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

79

NOTES FROM THE FIELD

Philosophizing with Mrs.
Yoshida’s T hird Graders: A
T ranscript from a P4C SessionW

hat follows is a transcription of a Philosophy
for Children (P4C) session which I taped on
April 18th, 1997 and an analysis of this transcript. I've found analyzing transcripts of P4C sessions to bequite useful; it not only provides me with evidence withwhich to support my claims but also helps me to get clearer
on what, precisely, P4C does. The analysis which I provide
here, it should be noted, is brief. My aim is simply to supplement my other article in this issue ("Philosophy for Children and The Cultivation of Good Judgment") and to provide others with what I hope might be a useful resource.1
Imagine, if you will, that it is a beautiful sunny day as
you pull up to Ala Wai Elementary School in Honolulu, Hawai‘i. You have come to this public elementary school because you have heard that Kathryn Yoshida's class of third
graders regularly (twice a week) have P4C inquiry sessions.
You have also heard that they are pretty good at it.
This is Mrs. Yoshida's third year doing P4C. The children have been doing P4C with Mrs. Yoshida for about six
months. Only a few of the students had done P4C withother teachers during the previous school year.
You round the corner and walk into Mrs. Yoshida'sroom. In the room you see Mrs. Yoshida, Mr. Toby Yos (aUniversity of Hawai‘i philosophy graduate student who
comes once a week to help with the P4C session), and about
twenty-five children (who are eight to nine years old). The
group is very culturally diverse; there are at least a dozen
ethnic groups represented in this class. Ala Wai School, youhave been told, has a large immigrant population. English is
not the first language of nearly two-thirds of the children.
Indeed, it is apparent that several of the children in thisclass have little proficiency with the English language.
Nearly three-quarters of the children, you have also been
told, are from low income families. Too many are also fromhomes where violence and substance-abuse are prevalent.
The children and teachers are all sitting together in a circle on the floor. Having already read a philosophical novel,
raised questions, and selected a topic for discussion, themembers of the community are already engaged in inquiry.
Though there may be occasional outbursts of excited chatteras the children all try to talk at once, for the most part themembers of this classroom community of inquiry take turns
speaking. The students (not the teachers) toss their class's"community ball" to one another. Whoever holds this ball,which they built together and which symbolizes their community, is the speaker. 2 The other students are listening
carefully.
Mrs. Yoshida is "pedagogically strong"; she ensures thatthe community is an intellectually safe place by justly enforcing the agreed upon rules and procedures. She is also"philosophically self-effacing"; while she enriches the inquiry by helping the children to think deeply, she does not
impose her intellectual perspective upon the children. She
prefers instead to let the children learn by doing their own
thinking.3
Let's listen to this class for awhile. Pay close attention
not only to what the children say but to cognitive moves
and social behaviors that they model. 4
Mr. Toby: You know I kind of want to LMB—moveback to what Ahn Thy says 'cause [because] the more I
listen the more confused I'm getting about what a relationship is.5 Is it just any two things that have something in common? I thought I understood, but now
when I think about it more I'm not so sure what a relationship is. Brian [Mr. Toby passes the community ballto Brian].
Brian C.: They're different things, but they're the5Thomas (Toby) Yos (tyosbyos@aol.com) received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii. His dissertation, “Educatingfor Good Judgment,” links P4C and the educational aim of cultivating good judgment. He has twelve years of P4C classroom experience
preparing teachers and facilitating classroom sessions, as well asteaching reading and Special Education. He is currently counselingat-risk children at Ala Wai Elementary School and is working to integrate P4C with counseling strategies.

80

10 same thing; like ice and steam are made from water, andchocolate and vanilla [ice cream] are [both] made fromice cream. They are different things, but they're the samefamily.
Mr. Toby: OK, you've got to have two different things
15 and they have got to be in the same family?
Brian C.: Yeah, something like the same family. Joseph.
Joseph: What did you say Mr. Toby?
Mr. Toby: I'm trying to figure out what a relationship
20 is. What do we mean by relationship?
Joseph: A relationship could be two things that arealike but looking different. Like water it has three different types of forms. It could be a solid, it could be a gas,
and then...well I forget the third one. They are both alike
25 'cause they're both water, but then they're both in different
forms. So it would be sort of like something alike and it
could be in a different form. Nani.
Nani: I agree with Joseph that we can have two or
more things and30 you see what's theconnection—what
they're like. They
can be like steam
and ice; they're
35 both made of water. So that's one
reason why they'realike. And like thelast time we had
40 philosophy it was a
cottage and a castle. We agreed thatpeople can live in a
cottage and a cas45 tle. That's how they were alike. So a relationship is two
or more things that have something in common, or a connection. They're alike. Jason.
Jason: Steam and ice. Steam can just melt the ice andthe steam is more hot than the ice. It is made of water. So
50 the water is more hot so the steam comes out. The steam
goes out 'cause the ice is made of water so the steam is
made hot and so....Jackie.
Jackie: I think what a relationship is is different
groups but same things. Like maybe say...a clock. It has a
55 group of its own. There are different kinds of clocks:
Round clocks like that one [points to the clock on thewall], and electric alarm clocks, and the clocks that canstand up. But they are all the same because they are allclocks. But they are all different. Thomas.
60
Thomas: Can we LMO [move on to another question]? I think...
Mrs. Yoshida: Let's move on? And then what were
you going to say? "I think" what?
Thomas: I think that steam and ice have a relationship.
65 And I agree with Leigh because they are both water andNotes from the Field

when water evaporates it becomes steam. And ice islike steam 'cause they're both water.
Mrs. Yoshida: Oh, JAMP [someone is holding up a
JAMP card which means "Just A Minute Please"].
Thomas: Nani.
70
Nani: I want to know if Mr. Toby knows what"relationship" means before we move on to the nextquestion.
Mrs. Yoshida: Very considerate of you.
Mr. Toby: I think I understand it. Maybe new exam- 75
ples will come up and I'll realize that I don't understandit, but for now I'm happy. OK, how many people want
to NQP [move on] to the next question? [the classcounts votes] What's the JAMP?
Brian S.: I want to refer to his question when he said 80
you can do any old thing to find a relationship. I don't
think so because if you do a shoe and a creature, its likethere is not even a relationship. So I think you have topick something [else] first—like a shoe and a boot.
Mrs. Yoshida: 85
I think right now
we called for
NQP. The majority voted so you
can pass [the90ball] to Joseph.
Maybe now that
we've talked
about somethings and their 95
relationshipmaybe you're
ready for somemore scratching[beneath the sur- 100
face of the topic]. Let's see how we do with these questions.
Joseph: [reading the question which Mrs. Yoshidahas written on an index card] "How are relationships
like things?"
105
Class: Huh...I don't get it...what?
Mrs. Yoshida: How are relationships like things andthe contrary question, "How are relationships different
from things?" Can you separate the two? Are theyalike?
110
Joseph: I think relationships and things are alike because you can use a relationship on two things or more.
Like Nani said. You could have a clock that could
hang. And then both clocks used to do the same thing.
Or a relationship and a clock. In fact, I think relation115
ship will go with any two things that are like...Kacey.
Kacey: But [if we accept what you say] then I think
relationship is a thing, you know, like a clock. So how
can it be a relationship? I think its just a word. But itmeans something.
120
Mr. Toby: So Kacey, you're saying that a thing and aThinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

relationship are not the same. They're different. Is thatwhat you said?
Kacey: Well mostly. Kind of.
Mrs. Yoshida: You said that a relationship is just a
word?
Kacey: Yeah.
Mrs. Yoshida: She said relationship is a word and athing is like a thing, like a creature, or like an item or an
object.
Mr. Toby: So here's a thing [holds out a pen]. Right?
And a relationship...
Kacey: ...is a word.
Mrs. Yoshida: Can you see a relationship then? If its aword you can't see it. Where does it exist? Where is it?
Kacey: I don't know, but I have one more question.
Mrs. Yoshida: Where do we get the relationship? I'msorry, go ahead. What was your question?
Kacey: You just took my question.
Mr. Toby: Say the question Kacey.
Kacey: Where
does the relationship...
Mrs. Yoshida:
Where does therelationship comefrom?
Jackie: Maybe
the thing is inside
the relationship.
Ahn Thy:
IDUS, IDUS, I
don't understand.
Mr. Toby:
OK...[draws a diagram; the relationship is represented by a circle and the thing is represented
by a point within this circle]. Like that [shows diagram]?
So the thing is inside the relationship? Is that the way
you'd draw the picture?
Jackie: [nods "yes"] All the different kinds ofthings...they relate so they're inside of the relationship.
Nani: I agree with Jackie 'cause if you like to see whata ship and a submarine are like. The relationship would
be around both of them because you're trying to see
what's the relationship around them, the connection, or
what they're like. So there would be a big circle or relationship and then there's the things that you're comparing—I mean, that you're trying to see what's the connection. They would be inside the relationship. And so every
time you're trying to see what other things are like [the]relationship would be around it. 'Cause that's what youconnected.
Mrs. Yoshida: Would you be drawing a line between
those things? Would the lines be the connection? Or
would they just exist inside that circle?
Nani: They would just be inside the circle.

81

Jackie: But then it doesn't really have to be a relationship and a thing. It can be different things, like maybe
say an ocean and the...and many things live in the ocean 180
so they relate to each other.
Mr. Toby: Did everyone get that? OMT, one moretime.
Jackie: OK, this is a big classroom and we fit inside it
and we're relating to it 'cause we're inside. So I think a185
relationship is a big thing...like say...a pool can fit people inside it so they relate to each other.
Mr. Toby: I think maybe you've just found a kind of
relationship—a part to wholes. Like the whole is theocean and then the parts...or maybe that's not right. A
190
big thing and a little...Or an outside...I don't know what
to call it.
Jackie: It's like a mother and a baby inside. So they
relate to each other 'cause they're connected. They are apart of each other. Brian C.
195
Brian C.: I think the relationship and...they're bothnoun. 'Cause mostpeople is talking
about things andperson that be200
long to the noun.
So I wonder if anoun could be a
relationship. Ahn
Thy.
205
Ahn Thy: OK,I think I can explain what thatmean. I think
what it means is 210
without a thing
there will be no
relationships.
Mrs. Yoshida: You're getting us to one of our nextquestions.
215
Ahn Thy: It's the one that Jackie said. It's just likeearth. It is like there are people inside, and without them
there would be no earth.
Mrs. Yoshida: So you're saying if you don't havethings you can't have relationships?
220
Ahn Thy: Yeah, 'Cause things make a relationship. It's
just like a mechanical pencil. They make lead, right?
Without a mechanical pencil why should there be lead?
Mrs. Yoshida: You know we're getting tight for time
and...conversely Jackie you said: "A thing is inside a225
relationship." Well, what if we throw this question out?
Joseph.
Joseph: [reading] "Can a thing have relationships
within it? Can you give an example?"Mrs. Yoshida: Jackie, I believe you said a thing is in- 230
side a relationship and Nani you agreed. But can you
have the opposite? Can you have a relationship within athing? Joseph do you want to comment about that before

82

we go on? Or you can recognize someone.
Joseph: Maybe a thing inside of something can have arelationship. Like maybe your arm and your blood—inside, the fluid. Its inside your arm or your skin or something, and they're both a body part or something. Actually, we're off the subject. Kacey.
Kacey: Are you saying that we are made of relationships?
Joseph: Sort of.
Kacey: The circle right now and then all the things
around us in the classroom. I mean like if we're the whole
relationship, right? And then the classroom is a thing'cause all around us is things in this room. So is that what
the question is?
Mrs. Yoshida: What do you people think? Oh, I see
some new hands. Maybe recognize some of our new participants.
Kacey: Max.
Max: Probably like us and this ball—the community
ball. Like our careis in the philosophy
ball. Something
like that?
Mrs. Yoshida:Oh, so the philosophy ball is a thing
and the relationships are in it.
That's a good example. What doyou people think?
Let's get someother viewpoints.
Some new people
here. Quickly, so
we can give you a chance to participate.
Max: Vanessa.
Vanessa: I agree with Max because its like our relationships are inside the ball. Its like that picture [points tothe diagram which was made earlier]. Its like the ball is athing and a relationship is the hair [care?] of the ball.
Mrs. Yoshida: OK, so you agree with what Max said.
Anybody have something new, something different toadd? Just want to share, disagree or agree?

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

In this case the members of the community did not arrive at conclusive answers to their questions. But this does
not mean that they did not make progress in their inquiry.
They came to better appreciate the complexity of the issue.
They also began to make connections with their experiences
and to perceive new connections. These, Thomas Jacksonargues, are forms of philosophical progress. 6
That the children made progress in this particular inquiry is, of course, a matter of some interest. Of far greaterinterest, however, is the sophistication of the dialogue
through which the inquiry proceeded. The children have,Notes from the Field

during the course of the year, learned to consistently practice certain cognitive and social moves. They demonstratethat they have both the ability and, at least within the confines of the community of inquiry, the disposition to thinkwell and to interact cooperatively.
The children repeatedly make the sorts of cognitive
moves through which good thinking proceeds. They makethe move of supporting their positions with reasons (forinstance on lines 35, 65, 193). They use examples to illustrate and to support their contentions (10, 54, 180, 193). So
too, they search for counter-examples in order to test thelegitimacy of claims (82). When they are unsure of what isbeing said, they seek clarification (152, 240) and when they
are unsure of the accuracy of what is being said they question the truth of statements (80, 119). They also employ
analogies (222) and are able to draw out the implications ofwhat has been said (117).
Another cognitive move which the children make andwhich is essential to good thinking (and, so too, to good
judging) is the moveof leaning back upon(and then subsequently proceeding
forth from) their understanding. The children do this when they
make the move of reflecting back upon
their prior understandings. They reflect backupon their understanding of what has transpired thus far in theinquiry and build uponeach other's ideas (28,65, 80, 111, 163, 271). They also reflect back upon theirunderstandings of prior discussions (35) and, so too, of theirworld (54-58, 178-187, 221-224, 235-237).
Reflecting back upon their understanding, the children
make the subsequent move of correcting their thought.
They do this when, appealing to their prior experience, they
respectfully disagree with one another (81, 118) and endeavor to correct the course of their inquiry (178).
These cognitive moves are important means throughwhich good thinking proceeds, good judgments are made,and understanding is gained. That the children are practicing these moves and, during the course of their practice,continuing to improve their performance of these moves is,then, highly significant. For, the children are, through theirpractice, being empowered to think better, to judge better,and to understand better.
Another intellectual disposition which is connected tojudging and understanding well is the tendency to wonder;
wonder is the spark which propels the often-times difficult
pursuit of a better understanding. The children in this community display this tendency as well. They ask one anotherThinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2questions (117-120, 136-143, 240) and simply wonder
about their world (197-204).
Also of note are the social behaviors which the children
perform. One cluster of these social behaviors are thosewhich are connected with the governance of the proceduresof inquiry. The children are, to a large extent, selfgoverning. They call on one another without the directionof a teacher (16, 27, 47). They make note of when the discussion is getting off subject (239). They ask for questions
to be repeated (18). They themselves determine when to
move on to another question (60) or when to slow down thepace of the discussion (68, 79). Discovering that they cangovern themselves and that they need not always look to theteacher for direction, the children gain both the confidence
and the ability to make their own judgments and, so too, toparticipate in a democratic society.
Another cluster of notable social behaviors performedby the children are those oral and aural behaviors which are
prerequisites to good inquiry. These children are listening to
one another. This is demonstrated by the frequency withwhich they connect
their thoughts to thoseof their peers; they listen to and then build
upon each other's contributions (28, 65, 80,
111, 163, 271). The
children are also able tovoice their ideas clearlyand confidently (28-47,
53-59). Having learned
how to engage in thesebehaviors, the children
are able to pursue understanding during the course of this particular inquiry.
More importantly, they have, to the extent to which they
have become disposed to engage in these behaviors, gained
the power to inquire cooperatively with others.
A final important cluster of social behaviors are thosewhich demonstrate the ethical appreciation which the community members have for one another. Through their behavior the children show that they respect one another andthat care about each other as persons. This is demonstrated,first and foremost, by the children's good listening. Listening with care, the children show that they have regard fortheir classmates and take them seriously. This care is also
demonstrated in other ways. Nani shows that she cares
about others when she asks another community member if
his concerns have been met (71) and when she purposefully
asks a child who seldom speaks to share his thoughts (47).
Brian and Kacey similarly show respect when they disagreewith what has been said; they disagree not with combativeness or animosity but rather with civility and kindness (81,117).
The children in Mrs. Yoshida's class did not, to such an
extent, behave in these ways at the beginning of the year. I

83

observed, as I visited this class each week, a steady maturation of this community. As the year progressed the children
more frequently performed the cognitive moves and social
behaviors which I have here emphasized. This is, to mymind, significant. For it supports the contention that thecommunity of inquiry approach can be an effective means
through which to cultivate good thinking, good behavior,and, ultimately, good judgment and understanding.
Endnotes
1. For a more thorough analysis see Yos, Thomas Butler (2002),
Educating for Good Judgment. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services/ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 2003.
2. See Jackson, Thomas and Oho, Linda E. (1993). Getting
Started in Philosophy: A Start-Up Kit for K-1. Unpublished Manuscript. (p. 12)
3. See Splitter, Laurance J. and Sharp, Ann M. (1995) Teaching
For Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational ResearchLtd., 1995. (p. 149)
4. I have edited this transcript slightly in order to make it morereadable. The only time I
have deleted entire contributions is in the case when ateacher spoke with the soleintention of repeating what achild said. Changes madewithin an individual contribution are limited to theelimination of repetitious or
unnecessary words. For example, "Like...I think that...
maybe...like...families are
relationships" would be edited down to "I think thatfamilies are relationships."
5. See Jackson, Thomas.
(1998) Philosophy in the Schools Project: A Guide for Teachers.
Unpublished Manuscript. (p. 25) Jackson suggests helping children
to govern the procedural dimension of their inquiries by teachingthem a number of acronyms or "magic words." Because these words
are simple, non-threatening, and fun to use, children readily embracethem and, as a consequence, quickly take responsibility for the governance of their inquiry. Among the words which Jackson, teachers,
and students have developed are the following: SPLAT (A little
louder, please; one says this when one wants the speaker to speak
louder.), IDUS (I Don't Understand; one says this when one wants the
speaker to clarify what he or she means.), POPAAT (Please One Person At A Time; this is said when too many people are talking at once.
It is a request for those who have not been recognized as the speakerto stop talking.), OMT (One M ore Time; one says this when one
wants the speaker to repeat what he or she has just said.), NQP (Next
Question Please; one says this when one wants the community to discuss a new question.), LMO (Let's M ove On; one says this when one
wants the community to move on to another point or question.), LMB(Let's M ove Back; one says this when one wants the community toreturn to a previously discussed point.), POC (Point Of Clarification;
one says this either when one wants to oneself raise a point of clarification or when one wants the speaker to clarify some point.), GOS(Getting Off Subject; one says this when one feels that the discussion
is losing focus and straying from the question which is currently under consideration.).
6. Jackson (1998), (p. 18).