8

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

The Philosopher’s Pedagogy
Amber Strong Makaiau and Chad Miller“How come your students are so engaged?” “What are
the reasons your students perform so well on the Hawai‘iState Assessments and Advanced Placement Exams?”“What makes the student experience in your classrooms so
different?” “How do you use philosophy to teach language
arts and social studies?” “The students are always talking
about your class. What is it that you do in your classrooms?”“What is philosophy for children?” This short article is ourbest attempt to answer these questions by describing thecomplex relationship we see between philosophy, education,
theory, and practice. We are calling this relationship thephilosopher’s pedagogy, and it is an approach to teachingthat builds on the Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement
started by Matthew Lipman in the 1960s.
Philosophy for children is at the heart of our teachingpractice. This may be due to our shared educational experiences in teacher preparation in the Masters of Educationin Teaching Program (MEdT) at the University of Hawai‘iat Mänoa—a program that placed a high value on inquiry.
It is also where we were first introduced to philosophy forchildren. The theories, ideas, and concepts presented inphilosophy for children were attractive to Amber because ofher philosophically rich childhood experiences; her father
possessed a background in philosophy and would often
engage her in meaningful “dinner table” inquiries, while
her Deweyan elementary school instilled values of problem
solving and creative thinking. Chad was initially drawn
to philosophy for children because of the importance of
his undergraduate philosophy degree in shapingz his own
education.
These experiences, coupled with a strong desire to create
an engaging and meaningful schooling experience for ourstudents, provided the perfect context to bring together ourinterests in philosophy and teaching. However, after seeing
Thomas Jackson model his p4c Hawai‘i approach to education, we both realized that philosophy had a much greater
reach than simply connecting to our own life narratives. We
saw (and experienced) firsthand how p4c Hawai‘i could
transform traditional classrooms into intellectually safe

communities. We soon became committed to creating ways
to incorporate p4c Hawai‘i into our practice as pre-service
public high school teachers. Now, ten years after Amber’s
initial experiences, she continues to use p4c Hawai‘i methods to design and implement curriculum in her social studies
classes, while Chad has done the same in his language arts
courses. Unlike many educational reform movements, p4c
Hawai‘i is not an off-the-shelf program that can be implemented directly into the curriculum; it is a transformative
approach to teaching that affects the way one teaches.
To sustain commitment to improving our philosopher’spedagogy, we have developed a professional relationshipwhere we continually dialogue, philosophize, test new
activities, and critically reflect on the role that p4c Hawai‘i
has in each of our classrooms. Some of this inquiry has beenin response to questions posed by others, but most of thisongoing dialogue has been driven by our interests in finding
ways to rethink and adapt p4c Hawai‘i to more effectively
meet the needs of our students, and our goals as teachers.
The philosopher’s pedagogy presented in this article, whilestill evolving, represents the most current state of our thinking and understanding of this approach to teaching. It is ourcontribution to the ongoing dialogue concerning philosophy
for children and its relationship with philosophy, education,
theory, and practice.
The ongoing P4C dialogue
Our professional dialogue fits into a much larger
discussion that begins with the work of Matthew Lipman(1980 with Sharp and Oscanyan, 1988, 1992, 1993, 2008),
the creator of the Philosophy for Children program.1 Whatbegan in 1969 with a single philosophical novel called Harry
Stottlemeier’s Discovery and an accompanying teacher
manual, both designed “to help children learn how to think
for themselves” (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 53)
evolved into a K–12 program composed of seven novels andcompanion teacher manuals. In 1970, Lipman created theInstitute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children(IAPC)2 to advance his call for overall school redesign andPhilosophy for Children

educational improvement. By adopting an innovative approach to philosophy and education, Lipman became known
as the pioneer of the movement to assist classroom teachers
in engaging their students in the activity of philosophical inquiry. However, Lipman has not been alone in this endeavor.
For example, Gareth Matthews’ approach to philosophy forchildren (1980, 1984, 1994) has aimed at modeling a distinct
pedagogy, while Thomas Wartenberg (2009) has createdlessons and a five-step plan to help teachers use children’sbooks to bring philosophy into their classrooms. Thomas
Jackson, a professor in the philosophy department at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa, is another major contributor
to the philosophy for children endeavor. Dubbed p4c Hawai‘ito distinguish it from Lipman’s P4C approach, Jackson has
devoted his efforts to experimenting with fresh approaches
to teaching philosophy to children and teachers in the publicschools in Hawai‘i (2001, 2011).
From the beginning, Jackson has identified several limitations in Lipman’s approach,3 and awareness of these issues
has pushed Jackson and the teachers he works with to create
a set of innovative instructional strategies that can be usedeffectively to bring the philosophy into school classrooms.
After thirty years of work, p4c Hawai‘i is a refined set ofclassroom conditions that promote values of community,
intellectual safety, thinking, reflection, and inquiry. These
values are realized in classroom practices that build a sense
intellectual safety and promote reflection and respectful sharing of ideas.4
The conditions and practices detailed in Jackson’s p4c
Hawai‘i provide a more flexible approach than Lipman’s
original philosophy for children curriculum. Jackson’s
approach moves the focus of classroom activity fromphilosophical content, as represented in Lipman’s novels
and teacher manuals, to the thoughts, ideas, and questions of
the students. This shift in focus from text to student allows
teachers to use p4c Hawai‘i to teach across all grade levels
and within different content areas. It also provides adaptive
structures so that teachers can modify p4c Hawai‘i practices
in order to respond to the cultural, emotional, and intellectual
needs of the students. This freedom from Lipman’s more
traditional and inflexible philosophy for children curriculum
appealed to both of us because we teach in a multicultural
high school. In addition, the courses that we teach containspecific content and accompanying standards to measure student performance. Thus, we need a pedagogy that provides

9

the intellectual and academic content for our students tomeet state standards as well as an approach that encourages
them to think philosophically about what they are studying.
As a result, the last ten years have been spent on modifying
Jackson’s p4c Hawai‘i approach to construct a method of ourown. This was the birth of what we refer to as “the philosopher’s pedagogy.” We view it as our personal contribution
to the ongoing dialogue about how to engage school-age
students in philosophical reflection.

A Reconceptualized Understandingof Philosophy
The philosopher’s pedagogy has been built upon a reconceptualization of philosophy that fits more appropriately
into the task of doing philosophy with children. We begin
with Jackson’s distinction between “Big P” philosophy and“little p” philosophy (Jackson, 2010). Each approach to philosophy represents a particular orientation to philosophicalcontent and the kind of activity associated with that content.
“Big P” philosophy“Big P” philosophy refers to the traditional
understanding of philosophy as an academic specialization.
In this view, philosophy is represented in the thought andwritings of the great philosophers. They include, among
other illustrious names, the works and ideas of Plato,
Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. “Big-P” philosophy
also deals with the “big” questions—questions of being,
truth, and justice, which are most notably represented in
the philosophical sub-domains of metaphysics, ontology,
epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Thus, teaching of Big
P philosophy is directed to the mastery of an establishedcanon and initiation into a domain of knowledge that isthe preserve of the specialist.The activities associated withthis conception of philosophy concern the maintenance,
examination, critique, and presentation of ideas within the
canon. “Big P” philosophers engage in philosophy throughthe study of these canonical texts. Professional philosophersmust show a certain command over these ideas and beable to converse in the language of “Big P” philosophy
by engaging in critical discussions of ideas and offeringinterpretations of recognized texts. They conduct their workat academic conferences and publish literature in scholarly
journals (Jackson, 2011; Lipman, 1988, p. 11). This activity
is typically engaged as a dialectical contest between

10

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

individuals and competing schools of thought (Jackson,2011). Philosophy in of the Big P sort is familiar enoughto anyone who has taken a philosophy course at theuniversity level.
Philosophy is an elite academic discipline, in which entrance into the field is reserved for those who have obtained a
PhD in the subject and who labor to add to the philosophicalliterature. However, the sheer number and difficulty ofphilosophical texts, and the “hermetic terminology” (Lipman,
1988, p. 5) of academic philosophy, acts as a barrier to thenon-specialist. Like Plato’s philosopher kings, “Big P”
philosophers are members of an exclusive club, accessible
only to those rare souls who have endured a long period of
academic preparation.
“little p”philosophy
In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates tells us that it is the“sense of wonder that is the mark of the philosopher.
Philosophy indeed has no other origin” (1961, 155d).
Understood in this Socratic light, each one of us enters
the world with the basic capacity to engage in philosophy(Jackson, 2011). Thanks to our natural ability for curiosity
and wonder, we are born “little p” philosophers. This naturaldisposition to wonder is the first step in a process of making
sense of our world. Dewey writes that “the curious mind isconstantly alert and exploring, seeking material for thought,
as a vigorous body is on the qui vive for nutriment. Eagerness
for experience, for new and varied contacts, is found where
wonder is found” (Dewey, 1910/1997, p. 31). New experiences and reflections help us shape our understanding ofhighly complex abstract ideas—ideas such as love, compassion, and equality; and even ordinary, routine matters, suchas lunch time, the weather, and fashion often provoke deeper
questioning that arises from our sense of wonder about theworld. Confused thoughts and feelings of perplexity are often
the first step towards reflective resolution. Regardless of theweight or depth of the belief, such ideas and experiences
create the motive force for engaging in “little p” philosophy.
Dewey believes that philosophical questions arise out ofsome confusion or perplexity when we are compelled toquestion our habits and beliefs. Something new, something
unexpected in our world requires us to sit up and think, and itis this thinking that is the beginning of philosophy (Dewey,
1910/1997; p. 12, 13). The aim of “little p” philosophy is tonourish this incipient thinking and direct its development.

Society, culture, and, in many cases, “Big P” philosophy, shape these beliefs, but our ability to wonder, to ask
questions, and to seek out answers that modify our beliefs
lies at the heart of philosophical thinking. “Little p” philosophy is about our involvement in inquiries that develop out ofthese moments when our experiences become problematicfor us, and the realization that we need to rethink our position. It is this active process of trying to figure out the worldthat constitutes the beginning of philosophy. We humans
are philosophically active from the very beginning (Jackson,2011). Ownership of belief, the ability to wonder, and ourwillingness to reflect upon those beliefs are the prerequisites
for engagement in “little p” philosophy.5“Little p” philosophy is primarily a way of approachingand dealing with content in order to come to a deeper understanding of it. This shift in perspective moves philosophy
from canonical texts and the problems of philosophy to theactivity of inquiry. Thus, as Jackson (2011) explains, the“center of gravity” of philosophy moves from the publishedand/or established ideas of others, to our own thoughts,
questions, experiences, and reflections. The focal pointof the activity resides in us and in our dealings with theworld and the problems that life throws our way. “Little p”
philosophy encourages individuals to examine their lives
and experiences in order to come to a deeper understandingof the world and their place in it, instead of exclusively
focusing on the established ideas and questions of others.
Accordingly, the dominant mode of practice in “little p” philosophy is engagement in actual inquiries (Jackson, 2011).
This conception of philosophy as an activity is not tied to a
specific predetermined content. And this means that it can be
included across the disciplines, and that it can be integrated
in different school subjects. The principal task of the teacher
is “to keep the sacred spark of wonder alive and to fan the
flame that already glows…to protect the spirit of inquiry, tokeep it from becoming blasé from overexcitement, wooden
from routine, fossilized through dogmatic instruction, or
dissipated by random exercise on trivial things (Dewey,
1910/1997, p. 34). Our philosopher’s pedagogy is built uponthis understanding of philosophy as something that you do,which makes it possible for us to link philosophy with different subjects in K–12 classrooms. Thus, the philosopher’spedagogy is an approach to teaching that helps teachers thinkin concrete ways about how to bring this kind of reflection
into the school curriculum.

Philosophy for Children

The Educational Commitments of thePhilosopher’s Pedagogy
In adopting the philosopher’s pedagogy in our classrooms, we have found that it requires a set of six interconnected educational commitments. The first is that the teacher
must live an examined life. Secondly, the teacher must see
education as a shared activity between teacher and student.
Thirdly, the teacher and students must re-conceptualize the“content” of the discipline as a reflection of the interaction
between the classroom participant’s beliefs and experiences
and the subject matter being taught. This connects with thefourth commitment: that the teacher must hold, with Dewey(1916), the view that philosophy is “the general theoryof education.” Fifth, teachers, and students, must makephilosophy a living classroom practice. And finally, teachers
must be willing to challenge contemporary measures forclassroom assessment. The next six sections provide a moredetailed exposition of each of these commitments.
The examined life of the teacher
The first characteristic of the philosopher’s pedagogy
is the commitment to an examined life. In the Apology,
Socrates’ famously remarked that life is not worth living if it
is void of investigation and inquiry.
Let no day pass without discussing goodness and all
the other subjects about which you hear me talking andexamining both myself and others is really the very bestthing that a man can do, and that life without this sortof examination is not worth living (Plato, 1961, 38a)

According to Socrates, the examination of one’s beliefs
and conceptions of the world gives life purpose. Teachers
who are committed to the philosopher’s pedagogy share thisbelief as a fundamental value. For such teachers, the examined life pervades the work they do in the classroom, and inturn lends teaching and learning a philosophical purpose.
To bring this sense of purpose into schools, the philosopher’s pedagogy requires teachers to incorporate their senseof wonder, curiosity, and critical analysis of life’s meaning
into the curriculum they design and into the relationships
they develop with their students. The content of the classroom, in addition to the methods of instruction, are an extension of the teacher’s examined life outside the classroom.
The philosopher’s pedagogy does not begin when we walk
into the classroom; nor end when we leave at the last bell.

11

Instead, the art of philosophical teaching is an extension of
the teacher’s (and students’) growth and development bothwithin their job and beyond.
We have found that when teachers live and model an
examined life both inside and outside of their classrooms theirstudents sit up and take notice. When our students observe
us engaging in genuine inquiry about life’s experiences,situations, products, and people, they are more willing toengage in this process of inquiry along with us. As a result,students begin to internalize the skills and dispositions needed
to thoughtfully engage in the examination of their lives; theirschoolwork becomes not only a place to engage in meaningfulinquiry, but a space to sharpen and hone philosophical toolsof inquiry. Dewey says of teaching that the teacher’s claim
to rank as an artist is measured by (their) ability to foster theattitude of the artist in those who study with (them), whether
they be youth or little children” (1910/1997, p.220). We claimthat what is true of the teacher as artist is true of the teacher as
philosopher. Leading an examined life is a contagious condition and once one experiences the engagement in the activityof “little p” philosophy, it becomes by degrees ingrained in
the practice of the students.
Education as a shared activity between teacher
and student
In addition to living an examined life, teachers whopractice the philosopher’s pedagogy conceptualize education
as a shared activity between teacher and student. This is a
departure from the traditional role of the teacher—the knowit-all who is the “sage on the stage.” Based on the theories
of social constructivism, this conceptualization of education“rejects the notion of objective knowledge and argues insteadthat knowledge develops as one engages in dialogue withothers” (Palinscar, 1998, p. 347). The dialogue is characterized by mutual thinking and shared communication between
teachers and students. Collectively they work to create what
Lipman (1991) calls a classroom community of inquiry wherestudents and teachers “listen to one another with respect,build on one another’s ideas, challenge one another to supply
reasons for otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each otherin drawing inferences from what has been said, and seek to
identify one another’s assumptions” (p. 15).
The idea of the classroom as a community of inquiry
is an essential part of the philosopher’s pedagogy. It is theprerequisite to all other learning (Vygotsky, 1978) that takes

12

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

place in school; it is not just a feel-good “ice breaker”
activity at the beginning of a semester, but an ongoing andpurposeful activity where teachers facilitate relationships,
practice equity pedagogy, and design curricular opportunities for students to learn alongside their peers and theirteacher. In this socially constructed learning environment
we recognize that “people cannot separate how thinking
takes place from what knowledge is available in the place
where learning happens” (Oakes & Lipton, 1999, p. 77).
According to Dewey (1916), teachers need to “engage
students in activities, because it is through the process ofengaging in activities that he learns” (p. 168). We argue thatteachers must be equally engaged in these learning activities
because “learning occurs during situated joint activity”(Vygotsky summarized in Samaras, 2002, p. xxii). In thissetting, both teachers and students become “self-activatedmakers of meaning,” (Schiro, 2008, p. 103) because they
are working together in order to construct knowledge. The
philosopher’s pedagogy challenges teachers to remove
themselves from the center of classroom activities, andto take a seat beside their students where they can learn
together as co-inquirers.In this “reflective paradigm,
students and teachers query each other” (Lipman, 1991,
p.14). As Freire (1970/1987) writes,
through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and thestudents-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term
emerges: teacher-student with student-teachers. The
teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches,but one who is himself taught in dialogue with thestudents, who in turn while being taught also teach.
They become jointly responsible for a process inwhich all grow (p. 80).

Teachers and students recognize they are in the processof becoming educated together. In such a classroom, teachers and students are constantly working (and in some instances, struggling) to communicate their complex thoughts,
ideas, and questions, because it is necessary for both to be“in charge of their own lives and learning,” (Schiro, 2008,
p. 105). Because the philosopher’s pedagogy is not simply
a recipe or model to be followed (Dewey, 1916, p. 170),
teachers and students must find their way together as they
engage in an intricate dance between building relationships
and applying good thinking to the construction of new
knowledge concerning the content they study.

Content is the interaction between the participants’ beliefs and experiences and subject matter
The focus on engaging students in classroom inquiry
distinguishes the philosopher’s pedagogy from typicalapproaches to teaching content in schools. Traditionally,classroom instruction concerned the transmission of content
knowledge to students. Under this approach, “effective”
teachers develop or employ strategies to help their students
understand and retain a certain set of skills and knowledge
specific to their content area. The teacher and the texts possess the knowledge the students must attain in order tobe “successful.”
For example, in the traditional approach, students
are taught F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby using ateacher-centered approach. Prior to reading each passage, theteacher supplies students with a corresponding vocabulary
list and after the students have defined all of the terms, she
checks to make sure the students defined them in the “correct” manner. Then as the students read each chapter, theteacher identifies the important passages that describe thekey character traits, plot lines, and use of literary devices.
The students take notes on specific details and perceived
meanings such as Gatsby’s car, the Valley of the Ashes andWilson’s representation of the lower class, and the symbolism of hope that was laden within the green light at the endof Daisy’s dock. There is virtually no opportunity to question
the teacher’s “expert” interpretation, offer connections, orbring up ideas the students (or teacher for that matter) may
have found personally interesting. Rather, the students are
to “bank” (Freire, 1970/1989) all of the teacher’s knowledge
before they can properly enjoy the novel and understand its
meaning. Students who are successful on the quizzes andtest are the ones who correctly supply the meanings andinformation that have been fed to them by the teacher. This iscounter to the manner in which the philosopher’s pedagogy
views the teaching of literature and other content matter (scientific research findings, primary documents from history,
mathematical concepts, great works of art, etc.).
So what does it mean to teach a subject using the philosopher’s pedagogy. The primary content, which is the same
regardless of the school subject or grade level, is composedof the beliefs and conceptions of the world that shape our“little p” philosophy. This shift in content, like the shift that
occurs from the content of “Big P” Philosophy to that of “littlep” philosophy, moves the “center or gravity” from the texts

Philosophy for Childrenof the specific subject areas (i.e., English, social studies, science, math), to the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of the students
in the classroom community. However, it is important tonote this shift is not simply concerned with discussing thefeelings and ideas of students, devoid of subject matter. The
texts are still very much relevant and are used as a catalyst
to initiate meaningful philosophical inquiry. The sensitivityof the teacher towards the beliefs of the students provides
the incentive to engage the texts and to begin a conversation
about their meaning.
This alternative relationship to content requires thatteachers must be thoughtful when choosing the subject-specific content and materials to use in their classes (i.e., books
titles, primary documents, topics for labs, art assignments,
videos, mathematical problems, etc.). In fact, the content andmaterials of the course should be selected with the intention of engaging students in meaningful inquiry and in theexamination of beliefs, experiences, assumptions, and ideas.
“The curriculum should bring out aspects of the subject
matter that are unsettled and problematic in order to capture
the laggard attention of the students and to stimulate them toform a community of inquiry” (Lipman, 1991, p. 16). Eachdiscipline, whether it is the performing arts or mathematics,
has content that is complex, provides multiple perspectives,and is relevant to the diverse backgrounds and experiencesof our students. Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher who
employs the philosopher’s pedagogy to know her students
and wisely choose classroom materials to stimulate students’prior knowledge and wonder.
The central focus of the pedagogy is to engage students
and the teacher in the activity of philosophy born out of t
he questions and curiosities that emerge from their engagement with the respective content of each course. The ideasof the students are to be considered, heard, and tested by all
members of the classroom community through an ongoing
dialogue.
At the heart of philosophy is…dialogue; at the heart ofthis discipline is therefore what is essential to education. The craft of philosophy contains itself a pedagogy—the need for dialogue, the need for questioning
and a method of inquiry—which are essential characteristics of education in general.This is why education
cannot be divorced from philosophy and philosophy
cannot be divorced from education (Lipman & Sharp,
1978, pg. 259)

13This active (and sometimes laborious) process of understanding the beliefs that emerge from our upbringing, experience, and spirit of curiosity is an ongoing inquiry to modify,
correct, enhance, and deepen our views of the world. It is theprocess of self-correction, in which we re-conceptualize ourbeliefs and adapt and develop new tools of understandingthat is “small-p” philosophy.
Education should be the art of orientation. Educators
should devise the simplest and most effective methodsof turning minds around. It shouldn’t be the art of implanting sight in the organ, but should proceed on theunderstanding that the organ already has the capacity,
but is improperly aligned and isn’t facing the right way(Plato, 1961, Republic, 518d).

As Socrates indicated, we are philosophically activefrom the beginning. First, we wonder, then our wonder leads
to questions, and our questions lead to possible answers, andthese lead to more questions, and so on (Jackson & Makaiau,
2011). Dewey also understood philosophy to be “a form of
thinking, which, like all thinking, finds its origin in what is
uncertain in the subject matter of experience, and then aims
to locate the nature of the perplexity and to frame hypotheses
for it clearing up to be tested in action” (1916, p. 331). It
is the sense of wonder that helps students remember thecontent they study. The object is to create learning that is
personally meaningful and that engages students at a deeper
level of thinking.
Philosophy as “the general theory of education”
To ensure philosophical wonder is at the heart of classroom activities, teachers who use the philosopher’s pedagogy
commit to seeing philosophy as their general theory ofeducation. Good teachers develop a theory or philosophyof education that centers their work and clarifies their actions and judgments in the classroom. A teacher’s theory ofeducation provides a foundation for their practice that rests
upon and directs the myriad of decisions related to teaching.
One’s teaching philosophy, therefore, directly influences curriculum design and implementation, the physical structure of
the classroom, and how to artfully respond to an unexpected
comment made by a student. Teachers who adopt a philosopher’s pedagogy have constructed a teaching philosophy thatis grounded in “little p” philosophy. In short, these teachers
fundamentally believe the activity of philosophical inquiry is
an inherent and necessary aspect of learning.

14

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2This commitment places teaching in a unique context.
Education, in this sense, is not about test scores, performanceindicators, mechanical teaching, standardization, centralization, and scientific policy rationales. We denounce teachingthat reduces students to just another commodity in the market
place. Instead, the philosopher’s pedagogy concerns the shaping and developing of character as a means to improve theoverall well-being of society.
Dewey (1916) noted that such a pedagogical commitment makes a fundamental connection between educationand philosophy.
If we are willing to conceive education as the process
of forming fundamental dispositions, intellectual andemotional, toward nature and fellow men, philosophy
may even be defined as the general theory of education (p. 328).

Philosophy as the general theory of education conceptualizes schools as a place where human beings, who havethoughts, feelings, cultures, and experiences, come to engage
in personally meaningful learning. The person, not the content, forms the core of the philosopher’s pedagogy.
The purpose of education, according to the philosopher’spedagogy, is to tackle the same philosophical task that
Socrates’ addressed—to lead an examined life. For him,“little p” philosophy is part of the answer to this timelesschallenge, and for teachers who employ the philosopher’spedagogy, the activity of “little p” philosophy must lie atthe conceptual foundation of their practice. In this light, ourtheory of education is identical to or, at the very minimum,
resonates with our theory of life. Why else would we seek
education if not to improve our life through a process ofquestioning it?
Philosophy as a living classroom practice
The philosopher’s pedagogy does not simply requireteachers to think of philosophy as an important part of teaching; teachers must also make philosophy a living classroom
practice. This is a challenging task. “Due to a variety ofpressures, both internal and external, the typical classroom
teacher does not appear to have time for children’s genuine
wondering and questioning from which structured inquiries
can grow” (Jackson, 2001, p. 459). We know that manyteachers believe in the importance of students’ wonderment
and questions. However, when it comes to structuringclassroom activities and assessments their practice often

does not match their beliefs about children and learning. In
this current era of high stakes testing, many teachers findthemselves teaching to “get through the material” becauseof the pressure to help their students pass “the test.” As aresult, the students’ time for genuine wondering, questioning,
and thinking are ignored, and the teacher is led to abandon
their convictions about what constitutes a good education.
For many reasons, theory is frequently not translated intoclassroom practice.
The philosopher’s pedagogy represents a commitment
to bringing theory into classroom practice. Not only must ateacher believe education and philosophy are inextricably
linked, they must also create opportunities for their students
to engage in the activity of philosophizing in their classrooms and via their assignments. We realize this is no simple
task. As we suggested earlier in this paper in regard to
Dewey’s ideas, teaching is an art, and so is the practiceof “doing philosophy” in our contemporary public school
K–12 curriculum.
In many of our loosely structured “Big P” graduate-levelseminar courses, it is common for the teacher to ask theclass to “discuss” a reading without any guidance, structured
activity, and assessment. In order to bring philosophicalactivity into the context of the classroom, teachers must
thoughtfully design and implement organized philosophically rich classroom activities and assessments. These do
not emerge organically by simply arranging students in acircle or around a table. It takes creativity, knowledge ofsubject matter, an understanding of human development,
and the willingness to experiment, reflect, and try again. We
have engaged in this process for the past decade and in oureffort to translate theory into practice, p4c Hawai‘i has been
especially helpful.
p4c Hawai‘i offers teachers a set of classroom structuresand provides students with a clearly articulated set of tools
for bringing philosophy to life in the classroom. From theperspective of p4c Hawaii, these structures, procedures,and tools are works in progress. How these tools can be
modified and expanded to better meet the needs of theirunique student populations is left to the teacher’s discretion.
We don’t intend to limit the philosopher’s pedagogy to theactivities suggested by p4c Hawai‘i. In fact, we constantly
invent new activities and assessments to bring philosophy
into our specific content and grade level. However, we havefound that within the p4c Hawai‘i curriculum there reside a

Philosophy for Children

number of proven classroom practices and procedures thathave helped us (and many of our peers) bring our general
theories of education to life. Among the most important andfrequently used are the concept of intellectual safety, andstrategies such as the community ball, Plain Vanilla, and theGood Thinker’s Tool Kit (Jackson, 1984; 2001).
Intellectual safety and the community ballIn order for philosophy to become part of the students’experience, it is imperative that the classroom be “intellectually safe.” Although the idea of safety is not unique to thephilosopher’s pedagogy, the added emphasis on explicitly
creating safe and caring communities of inquiry is primaryand essential to our practice.
Classrooms must be physically safe places. For dialogue
and inquiry to occur they must be emotionally and intellectually safe as well. In an intellectually safe place
there are no put-downs and no comments intended
to belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule.
Within this place, the group accepts virtually any question or comment, so long as it is respectful of the othermembers of the circle. What develops is a growing
trust among the participants and with it the courage topresent one’s own thoughts, however tentative initially,
on complex and difficult issues (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).

The importance placed on intellectual safety, as wellas the strategies implemented to cultivate a respectfulclassroom environment, provide the context where students
are encouraged to gain greater self-understanding by viewing
themselves from various perspectives (Banks, 2002). In theintellectually safe classroom students learn from one another,appreciate multiple perspectives, and ultimately learn about
one another. This important sense of community establishesa learning environment where knowledge is socially constructed in meaningful and responsible ways.
In order to cultivate intellectual safety, students are
explicitly introduced to the concept and terminology at the
beginning of the school year and are encouraged to selfcorrect using this vocabulary throughout the duration of theclass. Quite often you will hear students in our classrooms,
at all grade levels, reflect upon and identify safe and unsafe
behaviors. This positive and corrective environment allows all relationships in the classroom to develop, which
increases the impact the students’ classroom experience hason their learning.6
One of the signature techniques incorporated into p4c

15

Hawai’i classrooms is the creation of a “community ball”(Jackson, 2001, p. 461). The community ball gives each
student a sense of place and purpose that supports further
classroom inquiry where the learning and discovery expands
far beyond the content of the text. On our first day together
we create a “community ball” to begin the process of building our intellectually safe classroom community (Jackson,1984). However, as the year progresses, the community
ball becomes a tool of instruction that is used to facilitate
philosophical inquiry.7 By passing the community ball fromperson to person during class discussions, students learn
how to take turns in a well-regulated group discussion. Theball gradually empowers the students to feel comfortable incalling on each other and to take ownership of their inquiry.
The community ball does this by establishing and making
concrete certain rules and agreements necessary for a fruitful
discussion to take place: 1) only the person with the community ball can speak, 2) students and teachers always havethe right to pass, and 3) the person with the community ballchooses who speaks next. These rules for engagement help
teachers and students keep philosophical discussion at theheart of most major classroom activities.
The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
Equally important has been the development of specifictools and evaluative criteria to assist the students in thedevelopment of rigorous inquiry within the intellectually safe
community. In order to learn, identify, and evaluate the typeof thinking needed to move an inquiry to an intellectually
deep level or to “scratch beneath the surface,” the students
are explicitly taught and given multiple opportunities to practice the seven cognitive components of the “Good Thinker’s
Toolkit” (Jackson, 2001, p. 463). The good thinker’s tool kit
consists of seven indicators for critical thinking 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?
andC are there any counter-examples to disprove what isbeing said?

16

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

Students are encouraged to back up any claim or insight,
such as an inference, with relevant evidence or reasons to
identify hidden assumptions and so on. In short, the Good
Thinkers Toolkit is a heuristic device that is designed to promote and evaluate the student’s development as responsible
and critical thinkers.
Plain Vanilla
In order to engage a classroom in philosophical discussion, students and teachers need a structure for classroom
inquiry that supports the practice of “little p” philosophy.
Jackson (1984; 2001) suggests a “Plain Vanilla” format
where students generate questions, vote on the question theywant to talk about, and use a set of assessment criteria tojudge the progress of their community (intellectual safety,
listening, participation) and inquiry (learning something new,scratching beneath the surface of a topic, remaining focused,etc.). “Whenever possible, students and teacher sit in a circle
during inquiry time. Students call on each other, no longer
relying on the teacher to carry out this responsibility. Eachhas the opportunity to speak or to pass and remain silent. In
this environment inquiry will grow” (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).
Plain Vanilla discussions rely on the “questions and interestsof the children and move[s] in the direction that the children
indicate” (Jackson, 2001, p. 462). We have found by providing this type of structure in the classroom, along with theother activities and assessments mentioned in this section,
the students’ sense of wonder is valued and incorporated into
each inquiry.
Challenging contemporary measures forclassroom assessment
Finally, the philosopher’s pedagogy requires teachers torethink contemporary measures for classroom assessment.
Over the past two decades, the American education system
has created a school culture where instruction and learning
objectives are driven by state and national standards andhigh stakes testing. Standards explicitly state what students
should know and be able to do at the end of a school year orcourse of study, and high stakes exams measure the degree
to which students have reached the goals implemented bythose standards. As a result, today’s schools stress the outcomes of summative assessments such as the Hawai‘i State
Assessment test.
The concentration on standards and high stakes testing
has had a tremendous and negative impact on classroom

pedagogy. Teachers, who are under pressure to prepare
students to successfully pass state examinations, have alteredand developed their instruction to focus on “end products” orwhat their students should be able to know or do on the state
assessment. In this school culture of testing, learning has become synonymous with passing “the test” and the professionof teaching has been changed. Pedagogically, educators have
moved from teaching critical thinking as an integral aspectof the learning process, to efficiently providing their students
with the knowledge to pass a series of exams.
For example, in Hawai‘i, one of the eighth grade US
history standards asks students to provide multiple factors forthe outcome of the American Civil War.8 This standard will
likely be covered on the upcoming statewide social studies
assessment. Therefore, in order to prepare their students topass the test, many teachers provide their students with aready-made list of factors that they are required to memorize,
rather than the engaging in a thoughtful discussion about thereasons for the Civil War.
This pedagogical trend is troubling to many educators
who see teaching to the test as the “dumbing down” of theAmerican school system. The solution has been to modify
standards and assessments from an over emphasis on themastery of content knowledge to a larger concentration on
the students abilities to think. For example, many states (44at last count) are moving towards adopting and implementing
national standards like the Common Core State Standards
that have a “greater emphasis on higher order cognitive
demand” (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). The
hope of the Common Core initiative is the establishment of
new critical thinking standards that will create a new school
culture that focuses on teaching students how to think. While
we applaud this effort, changing standards is not enough.
From the perspective of the philosopher’s pedagogy, thecontemporary American school system must also change
the overemphasis that it places on the end product. The
philosopher’s pedagogy asserts that contemporary measuresfor classroom assessment must also account for the intellectual growth or philosophical progression that students
experience while engaged in the process of learning. “Littlep” philosophy, by definition is an activity. It is a learning
process that places importance on students’ abilities to think
for themselves9 across contexts, and in the face of new
problems. The presentation of an answer to a question is partof the activity of “little p” philosophy, but not the only part.

Philosophy for Children

This is the reason that the philosopher’s pedagogy requires
teachers to challenge contemporary measures of classroom
assessment by making the thinking process the primary focusof their assessments.
So how do we assess thinking? We start by making bothteachers and students accountable for the development, progression, and methods they use to arrive at their conclusions.
We recognize that when students thoughtfully engage ininquiry it often reveals how complicated a question or topic
really is (Jackson, 2001, p. 463). Uncertainty; confusion;
the emergence of new ideas; willingness to challenge one’s
thinking; increased depth of understanding; and cognitive,
emotional, and intellectual connections all become indicatorsof growth. The process of analyzing complex ideas is a signof progress. We ask our students at the end of an inquiry,
did we see complexity in a topic that we hadn’t realized wasthere?, did we make connections with other ideas, concepts,
or experiences?, did we challenge our thinking?, and, if a
possible answer did emerge from the discussion, did we use“good thinking” support our conclusions?
For example, the concept of friendship is a pervasive
theme in many of the novels encountered in a high school
language arts course. When these are approached using thephilosopher’s pedagogy, students are prompted to examine
their understanding of friendship and ask about the qualities
that they consider important in their own friendships. This
demands that they first attempt to clarify what friendshipmeans and identify what such relationships require. As evidence, examples, and counterexamples emerge, the conceptthat was so familiar to the students becomes more complex
and even somewhat confusing. A similar process arises withrespect to many other important concepts such as democracyin American history. Students begin with an exploration of
their assumptions regarding the extent to which democracy
has been realized in the United States history and then test
these assumptions by gathering historical examples andcounter-examples. At the end of the inquiry students begin
to recognize the difficulty of defining concepts and terms
without examining the historical context they are situated in.
In the process of exploring these inquiries into friendship and democracy, we provide students with the time andopportunity to reflect on their own understandingg. As teachers we give students feedback and credit for their thinking
process, and we evaluate the conclusions they draw (which
often appear in the form of an essay, project, or test). The

17

intention of the philosopher’s pedagogy is not to attain a unified understanding or answer; each person in the class may
be at a different place at the end of the inquiry because of
the specific evidence (based on personal experience or previously established information/data) they used to constructtheir response. The philosopher’s pedagogy encourages multiple perspectives and diverse conclusions backed by soundreasoning, rather than the pre-meditated response found in
most curriculum packages.
By the end of the year our students have learned thatthey should experience some sense of confusion over thecourse of an inquiry, that perplexity and confusion is an important stimulus to reflection and to “getting to the deep endof the pool.” They learn to celebrate and even find comfort inuncertainty, especially if it is productive of reflection. They
grow confident in the conclusions they draw because they
can be articulate about the thinking process that got them tothat deeper place. Our students feel prepared to face the unknown challenges ahead because they have developed some
self-assurance in their practice of thinking for themselves.
The reward is that our students, in spite of our not teaching
to the test, regularly meet or exceed proficiency in state
standards and do exceptionally well on high stakes exams.

The Philosopher’s Pedagogy;
So What Now?
The preceding account sets out what we understand to
be our philosopher’s pedagogy. We believe it is an eminently
practical pedagogy that incorporates a philosophical spirit
and that is directed to encouraging classroom practices
that engage students in reflection on important issues. It
was born as a solution to deficiencies that we experienced
as classroom teachers, and it has evolved in ways that are
sensitive to our students’ needs and abilities, in addition to
our different needs and abilities as teachers. Over time thephilosopher’s pedagogy has grown from a series of activities
into a belief system that concerns the practice of philosophy
in the school classroom.
The philosopher’s pedagogy is a commitment that wehave made to our own development as teachers. The pedagogy urges our students (as well as ourselves) to recognizethat our beliefs come to us from various sources, and that itis good to question these beliefs. In addition, the philosopher’s pedagogy is a commitment to collaboratively engage
students and teachers in directed, ongoing, rigorous inquiry

18

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ Numbers 1 and 2

concerning values. The philosopher’s pedagogy, by carefully
considering the relationship between philosophy and education, aims to bring back the notion that schools are places inwhich we can pose questions regarding our human being andwork together to understand the purpose of our lives and ourcontribution to the world.
Quite often philosophy has been characterized andstereotyped as an activity of the mind. However, due to its
connection to our lived experiences and emotions, it is also
an activity of the heart. The philosopher’s pedagogy works
to correct some of the shortcomings of our contemporary
school system by providing students with the space and tools
to sharpen their cognitive abilities, as well as their growth
as individuals, which is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama
(1999) refers to as an “education of the heart” (p. 85–95).
…our current education system, rather than cultivating our sense of openness and engagement, insteadheightens our feelings of isolation and insulation.
Schooling, especially as inculturation, builds up preconceptions, expectations, and rigid notions of orderand behavior. It breaks down our experience of an alive
whole into an endless array of categories, taxonomies,
concepts, criteria, and evaluative judgments…Throughapproaching the world in this fashion, with each yearof schooling our spirit, and the sense of aliveness andrichness of the world deflate. This should not be thecase. Children and adults should continue to learn andgrow throughout their lives, eventually becoming whatsome traditions refer to as elders or keepers of wisdom,(Glazer, 1999, p. 81–82).

In order to aid in the positive transformation of today’s
schools the philosopher’s pedagogy is not a top-down modelof education reform. It is a grassroots movement that begins
with teachers and students working together to fundamentally change what happens in classrooms. This movement
directly addresses, and constantly keeps in mind the central
question that is often ignored or missing during today’s
educational policy discussions: What is best for students?
Teachers and students should not be the only ones
responsible for answering this question, of course. The
task of rebalancing schools to a place where the mind andheart get educated requires different voices to participate
in the dialogue about the relationship between philosophy
and education, theory and practice. This is a dialogue thatshould be shared between teachers, parents, grandparents,
students, community groups, colleges of education, teacher

education programs, state departments of education, andbeyond. Philosophy has an important place in schools, andonly by working together in thoughtful and meaningfulactivity will we discover or rediscover the potential thatphilosophical reflection has for making us individually andcollectively wiser.

REFERENCES
Banks, J. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dalai Lama, (1999). “Education and the human heart.” In S. Glazer(Ed.). The heart of learning; spirituality in education(p. 85–95). USA: Penguin Group.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, Vol.
LIV, No. 3, 77 – 80.
Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How We Think. Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to
the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: CollierMacmillan.
Freire, P. (1970/1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Glazer, S. (1999). The heart of learning; Spirituality in education.
USA: Penguin Group.
Jackson, T. (1984). Philosophy for children; philosophy in theschools project. A guide for teachers.
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “Gently Socratic” inquiry.
In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book forteaching thinking (3rd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, T. (2010, October 10). On p/Philosophy [Video File].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylLnHzfwI0
Jackson, T. (2011). P4C Hawaiian Style: We are not in a Rush.
Paper presented at the American Philosophical Association’s
Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
Jackson, T., & Makaiau, A. (2011). Philosophy for Children
Hawaii. Invited presentation to The Rotary Club, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
Lipman, M. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery. Upper
Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (1989). “The cultivation of reasoning throughphilosophy.” In R. Brandt (Ed.) Readings from educational
leadership; Teaching thinking. (p. 144–149). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Victoria, Australia:
Cambridge University Press.

Philosophy for Children

Lipman, M. (1992). “Some Remarks by Matthew Lipman on
Philosophy for Children.” In Sharp, A. & Reed, R. (Eds.).
Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s
Discovery. (p. xiii–12). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.

19

ENDNOTES
1

Traces of the idea of a philosopher’s pedagogy reach as far backas the work of Socrates.

2

Matthew Lipman created the IAPC at Montclair State University
in 1970 after he received financial support from the National
Endowment of the Humanities (Lipman, 2008, p. 120). The Taskof the IAPC was to systematically prepare teachers to deliver
the P4C curriculum to students worldwide. Lipman hoped thistraining of teachers would be spread through departments of philosophy, rather than colleges of education, in order to maintainthe integrity of the discipline of philosophy in the classroom

3

Among them were (1) the reliance of the curriculum on the presence of someone in the classroom with philosophical training;(2) the perception of K–12 classroom teachers that philosophy
should be reserved for education at the college level; and (3) the
cultural incongruence between Lipman’s novels and the experiences of many children in Hawai‘i.

Matthews, G. (1980). Philosophy and the Young Child. Cambridge,
MA: First Harvard University Press.

4

For a more detailed description of Jackson’s approach see Jackson, T. E. (2001).

Matthews, G. (1984). Dialogues with Children. United States ofAmerica: First Harvard University Press.

5

Similarly, Dewey also argued the philosophic disposition could
be found in any person who is “open-minded and sensitive to
new perceptions, and who has concentration and responsibility inconnecting them has, in so far, a philosophic” (Dewey, 1916, p.
325).

6

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Jackson (2001) provides additional methods and strategies forestablishing and maintaining an intellectually safe and caring
community (p. 460–461).

7

Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

For a detailed description on how to build and use a “community
ball,” see Jackson, T. (2001).

8

Plato. (1961). E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (Eds.). The Collected Dialogues of Plato; Including the Letters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

In the state of Hawaii, social studies benchmark SS.8.13 is, “Explain the major factors that determined the outcome of the Civil
War (including leaders, resources, and key battles).

9“The phrase ‘thinking for oneself’ suggests thinking that isautonomous and independent (as opposed to controlled or dependent). A person who thinks for herself is, in an important sense,
free. She is able to reflect upon her own experience and upon her
situation in the world. She is prepared to reappraise her deepest values and commitments, and hence her own identity…theperson who thinks for herself understands that the subject matterof her inquiry can never be completely severed from herself as
inquirer” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 16).

Lipman, M. (1993). Philosophy for children. In M. Lipman (Ed.),
Thinking children and education. (p. 373–384). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. (2008). A life of teaching thinking. Montclair, NJ: The
Institue for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. (1978). In M. Lipman & A. Sharp (Eds.)
Growing Up With Philosophy. (p. 259–273). Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in theclassroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Matthews, G. (1994). The Philosophy of Childhood. United Statesof America: First Harvard University Press.
Matthews, G. (n.d.). Philosophy for Kids. Retrieved from www.
philosophyforkids.com

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common
core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational
Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 3, 103–116.
Samaras, A. P. (2002). Self-study for teacher educators; Crafting apedagogy for educational change. New York: Peter Lang.
Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory; Conflicting visions andenduring concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for Better Thinking: The
Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne, Australia: The
Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big Ideas for Little Kids: Teaching Philosophy Through Children’s Literature. Lanham, MD: Roman &Littlefield Educaiton.
Wartenberg, T. (n.d.). Teaching Children Philosophy. Retrieved
from www.teachingkidsphilosophy.org