Gently Socratic Inquiry*

By Dr. Thomas E. Jackson+15v3
10/2017

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………2
INTRODUCTION TO P4C…………………………………………………3
p4c HI- CREATING A SPACE FOR “GENTLY SOCRATIC”
INQUIRY……………………………………………………………………3WHAT IS GENTLY SOCRATIC INQUIRY?..............................4
ON SAFETY………………………………………………………………...6
CREATING A SAFE COMMUNITY………………………………………7
Making a Community Ball……………………………………………8
Magic Words………………………………………………………….9
DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF p4c HI INQUIRY:
FIVE CHARACTERISTICS……….…………………………………...10
The Good Thinker’s Toolkit……………………………...…………12
THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER………………………………………….19
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..21
END NOTES……………………………………………………………….21
Plain Vanilla....………………………………………………………21

2

Gently Socratic Inquiry

INTRODUCTION TO P4C

Philosophy for Children (P4C) is the creation of Matthew Lipman. The idea for
P4C was born in 1969 when Lipman was teaching at Columbia University. Lipman was
deeply concerned about his students’ inability to reason well and make soundjudgments. Realizing that college was late to begin responding to this inability, his deep
concerns led to: (1) a revisioning and playful redesign of philosophical content
accessible to a non-academic audience, (2) re-presenting this content in aphilosophically rich K-12 curriculum consisting of 7 novels and an accompanying
teacher’s manual for each, (3) establishing, with Ann Margaret Sharp, the Institute for
the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair University, and (4)offering regular training workshops at Montclair to help prepare educators to implement
this initiative. At these workshops participants experienced for themselves Lipman's
vision of transforming traditional classrooms into Communities of Philosophical Inquiry.
P4C is now an internationally recognized educational initiative in countries
throughout the world. P4C seeks to develop children’s ability to think for themselves andto learn to use that ability in responsible, caring ways.
In 1984, Lipman's approach was introduced to Hawai'i. Here, inspired by the
specialness of these Islands and the rich diversity of its cultures, Lipman's approach toP4C has changed and evolved into “p4c Hawai’i (p4cHI)”** where it continues to develop
in Hawai’I, nationally and internationally. p4cHI has found its home in the University of
Hawai'i/Mānoa

UehiroAcademyfor

Philosophy

andEthicsin

Education.

(www.p4chawaii.org)
p4c HI – CREATING A SPACE FOR “GENTLY SOCRATIC” INQUIRY"Gently Socratic" Inquiry recognizes that a paramount objective of education isindeed to help students develop their ability to think for themselves and to learn to use
this ability in compassionate, responsible ways. It also acknowledges that much ofcurrent schooling falls short in helping students achieve this. Gently Socratic inquiry
rests upon recognition that we all enter this world filled with a special, powerful senseof wonder***: Primal Wonder. From this flows an energy of deep questioning,3Gently Socratic Inquiry

persistence and passion in a quest for meaning that animates our initial engagementwith our world.
Sadly, far too frequently for most of us, this often exuberant sense of Primal
Wonder out of which authentic thinking and being in the world develops, diminishes.
Unfortunately schooling unwittingly contributes to this loss in fundamental ways.
Already, early on, this loss becomes evident. Children’s thinking is focused increasingly
not on their wonderings, but on content the systems dictate and teachers are expected
to present and children expected to learn and demonstrate this learning on
standardized tests. One result is that there simply isn't time, so it seems, for the true
wonderings, questions and voices of children to be heard.
This apparent lack of time is exacerbated by the fact that most educators simply
have never been exposed to this type of wondering and the inquiries that can growfrom this wondering. They haven't witnessed this wondering, particularly in classrooms
and schools that have embraced the p4cHI approach and the changes that Gently
Socratic Inquiry makes possible. It is hoped that what you read here will inspire you tolearn more and even give it a try!
WHAT IS GENTLY SOCRATIC INQUIRY?
The “gentle" in gently Socratic inquiry involves highlighting both a connection
and distinction from what Socrates and "Socratic Method" too often have come torepresent. Socrates is often portrayed as a consummate lawyer, cleverly questioning
and moving his adversary into an "Aha! Got you!" position of contradiction. Socratic
Method is viewed as methodical questioning and cross-examining, peeling away layersof half-truths, exposing hidden assumptions. The Socratic Method becomes a rule-likestep-by-step procedure.
Young children do exhibit a Socratic-like tenacity in their persistent "Whys? In
response to the world that surrounds them. But their persistence is both properly
serious and eminently playful. If our first adult response does not satisfy, another “But
why?” follows.
Young children also share with Socrates a deep sense of “not knowing”. In his
exchanges, Socrates, like young children, did not have “the answer” already in mind. I
think he possessed a robust sense of Primal Wonder and from this could intuit when a4Gently Socratic Inquiry

response somehow moved closer to a more complete answer and deeper
understanding: just the thing that young children seek. In this context it is important toremember that Socrates, as we know, was encountering adults, and, context sensitive,
was not often particularly gentle in his pursuit of clarity and understanding!
Gently Socratic inquiry does share with Socrates an emphasis on dialogue. A
salient feature of dialogue is not initially or primarily on questioning, but listening.
Dialogue's first interest is not to counter, debate, disagree, lead, or expose, but togenuinely and simply listen. This quality of listening requires setting aside one's own
thoughts in order to be truly open to what the other is saying. This is especially
important because, in gently Socratic inquiry, the “other” will often be a child, andgentleness must be foremost in one's mind if one hopes to be privileged with anauthentic response from a child, or anyone, for that matter.
Many factors in contemporary schooling and teacher preparation work against
the kind of listening essential for gently Socratic inquiry. As Peter Senge*** suggests,
we all internalize a "mental model" of what it means to be a teacher. Central to thistendency is the idea that the teacher is the one who is "in the know" and the student is
the recipient of this knowledge, the “learner." Too often the teacher thus focuses herlistening on hearing an expected answer or on probing the student’s understanding of aparticular idea or concept. "Has the student understood what I am trying to teach?" is a
stance that precludes the kind of listening that is essential for the success of gently
Socratic inquiry.
This focus on dialogue requires that a particular set of relationships develop
among the members of the classroom community that is quite different from standard
classroom practice. These new relationships place much more emphasis on listening,
thoughtfulness, silence, care and respect for the thoughts of others. This setting
provides ample time for students to express and clarify what they mean, to understand,to respond to what others have said, and to inquire further into what other students
intended. Above all, the classroom is an intellectually safe place that is not in a rush to
get somewhere.
Whenever possible, students and teacher sit in a circle during inquiry time.
Students call on each other, learning to no longer rely on the teacher to carry this
responsibility. Each has the opportunity to speak or to pass and remain silent. In this5Gently Socratic Inquiry

environment, inquiry grows.
Gently Socratic inquiry is essentially about creating a particular, special place
where these things can occur. In traditional Hawaiian culture there was a special
physical place called a Pu'uhonua. This was a recognized place of safety, a sacredrefuge, respected as such by all who were there. p4c HI takes its inspiration from thisHawaiian place and practice.

The classroom becomes the setting within which toestablish a different set of relationships among teacher and students. In this place theteacher becomes a co-inquirer in dialogue with her students, rather than their guide or
sage. Over time, tools and criteria come into play, which enhance the quality and rigorof the discourse and inquiry, but always within the context of a safe place. It is in thissafety that shy, reticent, or seemingly disinterested students will speak in class for thevery first time.
To develop such a classroom community and the skills needed for its success,the teacher needs to deliberately commit to learning the whys and how to's of creatingsuch a community. Over time, as students and teachers internalize these skills andpractices, the strategies and skills that emerge from the inquiry sessions will appear atother times of the school day, other content areas and beyond. Students and teachers
begin to ask qualitatively different sorts of questions, to listen more thoughtfully andattentively to each other. They also learn to persist in seeking to "scratch beneath thesurface" of a text, lesson, or personal situation.

How does one develop such a

community?
ON SAFETY
Gently Socratic inquiry begins by developing a safe context within which
dialogue and inquiry can unfold. First and foremost, classrooms must be physicallysafe places. For dialogue and inquiry to occur they must also be emotionally andintellectually safe. In emotionally and intellectually safe places there are no putdowns,
no comments intended to belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule.
INTELLECTUAL SAFETY***
All participants in the Community feel free to ask virtually any question or state any view solong as respect for all community members is honored.

6

Gently Socratic Inquiry

Within this safe place, the group comes to accept virtually any question orcomment, so long as it is respectful of the other members of the circle. 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.
Anyone who knows how to pretend they understand something even though
they don’t, or who has been in a context where they had a question but were afraid to
ask it and remained silent, has felt the impact of a place that was not safe. Safety is the
bedrock upon which inquiry grows.
An important detail relevant to safety is proper acknowledgment of the diversityof views that emerge in the course of various inquiries. Safety arises, in part, out of
acknowledging and celebrating this diversity. This is not the same as saying there are“no right or wrong answers” or "any answer is okay." Sometimes a student will fail topresent reasons, or well-thought-out reasons, to support their answer. The group may
not fully understand the implications of a particular answer, nor the assumptions that
underlie them. Over time, the group begins to understand that it needs to take thesecriteria into account in considering a proposed answer. Mere unsupported opinion does
not suffice.
Equally important is this: The goal is not to persuade anyone to any particularanswer, but rather for everyone to reach a deeper understanding of the complexity of
the issues involved and a greater ability to navigate among these complexities,
differing points of view and disagreements; to think for oneself.
CREATING A SAFE COMMUNITY
The most favorable configuration for developing a safe community is for theclass, including the teacher, to sit in a circle, on the floor if appropriate. Unlike the more
traditional configuration with students in rows, the circle allows all members of thecommunity to make eye contact, to see each other. In the ensuing dialogue,
participants are better able to hear what others are saying and also to see how they
are saying it; in other words, the facial expressions and mannerisms of those who are
speaking. The circle also facilitates seeing the impact on each other of the interaction.
What is the impact of acceptance or rejection? Of careful listening as opposed toinattention or indifference.

7

Gently Socratic Inquiry

An early objective is to establish a protocol whereby students feel empowered
to call on each other. One effective activity for accomplishing this is to create a“community ball” together as a way to give shape to what will become an inquiry
community. This activity is effective with groups from kindergarten through university
and beyond.
Making a Community Ball
Materials needed:•

empty cardboard paper towel or PVC tube•

Skein of multicolored yarn•

One 14" zip-tie

Procedure:
1. Place the zip-tie through the center of the tube.
2.

Wrap yarn from the skein around the tube.

3. When finished wrapping, hold onto the zip-tie while pulling the yarn off the
tube. Zip-tie must remain in the center of the yarn coil. Loop and fasten the
zip-tie pulling it as tight as possible, forming a bagel shape from the yarn.
4. Cut through the yarn at the outer edge, creating a pom-pom ball.
Typically, class seated in a circle, the very first p4c session begins with making
a Community Ball. The teacher begins wrapping the yarn around the tube (PVC or
paper towel), while the student next to her feeds the yarn from the skein. The teacher
goes first, responding to a question or questions that each person in the circle will also
answer in turn. This/these question(s), accessible and context sensitive, can beanything the teacher thinks will readily invite student responses, such as, "Tell us yourname", "something about your name", “What is your favorite food or music?” or “Whatdo you like best about school?” When the teacher finishes speaking, she passes thetube to the student beside her, who begins to wrap as the teacher takes over feeding
the yarn. This process - one person wrapping and speaking, and his neighbor feeding
the yarn - continues until all have had the opportunity to speak.
Once the group has made the ball, the teacher presents these three8Gently Socratic Inquiry

agreements: (1) the person with the ball is the speaker of the moment. That person,
when finished, may pass the ball to whomever has a raised hand. (2) One always has
the right to pass. (3) One also has the "right to invite". Any student with the community
ball may toss it to someone who hasn't spoken yet, inviting them to join with theirthoughts.

The "right to pass" rule always remains in effect so that there is norequirement to speak, although one CAN say "I need more time to think!"
Another (optional) community-enhancing strategy is to introduce certain “magic
words" that members of the community can use to facilitate the inquiry. The use ofmagic words has been effective in developing a safe place where inquiry can unfold ina non-threatening way. Students who are soft-spoken are encouraged to speak up
when someone in the group says "SPLAT” (speak louder please). It’s okay to say"IDUS" (I don’t understand). And when several people are speaking at once,“POPAAT” (please, one person at a time) works. The teacher and students can writethese "words" on cards and display them for all to see as needed. Each group can, ofcourse, develop its own set of words. Whatever words you use, they can be powerfully
instrumental in developing a community where all members share in the responsibility
for moving an inquiry forward and where the members share a common vocabulary
with which to engage in this task.
Magic Words•

SPLAT = Speak a little louder, please. SPLAT means that what a person said justbarely got out of their mouth and then went 'splat' onto the floor. In other words, weneed you to speak louder so we can hear you.

•

IDUS = I don't understand. IDUS can empower students to be able to say when they
don't understand. It has proven much easier for students to say IDUS than “I don't
understand.” Teachers find it encouraging when IDUS begins to show up in othercontent areas.

•

POPAAT = Please, one person at a time. Once students learn that during inquiry
time the group is very interested in what they have to say, they often all want tospeak at the same time. POPAAT is effective in this context. When people start
speaking out of turn, someone says POPAAT, which means that all must stoptalking. The person holding the ball then continues.

9Gently Socratic Inquiry•

OMT = One more time. OMT is a request for the speaker to repeat what he has said.

•

NQP = New question, please.

•

LMO = Lets move on.

•

PBQ = Please be quiet.

•

GOS = Going off subject. A group member can say GOS when the inquiry seems to
be losing focus.

•

OOT = Out Of Time (AOOT Almost OOT, WOOT, Way OOT)•

JAMP = Just A Moment Please! This indicates that what is being said is moving too
quickly for some to follow. Could we pause for a moment so one or several of us cancatch up?

•MEGO = Mine Eyes Glaze Over What is/was being said was more technical andcomplex with words/names some never heard such that some of us are shutting
down with the “overload”.
Once the teacher introduces the magic words, anyone with or without theCommunity Ball, may hold up a card or say the appropriate magic word. If thecommunity seems bogged down in a topic and is not getting anywhere, someone may
offer "LMO" to the community. At that moment, the community votes to see if the
majority would indeed like to move on. If a minority still has interest in the topic, they
can pursue it at a later time.
DEVELOPINGAN

UNDERSTANDING

OF

p4c

HI

INQUIRY:

FIVE

CHARACTERISTICS
Perhaps most basic to any successful p4c HI inquiry is the clear and sharedunderstanding that during this time “we aren’t in a rush to get anywhere.” In othercontent areas and parts of the day, there is pressure to cover material, to get to a nextclass or subject and so on. The p4cHI dialogue and inquiry sessions have a different
intention and feel. Deeper inquiry requires time to develop, periods of thoughtful
silence, pauses to clarify. Within this context the following five characteristics are at thecore of p4cHI inquiry:[ 1 ] The source of the inquiry: Whenever possible, the inquiry arises out of the10

Gently Socratic Inquiry

wonderings, questions and interests of the community, begins where the community isin its understanding, and unfolds with its own, often surprising twists and turns. There
are a wide variety of possible triggers, occasions, and topics for inquiry.

PLAIN

VANILLA***** is one strategy for finding a topic and then giving shape to an inquiry.
A salient feature of gently Socratic inquiry is its sensitivity to the wonderings,
interests and questions of the community, their thoughts, and where they take thetopic. Even very young children generate sophisticated lines of inquiry from deceptively
simple beginnings.

One kindergartner; in response to the question, “What do you

wonder about?" answered: “The other night, while I was gazing at the stars, I wondered
whether anything came before space." In the discussion that ensued, the children’s
exploration ranged from dinosaurs to God. Other inquiries, different grade levels, have
explored such topics as “Could there be a greatest number?"; “What constitutes aright?" and “What is the purpose of rights?”; "What is more important- friends, fame, or
fortune?"; and "If we all have those reasons to be good people (reasons to havecompassion, patience, love) then why is it so hard to be a good person?", "Can I inferthat it is impossible to tell the whole truth because people perceive the truth
differently?".
The solicitation of questions and topics for a given inquiry can be as broad as"What do you wonder about?", to more focused, content specific questions based oncontent specific readings. As indicated, these questions can be further refined by
stipulating using one of the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit (GTTK) letters as stems informulating the question.
Once students realize that the topics and questions can indeed come fromthem and be pursued along lines they are interested in, the quality of their inquiries istruly inspiring.
[ 2 ] Co-inquiry: In gently Socratic inquiry, no one, not even the teacher, knows either“the" answer to the initial wondering or question or where the inquiry will lead. Clearly,
any effort to guide an inquiry to a predetermined answer or outcome compromises theprocess from the start. The dialogue develops its own integrity, its own movement,
going where “it” wants or needs to go. At various points it may bog down and need an
occasional nudge (“LMO") but in the main, the inquiry emerges from the context. It
frequently pushes what Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1986; Lipman, 1996) refers to as the11Gently Socratic Inquiry“zone of proximal development” of all participants, including the teacher.
Gently Socratic inquiry is co-inquiry in the best sense. The teacher is no longer
burdened with needing to know "the answer". In such inquiries, the students also pose
insightful questions or comments that can lead the inquiry down unexpected paths. The
teacher becomes a genuine co-inquirer in the unfolding inquiry.
[ 3 ] The self-corrective nature of the inquiry: Matthew Lipman (1991), following in
the pragmatist tradition of the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce,emphasized the centrality of inquiry that is self-corrective. In classrooms where inquiry
has become an essential and ongoing activity, community members will change anddevelop their thought about a particular topic. “Before I thought ...., but now I realizethat . . . ." becomes an increasingly common comment in a maturing inquiry community
in the course of a school year.

[ 4 ] Inquiry Tools (WRAITEC): Gently Socratic inquiry is more than a conversation,
discussion, or sharing of ideas within a group. It is characterized by an intellectual rigor
that certain cognitive tools help facilitate. These tools comprise the "Good Thinker's
Tool Kit." They are an important means for giving shape and direction to the notion
that, although we aren’t in a rush to get anywhere, we do have an expectation that wewill get somewhere.

The Good Thinker’s Toolkit
Helping students and teachers internalize good thinker’s tools of inquiry equips
them with the ability to think for themselves and take action in responsible ways. Withsustained experience in dialogue and inquiry, students become more adept at giving
and asking for reasons, detecting assumptions, anticipating consequences, reflecting
on inferences they draw, asking for clarification and seeking evidence and examples aswell as counterexamples. They also learn to seek out alternatives and to form criteria
for the judgments they make. The letters W, R, A, I, T, E, C represent the good
thinker's tools (Jackson, 1989):

12

Gently Socratic Inquiry

W
What is meant by...? What is the problem? What is going on here? What have I
forgotten to ask? What else do I need to know?
[W] is essentially meant to capture that aspect of thinking that involves sensitivity tocomplexity, possible ambiguity, and multiplicity of meanings both verbal and non-verbal
and, hence, a readiness to seek clarification when needed. (Note that to some extent,"clarification" can be construed to include the other letters to follow.)
Verbal cues that one is engaging in clarification include: "What do you mean by...?""What does the author mean by…?", "What is the key issue here?" "Is that true?" [T]"How could we find out?" "Why do you say that?" [R] "If what you say is true, would it
follow that...?" [I] "How does what you've said relate to the point at issue?" "Aren't weassuming that...?" [A].

R
Are reasons being offered to support claims?
[R] reflects that to think more deeply it is not enough to simply offer an opinion. That
opinion needs to be supported by reasons. In a classroom context, it is important to
explore more fully in separate lessons the nature of reasons and reason giving. This
includes issues such as what is a reason? Are reasons of equal force? If not, whatcriteria are there that might be useful in distinguishing good reasons from bad reasons?

A
Are we aware of and identifying key assumptions being made?
[A] recognizes that an important part of higher order thinking is becoming aware of andmaking explicit assumptions that underlie any discussion, position, argument, inquiry orpresentation. It involves a growing ability to identify assumptions, to recognize how
those assumptions are influencing what we are seeing and judging, and to identify otherassumptions that might be made. This ability to identify assumptions is closely linked to
the next "tool".

13

Gently Socratic InquiryI
Are we aware of inferences being made and possible implications of what is beingsaid?
The [I] represents an important cluster of skills, "If...thens...", inferences, andimplications. Part of becoming a better thinker involves the simple recognition of thepotential power of "If...then..." thinking. IF, for example, we do, or don't pursue aparticular line of action, THEN, what follows? What are the consequences? It involves
the growing ability to recognize IMPLICATIONS of statements, assertions, courses ofaction, and so on.
Inferences basically have three parts: (1) a STARTING POINT (something seen, heard,
smelled, tasted or touched), (2) an ENDING POINT (a "place" the mind "moves" to thatis beyond what was presented at the STARTING POINT and (3) a prior, more generalassumption that connects the two. I may see a person sneeze (STARTING POINT) andinfer that they have a cold (ENDING POINT). We are frequently making suchinferences. Recognizing that we have made an inference (1) & (2) is an important step inbecoming a better thinker.
Connected with this is the ability to identify inferences that are being made is thedeveloped skill of knowing when an inference is warranted and when not. This involves(3) the underlying general assumption. Suppose I infer from the presence of a gold ringon someone's left hand ring finger that they are married. Reflecting, I now realize I also
have in my mind (3) a prior general assumption that triggers "ring-on-ring-finger-of-lefthand" with "married". "People with a gold ring on their left hand ring finger are married."
Once I've made explicit (1) - (3), I can examine the inference by asking: "Does it (2)follow?" For sure? Probably? Possibly? Is it safe to assume these things?

T
Is what is being said true? How could we find out?
[T] indicates that a major concern of a critical thinker is with the purported truth of what isbeing asserted. Is what is being asserted in fact true? How could we find out?

Lots ofstatements are presented to all of us in school and out. For students in school this14

Gently Socratic Inquiry

includes science, math, social studies, and language arts classes. Clearly not all ofthese statements are true. What we take for truth must meet certain standards. What
are the standards? Is it always? never, or only sometimes true?

E
Are EXAMPLES being given or is EVIDENCE being offered to support or illustrate
claims?
[E] is one way in which clarification of a position or assertion can be accomplished. It isa way of making a general claim specific or testing a claim by presenting an illustrative
example. Equally important is the offering of evidence to support assertions. What isthe evidence?

C
Are there any counter-examples to the claim being made?
[C] reflects the important task of testing the limits of a claim or position by searching for a
way to prove it false or at least to test the limits of the claim. It is perhaps too easy to get
enthusiastic about the truth of a claim. The search for counter-examples is an important
check on such enthusiasm. A sensitivity to counter-examples is also an important skill inpuncturing stereotypes.
One suggested class activity is to make Tool Kits together so that each student
has her own kit. Students design 3 x 5 cards, one for each letter, writing on the back ofeach card whatever clarifying notes will help them remember the significance of eachletter. When desiring a reason from someone who is speaking, a student displays the[R] card. If an important assumption is going unnoticed, a student can show the [A]card, and so on.
The class should also devote time, separate from the inquiry sessions, tobecoming more familiar with each tool. In the course of an inquiry, anyone can place acard representing a given tool in the circle when they want to use that particular tool.
This can facilitate the evaluation of the session at the end, as it makes apparent which
tools made their appearance in the course of the day's inquiry or in other parts of the15

Gently Socratic Inquiry

school day.
One of the goals in developing inquiry skills is learning to think more deeply, to“scratch beneath the surface” of any topic or question. The active use of the good
thinker's tools is one indication that “'scratching”' is occurring.
Four Types of Progress
There are at least four overlapping types of progress that can result from
effective p4cHI session.
( ⅰ ) Confusion/Complexity: This form of progress occurs when an inquiry
reveals how complicated the question or topic really is. At the end of the session,things might well appear (for some!), confusing, in a muddle, more mixed up than in the
beginning. This muddle is an important form of progress when participants realize thatthe topic was much more complex than they thought at first.

Those experiencing

confusion should be supported in their having the courage to experience and be withthis confusion. It is a mark of a more mature thinker to be able to deal with confusion
and work toward greater clarity.
(ⅱ ) Connecting new ideas: In a rich inquiry session, new ideas and insights
are presented and as a result, new connections can begin to emerge among thevarious ideas that presented themselves in the course of the inquiry. For example, aninquiry that began with the question, ”What does it mean to say, 'That wasn’t fair'?" leda group of 3rd graders to questions of whether it wasn’t fair because someone wastreated differently, and whether treating someone differently is ever consistent withbeing fair. Some of these students thereby made a connection between "fair” and “howsomeone is treated." Having new ideas to consider and integrate can contribute toinitial confusion!
(ⅲ ) An answer or more questions or lines of inquiry begin to emerge: Forsome participants, as a result of the content of the session, the shape of an answer
begins to emerge. In the fairness inquiry above, "how one is treated' might emerge asa criterion of fairness such that it might be proposed that "If a person is treateddifferently in a particular sort of way, then that wouldn’t be fair." For others, it opens up
new questions and lines of inquiry to explore.
(ⅳ ) A commitment to take some personal action within oneself or in the wider

16

Gently Socratic Inquiry

community with respect to some aspect of the topic or question that emerged in thecourse of the Inquiry.
It is important to recognize that various participants in the same inquiry will
frequently experience different types and combinations of progress. For some, it may
just be a muddle. For others, connections may begin to emerge, while still others may
begin to have an answer in mind. This is to be expected since each participant begins
in a different place, bringing different life experiences and knowledge to the topic.
p4cHI sessions are not seeking consensus on a topic or question, valuable as thismight be in some contexts. In a p4cHI session, each form of progress has value andmerit. A valuable exercise is to have students keep journals of inquiry sessions topromote an ongoing internal dialogue for each individual where they can continue toreflect on their own thinking, now enriched by what they have heard from their peers,
as their own insights continue to develop.
Certainly there will occasions when it appears that students are not making
progress in any of these ways in their inquiry. Yet there may be progress of a different,
equally important kind: progress as a COMMUNITY, discussed below.
[ 5 ] Reflecting on the session:

Finally, it is important that the inquiry community

reflect together on how well it has done on with each session. The following criteria aresuggested for use by the community in their reflections:

How did we do as a community?
•

Listening-Was I listening to others? Were others listening to me?

•

Participation/Presence-Were most people “present”? Did most people
participate (listening attentively, speaking if moved to do so, rather thanjust a few who dominated?)•

Safety-Was it a safe environment?

How was our inquiry?
•

Focus-Did we maintain a focus?

•

Depth-Did our session scratch beneath the surface, open up the topic.
Did I make some (1,2,3, or 4) progress?

•

Understanding-Did I increase my understanding of the topic?

17

Gently Socratic Inquiry•

Thinking-Did I challenge my own thinking or work hard at it? Follow what
others were saying? Weave their thoughts/ideas with my own? Agreeand/or disagree? Make use of the TOOLKIT when relevant?

•Interest-Was it interesting?

At some point it is important for the group to discuss more fully what eachcriterion means. What, for example, counts as participation? Does one need to speakin order to participate? What does it mean to scratch beneath the surface? At an
appropriate time, the teacher can introduce the notion of four types of progress and theuse of the various tools as indicators of scratching or its absence.
The evaluation can occur in a variety of ways. The teacher/facilitator can havecriteria listed together and posted for all to see or each criterion displayed on a
separate card. With separate cards, different students can be invited to display eachcard one at a time. Community members indicate how they thought the community didon that criterion with “thumb up”, “thumb down", or thumb midway to indicate not sureeither way. As the community gains experience, it can establish a standard for what
“thumbs up" means within the context of the experiences of that community.
Related to evaluation of an inquiry session is a feature that will inevitably
emerge wherever inquiry has become a regular part of the classroom: Once intellectual
safety is firmly in place, diversity of viewpoints will make their appearance. One way of
preparing for this is to make clear that with complex topics, one can expect a numberof legitimate, different points of view. Indeed, as individuals, we may have differing
points of view at different points in time. Intellectual safety aims to achieve the safety to
be "uncomfortable", to risk the encounter with genuinely differing, disconcerting viewsand experiences and an ability to respond in mature, responsible ways.
At the end of an inquiry into whether a particular action was fair, or indeed anyother topic of similar complexity, it is important to acknowledge at least four possible
places someone might be in their thinking at any given time. Someone might beprepared to answer, “Yes, I think it was fair,” or ”No, I don’t think it was fair," but also,
importantly, they might be at an “I don’t know" or 'Maybe so" place.
Asking students and teacher to raise their hands in response to where theirthinking is on the particular topic is a way of displaying to the group the diversity of theirthinking on a particular issue. Asking for such a display of hands is also a way of18

Gently Socratic Inquiry

bringing closure to an inquiry that is still ongoing but must pause because it is time forlunch, recess, or another class.
THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER
In p4cHI we identify three overlapping stages in the development of a p4c HI
community: (1) beginning, (2) emerging, and (3) mature. The teacher is absolutely
pivotal to the success of gently Socratic inquiry in each of these stages. In a beginning
community, it will be the teacher who introduces the ideas essential to such inquiry.
She will be responsible for establishing, monitoring, and maintaining the safety within
the group, intervening whenever necessary with or without the community ball in hand.
This will include monitoring the proper use of the community ball, calling on each otherand seeing that members have ample opportunity to speak as well as permission toremain silent. With younger grades, for example, one problem that can appear initiallyis that boys only call on boys, girls call on girls, or close friends call on each other. At
any grade level, speaking out of turn, especially in the beginning, is a situation that
requires the teacher to intervene, reminding the community of its responsibility to listenwith care to the person with the community ball.
The teacher is responsible for introducing the magic words (if they are to beused) and seeing to their proper use. In some cases, students may initially abuse thefreedom offered by these words and repeatedly utter "SPLAT” (speak louder please) tosomeone who is shy, or “LMO” (let’s move on) the moment there is any pause in the
dialogue.
The teacher conducts the lessons that involve introducing and making the Tool
Kit and follow-up lessons that focus on a particular tool. For most students and manyteachers, "inference” and “assumption” are little more than vocabulary words. The
group needs to spend time on developing deeper understanding of what these terms
mean. Similarly, what makes a reason a good reason, how counterexamples function,and how one might go about finding out whether a given claim or statement is true may
be areas where understanding is currently quite shallow. In early sessions the teacher
should call attention to uses of the various tools and encourage their use.
Most importantly, it is the teacher, especially in a beginning community, who
sets the time and pacing for the group. “Not being in a rush” depends on a teacher

19Gently Socratic Inquiry

sufficiently comfortable with silence and "wait time" beyond what is typical in mostclassrooms. It requires a person whose own sense of wonder is still very much alive
and who is keenly interested in what the authentic thoughts of the community are on agiven topic; one who is comfortable with uncertainty, not eager to push for closure but
willing to allow an inquiry to move where “it” and the community seem to want to take it.
She must be willing to let go of a sometimes felt-need to know the answer and to
become a co-inquirer in the quest for progress in the inquiry. This is a trust that grows
with time and experience with the process!
Initially the teacher needs to make the crucial judgments about using both
Magic Words and Good Thinker's Tools. She is the one who asks for reasons,examples, and clarification, at the same time displaying letters that represent theparticular tool requested, at once modeling and highlighting their use.
The teacher assists weaving threads of conversation into dialogue, asking who
agrees or disagrees or has other thoughts about the topic at hand, offering acounterexample, asking “If what Tanya said is true, would it follow that ... ?" or making
some other comment to nudge the inquiry along. This is especially delicate andchallenging because a major objective is for the children to internalize and thus takeover these skills and behaviors. They need as much opportunity as possible to try themout. Providing these opportunities is the teacher's challenge and responsibility.
It is the teacher who brings a given session to a close and sees to it that thegroup conducts an evaluation. How long are inquiry sessions? With kindergarten
children they last from 10 minutes to more than an hour. Sessions with older students
tend to be more predictable in terms of length, but also clearly more subject to the time
demands of the school day and curriculum.
In this kind of inquiry, the teacher's role is to be pedagogically strong but
philosophically self-effacing. She should be firmly in control of the procedures but allow
the content of the inquiry to unfold, as it needs to, rather than aiming at a pre-set
outcome.
As the community grows and matures it will move from a “beginning” to an“emerging” community, where the other members of the community have internalized
the protocols, calling on each other, spontaneously beginning to use the toolkit lettersand so on. Finally, in a “mature” community, the teacher will become, along with theother members of the community, at once teacher, facilitator, AND participant. It’s an

20Gently Socratic Inquiry

exciting, maturing, and rewarding experience for all!
It takes a lot of courage for anyone to begin and continue in this adventure! It issometimes a bumpy journey, not inevitably upward. Like life! It can require changes in
one's view of oneself, the classroom, the respective roles of teacher and students andtheir relationships to and with each other and education itself. It requires a supportive
community of colleagues who are also practitioners at various stages of the journey. It
encourages each teacher to develop her own "style" of implementation, sensitive to herparticular context, her own identity, values and goals. It is not easy, but rewarding in
the changes it makes possible!
REFERENCES•

Arendt, H.(1978). The life of the mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

••Jackson, T.(1989). Philosophy for children: A guide for teachers. Copyright ©
1989 Thomas E. Jackson (unpublished work) All Rights Reserved
Unpublished manuscript.

•

Lipman, M. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

•

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

•

Lipman, M.(1996). Natasha. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

•

Vygotsky, L.(1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

END NOTES*This is a revised version of “The Art and Craft of ‘Gently Socratic’ Inquiry”, publishedin Developing Minds: A Resource for Teaching Thinking, (3rd edition), Arthur L. Costa(editor), ASCD (Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development), Alexandria,
Virginia, 2001.
** A fuller description of this development and our use of “p4cHI rather than “P4C”
can be found on our website (p4chawaii.org) under Resources, “Learning about p4c
HI”, first entry, “Educational Perspectives Journal” Wondering, p. 3.
*** Ashby Butnor,**** In The Fifth Discipline, by Peter Senge,

21

Gently Socratic Inquiry*****PLAIN VANILLA
Step 1. The Prompt, There are a variety of prompts, or ways to begin asession. You may begin simply by asking and writing down what each person
WONDERS about. Or, you may read a paragraph or two, an episode, a chapter, ora whole story, look at a painting, watch a video, reading a poem, listen to a piece ofmusic, or select a topic from a 'wonder box' into which questions have beenplaced. The basis of the Prompt may be content specific, such as a topic in science,
math, history, language arts.

Step 2. Wonderings/Questions – Each member of the community is asked to posea wondering and/or a specific question based on an assigned reading or otheroptions mention in Step 1. These wonderings/questions are then displayed, read
aloud, listed or posted by the teacher or the students for all to see.

Step 3. Vote - The community votes for the wondering/question they would like toinquire into first.
Step 4. Dialogue/Inquiry - Inquire into the question selected, using magic words
and WRAITEC as appropriate. (See above, pgs. 9-10, pgs. 13-15)
Step 5. Reflect - Use criteria agreed upon by the community to evaluate how thesession was, both in terms of community (intellectual safety, etc.) and inquiry. (Seeabove, pgs. 17-18 for an example of criteria.)

22