Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 273

Making Sense of Evaluation ofP4C
CHINMEI LIEN (MALIA LIANTO)In today's world, the word “Evaluation” has become afrequently used word in day-to-day conversation.
Sometimes that word brings pressure or a burden to thepeople who are to be evaluated, and anxiety or uneasinessto the one who must conduct it. Nevertheless, generally
there is a compelling need for people to evaluate in order toknow whether the time and effort spent on someone orsomething has been worthwhile or generated the expected
result or profit. For instance, in business, people conduct
evaluation to find out how much the ROI (Return On Investment) of the time, labor and material cost in producing
a product or service. The result of such evaluation would
determine whether to continue the production. Similarly,
teachers give a test to evaluate whether the time spent orpedagogy used in teaching has shown an improvement in
his or her students’ performance. However it is important toask, can everything be evaluated in systematic ways thatgenerate reliable results and show worth or effectiveness?
In promoting and developing philosophy for children or
P4C in the schools in Hawaii, it has always been a greatchallenge to find ways to evaluate or measure its effectiveness, particularly on how it makes a difference to the students. Often, the aim of the evaluation is generating hard
data to backup the substantial number of anecdotes thathave been received over these years. The desired result has
been evidence of how to show that P4C fosters the growthof thinking or reasoning skills and how that growth is quantitatively shown on students’ academic performance, i.e.
making a satisfactory improvement on their test scores.
However, the question remains, does developing thinking orreasoning necessarily result in the improvement of testscores? Or is improvement of test scores necessarily due tothe growth in thinking and reasoning skills? If the answer tothe questions is “no” or “not sure”, then it’s important, especially for P4C, to consider whether spending effort doing
evaluations to generate such “hard data” is appropriate.

volves strengthening children's ability to make practical
judgments that are based on reasonableness and a sense ofproportion. What does it mean to make a judgment that isreasonable? Can someone who possesses good reasoning
skills make a reasonable judgment? According to John C.
Thomas, “Being reasonable means something more thanhaving reasoning skills. One who is reasonable has internalized the practice of reason and adopted it as a fundamental
value for herself or himself. Hence they will begin to value
the reasonableness of thinking, both in themselves and inothers. In learning to value it, they learn to think for themselves.”2 To be able to think for oneself is to be sensitiveto-context and to make criteria based judgments. Sensitivity
to context is obligatory in a community of inquiry, so thatthe uniqueness of particular contexts can be properly respected. Hence certain rules are not always followed if they
are inappropriate to a given situation. Matthew Lipman
states: “Thinking that is not sensitive to context is blundering and obtuse; thinking that is not self-correcting can easily become uncritical and unreasonable.”3 Thus, evaluationof P4C, instead of investigating the development of thinking and reasoning skills, should focus on how or whether
students are developing ability to think for themselves andbe reasonable.
Teachers in Hawaii who have practiced P4C with theirstudents for some years state that P4C provides an environment where inquiry naturally takes place and students help
each other to nurture the ability to think cooperatively andreflectively, rather than competitively. Through the community of inquiry, students are also provided a chance to learn
not only how to think but also how to respect and care.
Elaine Roumasset,4 thinks that the kind of thinking that has
been developed through P4C is “4C’s thinking”—Critical,Creative, Caring5 and Children thinking. After years of having P4C in their classroom, many teachers agree withElaine. Especially when they witness for themselves chil-Evaluation—What and What’s for?

Chin-mei Lien (Malia Lianto, chinmeilien@yahoo.com) received her
BA in business Administration from Fujen Catholic University,Taipei, Taiwan MA in Human Resource Management from the University of Hull, UK. She then worked for six years as a business Management Consultant at Pricewaterhouse Cooper Consulting. For thepast two years she has been a Visiting Scholar at the University ofHawaii, providing invaluable assistance to P4C Hawaii in research
as well as administration and management.

Matthew Lipman states in his article 'Philosophy forChildren and Critical Thinking' that, through the community of inquiry, P4C is promoting critical thinking, which is:self-correcting, sensitive-to-context and leading to the making of judgements through reliance upon criteria. 1 This in-74

Chinmei Lien, Making Sense of Evaluation of P4C

dren responding to problems or issues encountered in waysthat indicate P4C has taught them not merely a set of thinking or reasoning skills, but something more complex as expressed by the concept of 4C's.
It has become apparent that P4C helps to develop thinking habits and dispositions, and not just skills. Thus, if P4C
is not primarily aiming at teaching simply skills or know ledge of thinking or reasoning, then it is not appropriate toevaluate its effectiveness simply through an external skillbased measuring tool. Dr. Thomas Jackson also states that,“Social interaction dimensions of a reflective community ofinquiry are completely missed by the test as are oral communication and carry-over into other content areas, all important indicators of whether the P4C has been successful.”6
Unlike learning a certain subject like Math or Physics
which to know whether it’s been mastered, students can beevaluated by testing, the ability to think, particularly tothink for oneself can not simply be validated through testingor the increase of test score. Arthur L.Costa has rightly argued that, “To make a pattern of intellectual behaviors habitual, requires time—time beyond that required for one
problem-solving task, one lesson, one unit, one class, oreven one school year. Students must encounter, practice,and reflect on these numerous settings using a variety ofcontents and with adequate time for self-evaluation.”7
Therefore, evaluation cannot be a one-time effort with asingle measuring tool that anticipates a particular result.
Evaluation—Part of the Inquiry process
Dr. Jackson, who utilizes the steps of inquiry in thecommunity referred to as “Plain Vanilla” or “OrdinaryRice,” has put “Evaluation” as the last step. However, thisstep is essential not in terms of finding how well students
have mastered the inquiry process or whether the inquiry
process has resulted in any desired outcome, but emphasizing self-reflection of the community on its sessions together. This practice of reflection, which makes possible
self-correction, is the real essence of evaluation. It meansthat through evaluation people systematically reflect on
their own learning process. In this sense, evaluation is nolonger seen as an external tool to inspect the effectivenessof the process, but a way to make the process more effective. Therefore, it’s imperative for the teacher or facilitator
to devote sufficient time to do the evaluation at the end ofeach P4C session. In that process children are given achance to exercise and internalize reflective thinking
through recalling how they were doing in the session. Thereare two major elements they evaluate in P4C, one is Community (listening, participation and being intellectuallysafe), the other is Inquiry (maintaining focus, scratching
beneath the surface, learning new thing, challenging thethinking and being interesting).8 This process is very powerful especially in helping children to be more aware of
how they are supposed be in a community of inquiry and byrecalling these criteria, they gain deeper self-knowledge.
Joann Soong, 9 teacher at AlaWai Elementary, always starts
her P4C session by picking one or two of the evaluation criteria to discuss in the community. She sees the importanceof having the children decide for themselves or develop
their own definition on what constitutes a good communityof inquiry. To start a session, she usually invites the stu-Chart 1.1 — P4C Student Evaluation

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

75

Chart 1.2
dents to come up with a rubric or parameters of certain
evaluation criterion. For instance, she would ask, “How dowe listen to others or how do we know others listen to us?”or “How do we know that we are in a safe community?” or“What makes a topic of discussion interesting?” When answering those questions, students give reasons or examples.
In that process, students internalize the evaluation criteria
and apply them throughout the session. Hence at the end ofthe session, they can better judge and reflect on what hasgone well and not so well, what are the reasons and how it
can be improved next time. Laurie Tam,10 teacher at Waikiki Elementary, also reinforces the importance of theevaluation criteria in P4C session by calling her students'
attention to each criterion when she notices either good examples or lapses during the session. For instance, she would
say, “I like the way Brandon repeated what Mitchell said.
That means he was listening” or “I think what Sophia justsaid is very interesting, does everybody agree?” or “I don’t
think we are maintaining focus here, what do you think?”
These efforts help students see the importance of each criterion and build the habit of self-reflection and the ability to
be self-corrective. “Authentic evaluative acts involve actionof valuing, which includes reflection on what is valued,
which implies evaluating what is valued as an expression ofconcern for it.”11

Evaluation—End of School Year Evaluation
As part of the effort to know and understand what needs
further improvement in P4C materials and methods so as tohelp students and teachers, Dr. Jackson has also designed an“End of School Year Evaluation” form. The form is a written extension version of the verbal evaluation conducted at
the end of each P4C session (See sample of the form at
Chart 1-1 to Chart 1-3). In the evaluation form, students are
not only asked to rate themselves through circling thethumbs’ sign, but also offered the opportunity to give reasons and examples in writing. The rating results provide arough quantitative idea of what the students think in general
about P4C and give an overview of the areas that need attention or improvement in the future (See the sample of therating tabulation at Chart 1-4). The written answers provide
an understanding of the reasons behind the rating tabulation. They also give evidence of how the students are able
to incorporate the Good Thinker’s Toolkit or the evaluation
criteria for community and inquiry into their thinking processes. In addition, their writing provides further evidence ofthe students’ ability to make reasonable judgments andthink for themselves. Yet another contribution from thewritten answers is an opportunity to discover the thinking ofsome students who have not been talking or sharing during
P4C sessions.
In evaluating early elementary grade students who have
not yet learned how to write, teachers collect evidence

76

Chinmei Lien, Making Sense of Evaluation of P4C

Chart 1.3
through paying close attention to the interactions in theclassroom and record these observations in a journal. For
upper elementary, Year-end Evaluation can be done by asking the students to write a short essay. The students are
asked to describe in the essay what they think of P4C. Theiressays often reveal the extent to which they have internalized the evaluation criteria, i.e. listening, intellectual safety,
scratching beneath the surface, thinking harder, etc. (Seesample of the essay at Chart 2-1). Some teachers ask theirstudents to keep a journal from the beginning to the end of
the school year. From these journals, the teachers knowwhat the students think about P4C and evaluate the progressof their thinking or reasoning by comparing the content of
their writings. (See sample of the journal's comparison atChart 2-2 and 2-3).
Conclusion
In P4C, “Evaluation” is meant to be something that students both enjoy doing and benefit from. For instance, students will spontaneously evaluate themselves not only during P4C sessions but also in other subjects and even into
their own lives. Hence "Evaluation" is not simply an external measurement tool, but a habit-building tool that works
to anchor student’s mind on the value of reflective thinkingand self-knowledge.
Endnotes
1. Lipman, Matthew, “Philosophy for Children and CriticalThinking”, Philosophy for Children: Where We Are Now: Supplement
Two (Montclair: IAPC,Montclair State University), p. S12.
2. Thomas, John C. “Development of Reasoning in Children”,
Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery,
Ed. Ann Margaret Sharp & Ronald F. Reed (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1992), pp.102-103.
3. Lipman, p. S12.
4. See Elaine Roumasset’s article in this issue.
5. P4C emphasizes the concept of Caring Thinking, see Matthew
Lipman, “Caring Thinking”
6. Jackson, Thomas E., “1990-1991 Evaluation Report of Philosophy for Children in Hawaii”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy forChildren, Vol.10, No.4 , p. 36.
7. Costa, Arthur L. & Bena Kallick, “Building a System for Assessing Thinking”, Developing Minds: A Resource Book for TeachingThinking, 3rd Ed., Ed. Arthur L.Costa (Alexandria: ASCD, 2001), pp.
518.
8. Thomas E. Jackson, A Guide for Teachers (Unpublished Manual) pp. 16.
9. See Joann Soong’s article in this issue.
10. See Laurie Tam’s article in this issue.
11. Bernstein, Juan Carlos Lago, “Toward an Understanding ofMatthew Lipman’s Concept of Caring Thinking”, Thinking: The
Journal of Philosophy for Children, Vol.16, No.3, p. 18.