critical thinking.”
Critical thinking is one of those buzz words that is constantly thrown around ineducation, and yet rarely is it explicitly observed in actual classroom practice. One of thereasons that critical thinking is hard to observe is because the term is elusive. P4C aims toaddress the issue of critical thinking by providing teachers and students with the language
to identify some critical thinking tools. The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit is one P4C teachingstrategy that in theory is meant to foster critical thinking. Throughout the observations it

17became clear that students and teachers used the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit. This made it
easy, for me as an observer, to find examples of when both teachers and students werethinking more deeply about the topics being covered.
Observations to support this theme came at different times during my visits. To
begin with, I observed a lesson where the students were actually learning about the Good
Thinker’s Tool Kit.
Teacher: next page which is going to be your right side, I, inferences, what could inferences mean?
Student: to infer you got to relate.
Teacher – so inferences are guesses with prior knowledge with facts. So we are going too say things like, canI infer _______(guess) from _________ (fact)?
Student: can you give us an example of this?
Teacher: Ok here is an example, Can I infer that Rusty will always be disruptive due to his behavior in classtoday.
Student: can I read out my example…Can infer that ____is on the football team because _______ is wearing
a football jersey?

In this exchange it is clear that the students are acquiring new vocabulary that enables
them to articulate when they are making inferences. This demonstrates how the Good
Thinker’s Tool Kit makes more complex thinking transparent to students, as they now
have the language to identify their own thinking, and it makes it helps the teachers to
identify when their students are engaging is more complex thought processes.
In addition to helping students become better thinkers, the Good Thinker’s Tool
Kit was also observed to help teachers facilitate deeper thinking during class discussions.
Teacher: Ok what’s one assumption that we can make about her from this paragraph?
Student: she’s Hawaiian
Teacher: what are the reasons we know she is Hawaiian?
Student: she’s dark, she lives in Hawaii, and she listens to Hawaiian music.
Teacher: can we make assumption about what time period she is living in?
Student: when was the Hawaiian monarchy overthrown? Ok I think it takes place in the 1800’s.
Student: but her last name is white
Teacher: do you have to have a Hawaiian last name to be Hawaiian? (Read more) Ok what can we assume
from here? What language does she speak?
Student: English but her grandma speaks her Hawaiian.
Teacher: so can your language define who you are?

The teacher could have helped the students dig a little deeper into these topics, like if it istrue that someone has those qualities, does it always mean that they are Hawaiian? This
could have lead to a deeper discussion about, what does it really mean to be a Hawaiian.
Nevertheless, this dialogue does demonstrate some effort by the teacher to make thedialogue “scratch beneath the surface.” In my experience, most new teachers, and veteran18

teachers, do not have classroom discussions because they feel uncomfortable with theirrole as a facilitator. However, in the case of the new teacher observed during thisclassroom discussion, it seems like he is using the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit to support
him as he makes efforts to get his students to think for themselves in complex ways.
The use of the Tool Kit was both prompted by the teachers and usedspontaneously by the students. Prompted use included students being asked to generate
questions about their own self-concept,
Student: Mr. would a question be what are the reasons my family immigrated to Hawaii?
Teacher: yes that is a good question because it searches for the reasons that your family moved here.
Student: for religion, could it be a who what when where question.
Teacher: but remember but if you use a w question how many answers do you get?
Student: one
Teacher: so would it be better to ask another type of question.
Student: can I assume that since I was baptized Catholic then I am still catholic?

And for stimulus during class discussion,
Teacher: We want to see some examples of people’s questions (four students leap out of their chair and run to the board
to write their questions). (Examples of question on the board: what are the reasons for Cal killing his wife? Can I inferthat because Nu’u has life he regrets killing the two Filipinos? Can I infer that Cal is weak because he killed his wife?
Can I infer that people stereotype Cal because of his swastika tattoo?)Student: write mine, what are the reasons ken is in jail? (Teachers are still circulating and helping thestudents create better questions).

However, in addition to being prompted, by my third observation, the students werestarting to incorporate the language into their conversational discussions. In one student
exchange, a girl offered an example that was contradictory to the ones being offered byher classmates. They began to harass her about it and she answered them by saying, “wellthat was a counter-example.” This spontaneous use of the toolkit seems to imply that thestudents are beginning to internalize the language and apply it to novel contexts.
Without analyzing the degree to which these students and teachers are thinking
critically, it is clear that the P4C approach is providing the class with tools for developing
thinking. Examples to support this conclusion were plentiful. Use of the Good Thinker’s
Tool Kit was observed in every single visit, was seen in both teachers independently, andin a variety of students. This overwhelming amount of evidence made it safe to conclude
that a P4C approach has a positive impact on the way in which students and teachers
thinking is developed and encouraged in the settings I observed.
II. P4C Classroom Strategies Went Underutilized
The second theme to emerge from the data was the notion that P4C teachingstrategies were underutilized. In relationship to the main research question, this seems tosuggest that in instances when a P4C teaching strategy could have been used, and wasn’t
students were negatively impacted. Negative impacts, to be examined include: loss of19

instructional time due to classroom management issues; general frustration by bothteachers and students; and small scale bullying in the form of put-downs. It is my belief
that these observed behaviors could have been decreased if one of the essential
theoretical underpinnings of P4C, community, had been reinforced by teaching strategies
related to intellectual safety and the community ball.
In many cases, it was observed that students had become familiar with the term
intellectual safety,5 and teachers had become comfortable using the term when addressing
inappropriate student behavior. Two examples, from my field notes, one from eachteacher demonstrates this.
One of the students is making comments to the other student (who is Filipino) about eating black dog andthen he makes comments back to the other student about eating horse (the Tongan). They get in an exchange
and the teacher says, “This is not intellectually safe. (Teacher redirects students who are talking about
homecoming).

And,
Teacher: Ok find an example in your book.
Student: the part where he killed the Filipinos.
Teacher: we want to be intellectually safe, so no rude gestures (one student apparently made a gesture toanother student about him being Filipino).

This demonstrates the teacher’s recognition that the type of classroom discourse, seen in
the two quotes, was not intellectually safe and it was also apparent that the reference tothe term changed the students’ behavior. However, many student behaviors, like the ones
described above occurred over the course of my observations. This implies that thestudents had not internalized for themselves, what it really means to be intellectually safe.
This observation warrants a concern that the concept of intellectual safety was noteffectively reinforced at the beginning of the course. If this is true, then it seems that bothstudents and teachers would benefit from revisiting the concept before the course moves
forward.
The reasons for such a stern recommendation is found in further observations thatpoint to the real importance of an intellectually safe classroom in a course about race andethnicity. Of more importance, is the fact that the course was started under the guise of aviolence intervention? This makes it especially important for teachers to take the time tomake sure that students really understand what it means to be intellectually safe. Here isan example to illustrate my point from a class discussion about the novel The Tattoo.
Student: so what Ken is saying is all of those all those Haoles just take things from other people’s cultures.
Student (a Caucasian boy says): I don’t do that.
Student; don’t take it personally.
Teacher: ok where are some examples of victimization…

5

Intellectual safety is a frame for student thinking, behavior and emotions that is established on the firstday of class when a P4C approach is employed. Intellectual safety is the ground rule that “all members of
the classroom community, teachers and students, have the right to ask virtually any question or make any
statement as long as respect for ALL persons is honored” (Jackson, 2001).

20

Student: when cal got his throat cut, when he killed his wife.
Teacher: let’s try not to take it personal (in response to the same haole boy’s squirming and comments), it isjust a book and we are trying to learn from the book.
Student: you are not the only white person in here.
Student (the same Caucasian boy): I’m the only fully white person (teacher circulates the room and looks forexamples of the students writing).

This student/teacher exchange would have been an excellent place for students to revisit
the concept of intellectual safety. It is clear that the Caucasian boy, while analyzing thebook felt uncomfortable. When he read the book, he identified with the references to
Caucasian people and took offense to the book’s contents. Other students in the room
attempted to comfort him by explaining that the book was not talking about him inparticular but he still felt threatened as the class moved on with the analysis. P4C has inplace the idea of intellectual safety so that situations like these can be prevented or
addressed as they occur. When the teacher did not utilize or reinforce the idea ofintellectual safety in this circumstance it negatively impacted the class. By addressing the
Caucasian boy’s feelings, in relationship to the idea of intellectual safety, the class could
have progressed in their understanding of the concept situated in a real life classroom
experience. Fortunately this example was not too extreme but highlights the reasons forestablishing, maintaining and reinforcing the intellectually safe concept.
Another P4C teaching strategy that went underutilized was the community ball.
The entire purpose of the community ball is to build classroom community throughrespectful discourse, which includes listening to the person that has been elected to speak.
On so many occasions, the students were observed yelling out of turn and having side
conversations when a student or teacher was speaking in front of the class. Here is one
observation.
(Teacher begins circling the room and seeing what the students are writing on their papers). “Shut up…I can’t
ignore him he is so irritating…” (Louder voice) Teacher – Ok people give me some of your reasons.
(Students go off on a tangent about the football team. Teacher sits at the front of the room and waits. The
students are still yelling shut up no you shut up).

This would have been an excellent opportunity for the teacher to employ the use of thecommunity ball. Instead, instructional time was wasted and the students and teacher
became frustrated with one another.
In other examples the teacher attempted to use the community ball but because
the rules of the community ball were not reinforced, the desired classroom outcomes
were not observed. Here are two examples of this.
Teacher: (they have lost use of the community ball) Christian what if the Filipinos were skilled at using knife.
Student: he could have just threatened them? (Some of the students are having small talk on the side)
Teacher: All right Kirsten has something to share. (The students gave her the ball)Student: she could have thought harder about a better Tattoo.

And,
Teacher: who has the ball? Who wants to share? Who has a positive outcome? Pass the ball.

21

Student: - he could have just walked away and not bothered with killing the Filipinos
Student: but what if they could have "shanked” him from the side?
Teacher: well what else could he have done besides walking away, what about calling the police (students are
all talking out of turn and yelling)?

These examples show that use of the community ball was attempted and in some cases
restored positive discourse in the classroom setting. However, without consistentreinforcement on the teacher’s part, like how intellectual safety needs to be reiterated, theP4C teaching tools go underutilized and have negative impacts on the classroom
environment. Perhaps teachers, once they recognize the value of these tools, could
become more effective in teaching students to use them and a more positive classroom
climate would be observed.
III. Student-Centered Contextualized Learning Environment
The final theme to emerge from my observations was the idea that P4C fostered a
student-centered, contextualized learning environment where students actively
participated in the construction of knowledge. In multiple observations teachers wereseen starting their lessons by addressing the students’ previous knowledge in effort toteach the students something new. For example, when students were first learning about
the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit they were required to come up with examples from theirown life – questions that were contextualized in their prior knowledge. This approachemphasized building off of student interests and knowledge.
Another example is when the students were first learning how to analyze thenovel The Tattoo. Built into the assignment was an approach where students wererequired make their own interpretations of the text as long as they had evidence to backup their claims.
Student: oh can we share. When he was on the toilet.
Teacher: what page?
Student: page four third paragraph down.
Teacher: read the example (student reads the example)
Teacher: why is that an example of moodiness?
Student: because he could have said…
Teacher: ok, lets find another instance of moodiness in the prologue.
Student: oh I know when Nu'u said what the fuck are you looking at?
Teacher: ok can everyone find that part?
Student: page five fourth paragraph
Teacher: in the middle, someone want to read that part (student reads)? Why is that moody?
Student: because he could have said…

22

This demonstrates how teachers and students are working together to make meaning out
the material they are studying. In a less student-centered approach the teacher would
provide the students with her version of the “correct” answers and these answers would
not be nonnegotiable.
In addition to these first two examples, other observations demonstrated how theclassroom curriculum revolved around each individual student’s interests, abilities andparticular life context. This was best seen as the students began to create questions about
themselves for their self – concept inquiry. In this research process the students wererequired to answer the question, “what is my self-concept from the perspective of ethnic
studies?” Before starting the assignment the teacher and students discussed the relevanceof the project.
Teacher: ok now who needs some more time reflecting on your identity? No one ok, so let’s move on…Let’s
think about some reasons that this inquiry will be good for you? You can write it down first and then we cantalk about it with each other.
Student: so you can understand yourself.
Teacher: All right, do you think all adults understand themselves?
Student: no it is probably something that changes.
Teacher: let’s discuss it what are some of your ideas. Everyone is going to give one.

In this exchange it becomes clear to the students that in this project there is no one
answer that has predetermined (even adults haven’t figured it out). Students discover thatthey will be constructing meaning in this inquiry, and to do so they will start by asking
questions about themselves. Here are some exchanges to demonstrate how the inquiry
starts with student questions and not teacher questions.
Teacher: so what are these questions going to be about? Do you remember? So what you have to do is you
have to ask questions to your family, who ever you live with, that pertain to our words?
Student: so could we ask what are the reasons Hawaiians are racist to Haole?
Teacher: you could ask what are the reasons my family is racist to haole?
Student: I don’t want to say that?
Teacher: but remember that this is not a research paper about Hawaiians; this is a research paper about you
and your family? (The students start firing out a bunch of questions and the teacher helps them turn them into
questions that are about the students.) Remember you want to connect these ethnic studies concepts or terms.
Student; can we ask questions that relate to why am I boy? I want to be curious?
Student: (The students are continuing to ask questions in their journal. Some of them are asking each other for help,
they appear to be genuinely engaged in the activity) Is Hawaii an example of multi-culturalism?
Teacher: you tell me what the term means and then let’s think about it. Remember you need to make a question thatpertains to you.

It is clear that the teachers had to push the students, in some cases to own their questions
and make them specifically about the students themselves. Regardless, this approach23

demonstrates that the learning in the inquiry project started with the students’ questions
that they found interesting and that were contextualized in their own life.
Discussion
Themes Related to the P4C Phenomena
At the beginning of this study four defining features of the P4C approach werelisted: 1) building community; 2) fostering inquiry; 3) creating student-centeredclassrooms; and 3) encouraging reflection. Two of these four defining features wereobserved and highlighted as themes in the findings section. These two findings, evidence
of inquiry and student-centered classrooms, demonstrate that some of the theoreticalunderpinnings of a P4C approach to education have been effectively translated into actualclassroom practice. What’s more, is these classroom practices are seen to be having a
positive impact on both teachers and students.
For example, in many of the classroom observations, students and teachers wereseen using the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit. The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit is a P4C
classroom strategy, linked to the theoretical idea that classrooms should foster inquiry.
Students and teachers were seen asking questions that helped to clarify what was being
said, identify underlying assumptions and draw inferences based on evidence. In an era ofschooling that revolves around standardized testing, teaching students skills for inquiry,
so that they can construct their own knowledge has taken the back burner for someteachers. So concerned about getting their students to pass a test, some teachers haveresorted to focusing all classroom instruction on test taking skills and less on learning forthe sake of learning. As an educator, this is hard to understand. In our interdependentworld, it would seem that critical thinking and inquiry would be necessary skills fornavigating the intersections of disciplines and peoples. Instead, the direction of U.S.
public education is quite opposite as high stakes tests, intended for increased
accountability, have stifled the fostering genuinely complex thinkers in today’sclassrooms. Theoretically, a P4C approach to education is meant to counter this current
trend in education, and as was observed in these two classrooms, students and teachers
were moving towards becoming better thinkers.
In addition, many observations demonstrated that the P4C classrooms observed
were student-centered. Student-centered classrooms are believed important as they
address individual learning needs and provide each student as they engage in their own
unique learning process. Student-centered classrooms help to address the diversity foundin students (gender, ethnicity, culture) by allowing students to start their learning processwith their own prior knowledge. Student-centered classrooms also help to motivate
students as they value the interests of the learners. It would seem that most classrooms
would benefit from being student-centered but again this is not as common as one would
think. Most recently, the State of Hawaii has observed severe budget cuts to education.
As resources become limited, both human and material, the system becomes lessconcerned about the individual needs of each student and more focused on producing
graduates (regardless of what they have actually learned). Therefore, because the systemfails to do so, it is the role of teachers to create student-centered learning opportunities. In
the classrooms observed, it was evident that these teachers were doing their best to create24

a learning environment that capitalized on the knowledge and interests of their students.
In addition, the P4C approach observed was empowering students with the skills toconstruct new knowledge.
On a different note an interesting thing to come out of this study were theobservations that some P4C classroom strategies had gone underutilized. This finding isdifferent, because more than other interpretations of the data, my own frame of reference,as a P4C teacher helped to create this understanding. There were many occasions,throughout the observations, when I observed frustration in both the teachers andstudents. Most of their frustration revolved around students being disrespectful to otherstudents. Some might give the explanation that these types of behaviors are typical ofhigh school students and I would not disagree. However, in a class that is built on making
students and teachers more tolerant people, these behaviors needed to be addressed more
often then they were.
One of the most fundamental aspects of a P4C approach to education is thatclassrooms must start by establishing an intellectually safe community of learners. The
idea is that intellectual inquiry will not progress unless people feel safe to express
themselves within the group they are constructing knowledge with. Therefore, P4C
classroom strategies have been developed to manifest these theoretical beliefs. One ofthese strategies is the use of the community ball. This strategy is designed to teachstudents to respect and listen to others. In a class that was designed to prevent violence it
seems that learning to be respectful of one’s peers would be of utmost importance andthis is why I conclude that certain aspects of P4C went underutilized. This particularfinding is helpful. It emphasizes the point that just because someone, a teacher in thiscase, intellectually understands a concept it does not mean that they are effective inapplying that concept in everyday practice. This takes time, personal reflection, andfeedback from observations like these. However, I did not go into these observations as ateacher evaluator. Therefore, only if my participants request a transcript of my findings,
will I be in a place to provide my interpretation of their practice.
On a final note, it was very difficult for me to observe the fourth aspect of P4C reflection. I am not quite sure if this was due to an absence of reflection or whether it was
too difficult for me to document reflection using the methods of observation. Patton(2003) writes,
Observations are also limited in focusing only on external behaviors-the observer cannot
see what is happening inside people. Moreover, observational data are often constrainedby limited sample of activities actually observed (p. 306).

In any case, it is important to point out that the domain of reflection was not observed andperhaps, if interviewing were to be employed as another method in this study, thepresence or absence of reflection in these classrooms could be investigated.
Ethical and Practical Issues
Throughout this write up I have discussed some of the ethical and practical issues
that came up. Most prevalent were the ethical and practical issues related to my role as anobserver. Practically, it might not always be the best idea to “study one’s own backyard.”
I was definitely not a stranger on campus and my presence was constantly questioned. I

25usually replied that I was doing an assignment for a class and this was a satisfactory
explanation to most. Other than that practical issues were not prevalent.
Ethically, I can find more problems with my role as an observer. To begin with, I
was constantly aware of my biases towards the P4C approach to education. This meansthat at times I found myself noticing only the classroom behaviors that confirmed thepositive impacts of P4C. Then, when I did interpret some of the classroom observations
as negative, my interpretation was that it was an absence of P4C. Ethically, uponreflection, I don’t know if I am the best person to be doing this type of research.
In addition to personal biases, I also felt the need to give feedback to teachers
when I saw ways I believed their classroom practice could be improved. When looking at
my observation notes there are many personal notations that describe the type of
feedback that I would have given, but because my role in this study was as an observer, I
refrained. This presents an ethical concern. If students could benefit from the feedback, is
it not my duty as an educator to provide it? I most certainly am not harming anyone bykeeping my feedback to myself, but it then seems as if I am doing research for the sake of
research and not for the betterment of the profession- what’s the point? The ultimate
question being, at what point does the observer step out of their role as observer if they
believe they can help the situation they are observing? I am resolved in thinking that it
depends on the observer and what they think is the best thing to do depending on thesituation.
Final Reflections
This project was an authentic learning experience. I was able to engage in a topic
that I was interested in, and able to experiment with analyzing that topic through aqualitative lens. As a part of my job, I am required to observe teachers and students.
However, I have never been as focused as I was in this study. It was helpful to go throughthe process of designing a research question and then using that research question to
guide observation. I must admit that in my first observation I neglected to think abut myresearch question as much as I should have but as this was reiterated during class time I
got more focused with each visit to the field. Embedded in my learning to focus myobservations was the practice of zigzagging. I benefited immensely from analyzing myfirst two sets of observations before engaging in my third. I think that my third and final
observation really gave me a taste of what it means to be a qualitative researcher. I had
analyzed data, and then used those findings to build my theories as I went back into thefield. For example, after my first two visits I had developed the theme that the classroom
strategy, intellectual safety had gone underutilized. So, as I went back into the classrooms
I was looking to see if this was true. What I realized was not only was intellectual safety
being underutilized but also the use of the community ball. This new observation caused
me to change my emergent theory so that it would be more general – P4C strategies
going underutilized. Then in my findings I was able to provide two examples to support
this theme.
Finally, this project really helped me to examine my role as the researcher. I
remember looking at this section requirement “role of the researcher” for my dissertation,and thinking it would be a breeze to write. Now, after this project I realize that the role of
the researcher is probably one of the most important issues in qualitative studies. The

26

researcher is the instrument, and it is the responsibility of the researcher to acknowledge
where they fit into their study as they fundamentally shape how data is collected andinterpreted. At the beginning of this project I was somewhat put off by the notion that weshouldn’t study our own backyard. However, I really got to experience, by going into mybackyard to study the P4C phenomenon, that I brought just as many issues, regarding thequality of the data I was collecting, as someone who was unfamiliar with my researchcontext. For one, I feel that my findings are totally biased towards seeing P4C as apositive approach to education. Perhaps someone not so familiar with P4C would havebeen a little more open minded in his or her inquiry. In addition, I helped to write thecurriculum that I was observing and so sometimes it was hard to separate the intentionsof the curriculum with what was actually being practiced in the classroom. I think thebiggest thing I realized is that it is so important to be reflexive throughout the research
process and to document your own thinking. Through documentation, the thoughts of theresearcher can be included in the write up and will provide readers with a more honest
interpretation of the data. This came out in my theme about underutilized P4C strategies
and at least I could be transparent in how I came to that theme. In general, I leave thisproject being more aware of the real issues involving being “close” to what you study andplan on being more thoughtful in selecting my research settings.
In closing…thank you for the opportunity. It was really good practice. I liked
having to analyze the data for themes and to build a theory, or findings out of that data.
As I make my journey towards becoming a qualitative researcher, I know that these skills
are necessary and as a result of this project I feel a bit more efficacious in my ability to
execute them.

27

Works Cited
Cole, A. & Knowles, G. (2001). Lives in context; The art of life history research.
Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design; Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Liberman, A., Crosby, A.,
Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F.,
Cory, S., Stone, G., Mukhopadhaya, K., Chattopadhyay, S., Dahlberg, L.
(2007). The effectiveness of universal school – based programs for theprevention of violent and aggressive behavior: A report of recommendationsof the task force on community preventative services. Retrieved August 10,
2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5607a1.htm?s.
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of gently socaratic inquiry. ASCD.
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. (1991). Thinking in education. Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University
Press.
Lipman, M. (1993). Philosophy for children. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking children
and education. (pp. 373-384). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. & Sharp, A. (1978). In M. Lipman & A. Sharp (Ed.) Growing Up With
Philosophy. (pp. 259-273). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. & Sharp, A. (1985). Ethical inquiry; Instructional manual to accompany
Lisa. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (2002). Philosophy for children’s debt to Dewey. Montclair State University,28

Upper Montclair, N.J.
Mark, G.Y., Hishinuma, E., Mayeda, D., Nishimura, S., Minamoto, L., Young, A., Fiaui,
P., Goshorn, M., Her, J., Humilde, O., Wilbur, J., Garcia-Santiago, O., Craft, R.,& Scronce, A. (2004). Community Report on Adolescent Risk & Protective
Factors: Kalihi (Farrington High School), Waimanalo/Kailua (Kailua HighSchool), Waipahu (Waipahu High School). Honolulu: Asian/Pacific Islander
Youth Violence Prevention Center.
McKinney, C. (1999) The Tattoo. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Reed, R. & Sharp, A. (1992). Studies in philosophy for children: Harry Stottlemeirer’s
discovery. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teacher’s College
Press.
Sobredo, J., Kim-Ju, G., Figueroa, J., Mark, G. & Fabionar, J. (2008). An ethnic studies
model of community mobilization; Collaborative partnership with a high-risk
public high school. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34 (3S), S82 –S88.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research; Techniques andprocedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

29