58

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

Community in the Classroom: An Approach to Curriculum andInstruction as a Means for the Development of Student Personal
Engagement in a High School Classroom
Tammy Jones
Curriculum for Community[C]oncepts and values will be meaningful to children only to the extent that they can relate them insome way to their own experience (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p.164).

In this age of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act,the school curriculum risks becoming scripted, distant, andimpersonal. More and more, it is controlled by professionals outside of the classroom who are unfamiliar with theparticular needs and learning style of students and what they
are interested in and curious to inquire about. As Freire points
out, the curriculum, which includes the classroom environment, should aim to “create possibilities for the construction
and production of knowledge rather than [engage] simply in agame of transferring knowledge” (1998, p.49). Unfortunately,
it is the students’ individual scores on one specific highstakes assessment that has become the focus of attention in
our country; and, as a result, it has limited the extent to which
students are able to interact with each other and inquire into
matters of interest.
NCLB has created a climate where teachers feel increasingly pressured to ensure their students pass the test, with theresult that they allocate less time for purposeful and authentic
learning experiences (Kohn, 2004). Thus, rote memorization
is favored over inquiry, and there is no room to personalize
the curriculum in order to fully engage, motivate, and invite
students to become active participants in their own learning.
This approach to teaching and learning, as Freire says, “turns[students] into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by
the teacher, and the more completely she fills the receptacles,
the better teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles
permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are”
(1998, p. 71).
I reject this approach to teaching and learning and argue
that the goal of education should be to create thoughtful,
critical, curious, confident, personally aware, independent
students. “Something must be done to enable children toacquire meanings for themselves. They will not acquire suchmeanings merely by learning the contents of adult knowledge.
They must be taught to think and, in particular, to think forthemselves” (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 13). The
curriculum that I carry into my classroom and present to mystudents reflects my understanding of them as individuals andwhat I have come to learn about their interests and abilities.
I want to challenge them to go beyond their present understanding and try to “think outside the box.” I want them toengage their own sense of wonder and natural curiosity and tocreate meaning for themselves.
School is a place where students should feel safe toengage intellectually, socially, and emotionally in the act oflearning. It is the school’s responsibility to provide knowledgeable teachers and promote a classroom climate where all
students are heard and where they can learn from one another.
It is a teacher’s responsibility to implement a curriculum thatchallenges students and empowers them to become problems
solvers who can take what they learn in the classroom into
the world outside. Teachers must aim to create a classroom
environment that recognizes and values students’ genuine
thoughts, questions, and ideas. They should aim to provide
them with opportunities to express their thoughts and feelings
and to learn to work with others in a constructive way. As
Kohn (2004) writes,“all of us yearn for a sense of relatedness
or belonging, a feeling of being connected to others” (p. 119).
Students must also be able to connect, in some way, to thematerial as well as to one another. Lack of engagement iswhat causes students to tune out and turn off.
Teaching specific topics or skills without making clear
their context in the broader fundamental structure ofa field of knowledge is uneconomical…such teaching

Philosophy for Children

makes it exceedingly difficult for the student to generalize from what he has learned to what he will encounter
later. (Bruner, 2003, p. 31)

Students need to have opportunities to apply what
they are learning and understand the reasons behind thecontent in order to internalize the material and fully learn
it. The content needs to become a part of them, movingfrom external content to internal knowledge. As Jerome
Bruner (2003) contends, “the best way to create interest in a
subject is to render it worth knowing, which means to makethe knowledge gained useable in one’s thinking beyond
the situation in which the learning has occurred” (p.31).
Therefore, what a student experiences in the classroom
should be applicable to life outside of the classroom.
Experiences should be provided for students to practice theskills needed for independent thinking, instead of inviting
them to respond to questions on pre-determined topics. Only
with the implementation of such educational experiences
can we hope to create interested, independent, intellectuallyengaged members of society.
Though there are a variety of tools that can be used toencourage, promote, and foster engagement, more powerfulfactors, such as a lack of self-confidence, poor self-concept,
fear, and apathy, often stand in the way. Participation in classactivities can be threatening to some students, although moreworrisome is the fear that their contribution may be judged
as trivial or incorrect by their peers. Conditions have to beproperly established and maintained for many students to get
involved:
When students need close affiliation, they experiencea large depersonalized school; when they need todevelop autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice and punitive approaches to discipline;
when they need expansive cognitive challenges andopportunities to demonstrate their competence, theyexperience work focused largely on the memorizationof facts. (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 122)

My main concern, therefore, is getting students torecognize their ability to learn and, more importantly, tocommunicate with and learn with others. I believe the “key”
to achieving success in advancing and improving theirself-concept and confidence is to work to build relationships
within an intellectually safe classroom community.

59

Community as Foundation
Education is, or should be, a cooperative enterprise. An atmosphere of mutual respect and positive regard increases thelikelihood of cooperation and student success in school (Purkey& Novak, 1996, p. 43).

From the first day of school I work to create a classroom
environment where students are engaged, both on their own
and in dialogue with each other. My classroom becomesalmost entirely student-directed, allowing students to explore
their own needs, wants, questions, thoughts, and ideas.
Furthermore, I strive to create a classroom that allows students to develop good thinking skills that they can use when
they are at school and that they can take with them when they
are engaged in the world outside of the school. As Haynes(2002) comments, “Dewey argued that schools should beparticipatory communities, a meaningful part of society
where young people could develop as citizens” (p.46). I view
my ultimate goal as one of creating independent, confident,
responsible learners who can fully participate in community
life. Of course, I am aware that this is a process that takes
time and relies heavily on the collaboration of the group.
There are three stages of community development, which
I identify as the beginning, emerging and mature stages(Jackson, 2001). It is essential to begin laying a foundation
for a community to emerge and develop from the first day ofschool; the initial experience must reflect the need for andimportance of forming a classroom community. For example,
I begin by facilitating an inquiry into the meaning of “community” by viewing a film about relationships within penguin
communities and asking students to compare and contrast
aspects of the bird’s community to that of a classroom.
During this early stage students are often hesitant and may
even reject the idea of community due to their unfamiliarity
with it, or they may simply be unwilling or unable to listen
due to all the views and concerns that have been presented(Splitter & Sharp, 1995). That is why I present the topic
within a structured format they are familiar with (i.e., viewing a film, taking notes, constructing a written response) as
opposed to leading a more advanced, open discussion on theidea. The teacher must remain true to the process and gradually invite students to direct their own learning. At the sametime, the skills of critical thinking, formulating questions, andtaking part in discussions must be modeled and practiced in a
structured way before the students can be asked to implement
these skills within a guided inquiry. “To develop the class-

60

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

room community and the needed skills, the teacher needs todeliberately set aside time for both” (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).
Student-generated questions “provide a doorway for children
to enter into the realms of an inquiry which is…in their own
hands. To bypass this part of the procedure is to risk undermining the egalitarian and democratic nature of the entire
enterprise” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 140). Since theseskills are new to students, such questions may not initiallylead to a very elaborate or productive inquiry; however, it is
not the outcome but rather the process that is important at thisstage in community development.
In the school year 2009–2010, I conducted a self-study in
my classroom to examine the impact of using a communitycentered approach to curriculum on student identity, I wanted
to gain an understanding of the students’ levels of cognitive,social, and emotional engagement during the collective
learning process over the course of an entire school year. The
project allowed me to examine all three phases of community
development, which included, interestingly, a community“break down” that occurred during the emerging stage andthreatened to prevent all learning, engagement and any further
community development. Fortunately, the breakdown was
temporary, and I was able to use it as a lesson on community.
By relying on the initial sense of community we had established prior to this incident, I was able to use it as the stimulus
for reflection and self-correction. I reminded students that
their voices and feelings were valued. “Caring classrooms…
enhance opportunities for student engagement by developing
supportive relationships, increasing opportunities for participation in school life, and allowing for the pursuit of academic
success” (Zins, et al., 2004, p. 62).

Communities of Inquiry
There are…thinking communities and unthinking communities,
communities that are reflective and self-corrective and communities that are not. What education requires, obviously, arecommunities of inquiry (Lipman, 2003, p. 94).

In developing a sense of community in the classroom,
it is necessary also to establish clear parameters for the
conduct of inquiry and classroom dialogue. The creation of acommunity of inquiry “makes it possible for children to seethemselves as active thinkers rather than passive learners,
as discoverers rather than receptacles, and as valuable andvalued human beings rather than resources or commodities”(Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 21). There is a distinct and observ-

able difference between the student engaged simply in listening to directions and completing assignments, and a student
who is internalizing the knowledge, connecting and relating
it to other knowledge, and expanding individual thought into
collaborative inquiry. John Dewey (1930) spoke to the importance of being a member of a classroom community:[B]eing a unique member of a meaningful group isimportant for both the individual and the group…themore democratic a group is, the more the group experience builds on the unique perspectives and interests of
its members, and this the more the group experience
becomes a source of educational development for all
involved. (cited in Purkey & Novak, 1996, p. 50)

It is in a student’s best interest to engage in the learning process in order to improve the level of inquiry for thegroup. However, students seldom have this perspective whenentering the classroom; therefore, it is the task of the teacher
to create an inviting environment that encourages students toparticipate in group inquiries in a safe way.
Matthew Lipman (2003) identifies fifteen key featuresof communities of inquiry. As a seasoned elementary school
teacher, something Lipman was not, I consider the first three
to be the most essential to emphasize at the initial stages ofcommunity development:
A. INCLUSIVENESS. Within a community no one is
excluded from internal activities without adequate justification.
B. PARTICIPATION. Communities of inquiry encourage
but do not require participants to participate verbally as
equals.
C. SHARED COGNITION. In a private reflection, an
individual will engage in a series of mental acts aimed at
penetrating and analyzing the matter at hand. In sharedcognition, the same acts (wondering, questioning, inferring, defining, assuming, supposing, imagining and distinguishing) are engaged in, but by different members of
the community. (p. 95)
The additional characteristics that Lipman identifies
and explains emerge and become more effective as the community grows over time, but are not readily applicable or possible at the beginning. These characteristics include seeking
meaning; creating a sense of solidarity; promoting individual
thinking; and being impartial, challenging, reasonable, reflective, and curious through discussion.

Philosophy for Children

Within a community of inquiry, students participate inintellectual and social activities respectfully. In Richardson’s(2003) social constructivist perspective, meaning is individually constructed as a result of “opportunities to determine,challenge, change or add to existing beliefs and understandings through engagement in tasks that are structured for thispurpose” ( p. 1624). A community of inquiry provides a spacefor students to actively participate in learning both by building shared meanings and through the processes of internalization. Such participation provides students with opportunities
to gain confidence in expressing their own views. “Throughtaking part in thoughtful, reflective discussions, children gain
confidence in their ability to think on their own” (Lipman, et.
al., 1980, p. 131). As students come to understand and appreciate that there are few, if any, “wrong” answers and possibly
more than one right answer, the community provides themwith a safe forum in which they can exchange and develop
ideas and learn to respect the ideas of others. “The purpose of
a community of inquiry is to…bring participants into deeper
and more significant relationships, to shake them free of theircomplacency, their false convictions and to make them available for more comprehensive understanding” (Sharp, 1993, p.
340).
When students feel they are valued members of thecommunity and that their opinions and constributions areimportant, there are fewer distractions from the work of theclassroom and fewer behavior problems (Allender, 2001).
It is therefore essential that the teacher develop lessons that
invite students to learn within a safe, inviting environment.
“Learners must be active participants in the creation of a caring classroom community” (Zins et al., 2004), These beliefs
are at the core of my teaching philosophy. Thus, as a teacherresearcher, I am interested in the the way that students’emotional connection and responsibility affects the level ofcognitive and social engagement within that community.

61

students are trusted, willing, and able to engage in responsible
dialogue and inquiry and to create meaning, “a particular
relationship must develop among members to the classroom
community that is quite different from standard classroom
practice” (p. 459). He recommends that these relationships
should be those that place more emphasis on listening,
thoughtfulness, silence, and care and respect for the thoughtsof others:
Essentially, the classroom needs to become an intellectually safe community; a place where students do nothave to worry about being put down, belittled, teased,or ridiculed by their peers or teacher when they offer
their personal insight, experiences or questions, so longas these comments are respectful to all members of thecommunity. Within this place, the group accepts virtually any question or comment, so long as it is respectfulof the other members of the [community]…Intellectual
safety is the bedrock upon which inquiry grows. (p. 460)

Jackson describes an intellectually safe place as one thatis free of put-downs, where no comments are made with theintent to “belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule”
other community members (p. 460). In order to create an environment where students feel secure enough to participate ininquiry, all members first need to trust one another with theirpersonal thoughts and questions. Intellectual safety creates aclassroom community where students do not fear the responseto their contributions, where they know they will not be put
down by the teacher or teased by the other students. Greely(2000) speaks to the importance of respect in developing andmaintaining a safe classroom community:Students choose to learn, just as they choose not to learn in theface of ridicule, embarrassment, or coercion (Purkey & Novak,
1996, p. 45).

When students feels safe, when they feel respect fromboth their peers and their teachers, and when they trust
the people around them, they become free to learn. They
are able to engage in the practices that lead to authentic
intellectual growth. They become more willing to say
what they think, more willing to share their work andinvite feedback, more willing to experiment and try new
things, more willing to try again when they don’t get it
right the first time, and more willing to invest in theirown learning. And, because of this, they become better
readers, writers, and thinkers. (p. xiv)

Matthew Lipman (1993), the founder of Philosophy forChildren (P4C), believes that “children hunger for meaning,and get turned off by education when it ceases to be meaningful to them” (p. 384). Jackson (2001) advises that in orderto promote and develop a classroom environment where

In order to foster an environment where students areable to carry on responsible dialogue and inquiry within
the community, it is necessary for students to feel safeenough to take risks. Without the element of intellectual
safety in place within a community, students will not take

Intellectual Safety

62

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

educational risks and will not recognize the importance andbenefits of doing so.
I begin to build an intellectually safe classroom at thevery beginning of the year through modeling, extending lowrisk invitations to share, and acknowledge all contributions
as valuable. During the first few days of school we do
not engage in a formal inquiry. However I do endeavor
to facilitate inquiries with each of the students as well as
introduce the idea of community. The initial class meetings
focus on the unique identities of each student. I believe that
this is crucial due to the fact that my class size is often forty
or more students. Each individual needs to feel welcomed
and recognized within my classroom. In order to generateauthentic, even if brief, discussions with each student I havethem complete an informational sheet asking questions about
their background and interests. I use the information on thesesheets to take attendance for the first few days and to help me
make personal connections to each of them.. For example,
I note that “You are the one who takes Judo,” or “You canspeak four languages.” This provides a way for me to connect
with each student while sharing aspects of their identity withthe rest of the classroom community, and do it in a safe way.
It is not just the building of a yarn ball and the circularseating arrangement that makes Philosophy for Children
work. It is the establishment of an atmosphere that recognizes
that learning is risky, and that what we are asking ourstudents to do is often a more difficult thing than it was forus. It is the acknowledgement of the “basic human need for
positive regard from both others and from oneself” (Purkey
and Schmidt, 1987). In order for this type of learning tooccur, classrooms must become a place where students
feel intellectually safe and therefore choose to participate
cognitively, socially, and emotionally in educational
activities.

Philosophy for Children
Likewise, philosophy—when embedded in the context of thecommunity of inquiry—cultivates habits based on reflection
and self-correction, rather than inculcation and rote learning(Lipman, et. al., 1980, p. 179).

I have observed numerous instances where students
were asked to learn, rather memorize, information only tospit it back on a multiple-choice test and never return to it
again. The information never related to their own lives andtheir comments were seldom welcomed, especially questions

that might lead the class “off topic,” which seemed to be theequivalent of the discussion going beyond what the teacher
might know or want to discuss. The curriculum was organizedwith content as a first priority and student interests second.
Students were expected to repeat this information on a test
to show that they had ‘mastered’ this material. “Education
thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are
the depositories and the teacher the depositor. Instead ofcommunicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes
deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, andrepeat” (Freire, 2005, p. 72). Freire’s statement suggests a
different approach—that children’s questions and thoughtson the material should be included in the way in which they
are assessed. Tests should not simply be about their ability torepeat what the teacher or textbook has informed them.
Philosophy for Children (P4C) is at the core of myapproach to teaching. P4C is a curriculum approach createdby Matthew Lipman, a professor of philosophy at Columbia
University, as an attempt to “improve children’s reasoning
abilities by having them think about thinking as they
discuss concepts of importance to them” (Lipman, 1989, p.
146). P4C has grown into a worldwide movement that has
expanded beyond Lipman’s original approach, emerging
as a researched-based pedagogy that has been built on
the assumption that learning is socially constructed. The
P4C curriculum aims to give priority to student interestsand independent judgments over the memorization andpresentation of content. P4C has become an important partof my teaching philosophy and allows student to engage
thoughtfully and regularly within an intellectually safe
classroom community. It is an approach that promotes asense of classroom community while developing skill in
critical thinking. The concept of community advanced by
P4C changes and challenges the model of traditional teacher/
student roles and relationships—one that moves the teacher
from information-giver to co-inquirer. P4C is “based aroundthe notion that [the students] must construct meanings
for themselves, rather than simply accept those which arehanded down to them” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p.99).
In addition, P4C strategies help teachers construct a safe
classroom environment where all ideas are welcomed andvalued equally.
One of the goals of using P4C is to allow students
to view the classroom as one in which they feel safe andrespected, as well as excited to enter and eager to learn:

Philosophy for Children

Philosophy for Children is an attempt to reconstruct(not water down) the discipline of philosophy, to makeit accessible and attractive to children who will thenbe able to appropriate it and thereby acquire the tools,
skills, and dispositions they need in order to think forthemselves. (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 99)

P4C leads to the creation of a student-centered environment, which ultimately leads to the improvement ofself-confidence. Students raise their own questions, discusspossible answers with one another, listen to one another’s
responses, consider alternative points of view, and form theirown ideas based on the evidence presented by themselves
and their peers. P4C aims to create independent, self-directed
thinkers who are challenged to discover more about the topic
under discussion. “Philosophy for Children’s egalitarian
nature, commitment to varying viewpoints and insistence on
the inherent value of all participants helps foster empathy andpro-social behavior as an essential basis for values education”(IAPC, 2003).

Role of Teacher as Facilitator
I think of teaching as if I were directing a play – an improvised
play in which there are no lines for the players to read…Thereis, however, a specific structure that allows for and encourages
all of the players, the teacher, and the students towards goals…
the teacher’s predominant role is that of director. (Allender,
2001, p. 5).

Teachers must be proactive in making the necessary
adjustments to the classroom environment that allows forauthentic engagement to take place. “From the outset, herefforts must coincide with those of the students to engage incritical thinking and the quest for mutual humanization…
efforts must be imbued with a profound trust…they must be
partners of the students in their relations with them” (Freire,
1998, p. 75). In addition to being a partner in inquiry, theteacher-facilitator has to continue to provide the structure thatoffers opportunities for student participation and engagementwith content; “…invitations must be sent and received; theycannot merely be wished for. People do not reach their potential because others simply wish them well” (Purkey & Novak,
1996, p. 50).
In terms of instruction, the teacher-as-facilitator mustencourage students to discover meanings on their own. “Theteacher cannot think for her students, nor can she impose
her thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that isconcerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower

63

isolation, but only in communication” (Freire, 2005, p. 77).
The use of a “gently Socratic inquiry” method (Jackson,2001) allows for the teacher to develop relationships withstudents that go beyond the information-giver-to-informationreceiver affiliation. As Dewey says, “In such shared activity,
the teacher is a learner, and the learner is, without knowing
it, a teacher—and upon the whole, the less consciousness
there is, on either side, of giving or receiving instruction, thebetter” (1916, p. 160).
Carl Rogers (1980) presents the concept of empathic
understanding to explain the way in which a teacher connectswith students in this type of environment:
When the teacher has the ability to understand thestudent’s reactions from the inside, has a sensitiveawareness of the way the process of education andlearning seems to the student, then again the likelihood of significant learning is increased…. [Students
feel deeply appreciative] when they are simply understood—not evaluated, not judged, simply understoodfrom their own point of view, not the teacher’s. (as citedin Smith, 1997)

The development of empathetic understanding takes
time. The teacher should not abandon the approach if they do
not have immediate success in establishing a deep connection
with students. Yet, staying true to my role and purpose bybecoming a trusted co-inquirer has proved to be a challenge
and the most challenging part has been in creating a sense ofcommunity with the students. However, continued reflection
and adaptation has given me a renewed sense of purpose andaided in my success.
The teacher who adopts and implements a P4C approach
plays a role that is different from that of the traditional
educator:
The P4C facilitator sees her/himself as a co-inquirer
with the children, as interested as they are in exploring philosophical concepts, improving judgment anddiscovering meaning. However, when it comes to theprocedures of inquiry, the facilitator both guides thechildren and models for them—by asking open-ended
questions, posing alternative views, seeking clarification, questioning reasons, and by demonstrating selfcorrecting behavior. It is through this kind of modelingthat the children eventually internalize the proceduresof inquiry. (IAPC, 2003)

Dewey argues that education should be considered asa form of social activity. “When education is based upon

64

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

experience and educative experience is seen to be a social
process, the situation changes radically. The teacher loses the
position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leaderof group activities” (Dewey, 1998, p. 66). Taking on such a
non-traditional instructional role is challenging; it demands
a lot from the teacher, especially if she or he is a novice.
It is hard work to stay true to the process and to her or his
own beliefs about education especially if other teachers are
unsympathetic. This is why it is more empowering to be partof a recognized program like P4C.

Conclusion
Students’ curiosity, their eagerness to engage in inquiry,
and their natural sense of wonder needs “a place to grow,breathe and make sense. [T]he authentic ‘Aha!’ experience
requires risk on the part of the learner, and a climate of trustand safety is essential for all of these things to happen”(Bluestein, 2001, p. 210). Trust is a fundamental componentof learning process—students are “most likely to thrive in an
atmosphere of trust…This involves maintaining a warm, caring relationship with students, one in which teachers can be‘real’ with themselves and others” (Purkey & Novak, 1996,
p. 50). Teachers in a constructivist classroom act as a guide indiscovering areas where the student lacks understanding or issimply mistaken and in need of assistance from the teacher.
The utilization of a P4C approach is what allows me to create the type of intellectually safe community environmentthat I know is crucial to my students’ cognitive, social andemotional development, and is therefore an essential aspect of
their educational experience and growth.

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical conciousness. New York,
NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Greely, K. (2000). Why fly that way? Linking community andacademic achievement. New York: NY. Teachers College Press.
Haynes, J. (2002). Children as philosophers: Learning throughenquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom. New York, NY:
Routledge Falmer
Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy or Children (IAPC).
(2003). What is philosophy for children? Retrieved from
Montclair State University website: http://cehs.montclair.edu/
academic/iapc/whatis.shtml

Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “gently socratic” inquiry. In
A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking (3rd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? Boston,
MA: Beacon Publishers.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in theclassroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (Ed). (1993). Thinking children in education.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness in education. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Purkey, W. W., & Schmidt, J. (1987). The inviting relationship: An
expanded perspective for professional counseling. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A
self-concept approach to teaching, learning and democratic
practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College
Record, 105 (9), 1623–1640.
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

REFERENCES

Sharp, A. M. (1993). The Community of Inquiry: Education for
democracy. In M. Lipman, (Ed). (1993). Thinking Children in
Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
337–345.

Allender, J. (2001). Teacher self: The practice of humanistic
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Smith, M. K. (1997). Carl Rogers and informal education.
Encyclopedia of informal educational. Retrieved from www.

Bluestein, J. (2001). Creating emotionally safe schools. Deerfield
Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Bruner, J. (2003). The process of education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: a blueprint for
creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary
edition. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy, andcivic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm.

Splitter, L. & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for better thinking.
Melbourne: Australia. Australian Council for Educational
Research Ltd.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (eds).
(2004). Building academic success on social and emotional
learning: What does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.