Tim Sprod

We hear a lot about bubbles and echo chambers these days. People talk only to others who have similar ideas to themselves. Supporters of political parties, believers in conspiracy theories (such as QAnon), members of many other groups continually talk to fellow believers, and seldom seriously consider what outsiders say. However, we need to acknowledge that we ourselves also exist within bubbles. While perhaps not in the same league as the examples above, philosophy for/with children (P4/wC) advocates and researchers can also fall into the trap of listening only to others within our field. In many ways, this is understandable. Over more than 50 years, the P4/wC literature has ballooned, and it is unlikely that any one person has had the time to be able to read it all, let alone chasing down other literature. Yet we are not the only people who are interested in classroom discussions. For example, when I was doing my PhD, I read a fascinating and informative book by JT Dillon—Using Discussion in Classrooms—which I have never seen referenced in the P4/wC literature. The book under review here is another example. Published in the Ed Psych Insights series by Routledge, it is edited by P Karen Murphy, the Harry and Marion Royer Eberly Faculty Fellow and Professor of Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Of the eight other contributors to this book, seven are doctoral students, and one a post-doc, at either The Pennsylvania State University or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is quite a tight little bubble: the Quality Talk bubble. Quality Talk (QT) is the name of the approach to classroom discussions devised by Murphy and her collaborators.

Evoking the old saying that ‘children should be seen and not heard’, Jana Mohr Lone’s new book presents a powerful case for not merely hearing—but more, for 'listening' 'to' - children. Lone is the Executive Director of PLATO—the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization affiliated with the University of Washington, Seattle (one of the leading forces for philosophy in schools in the USA)—and has been involved in bringing philosophical discussion into schools for over 25 years. She brings all this experience to bear in this book. Before taking a good look at the book, I note that the publisher, Rowman & Littlefield, seems to have produced quite a few books in the philosophy in schools field recently, including Lone’s previous book 'The Philosophical Child', and a series edited by Tom Wartenberg. That a major publisher is interested in producing such books is a welcome sign indeed.

Using picture books as a means of initiating philosophical discussions with younger children is an idea that has occurred to a number of people involved in P4C/Philosophy in Schools in various parts of the world. Some went on to develop support materials to encourage teachers to go beyond reading picture books to/with their classes to drawing the students into a community of philosophical inquiry. Early examples include Karin Murris, Chris de Haan and colleagues, and myself in Australia, and Tom Wartenberg in the USA. As well as Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, Tom’s work drew on the writings of Gareth Matthews, both in his 1980 book 'Philosophy and the Young Child', and his regular columns on the philosophy in picture books in the journal 'Thinking'.

In response to Hand’s paper, I undertake three tasks. Firstly, I believe that his characterisation of the theory and practice of Community of Inquiry facilitation does not take account of approaches to indoctrination and the idea of philosophical self-effacement that can lessen his worries. Secondly, I will argue that Hand makes some sharp cuts—particularly between justified, controversial and unjustified moral standards—that do not stand up to scrutiny, and that he unnecessarily narrows the scope of moral inquiry. Finally, I will explore the practicalities of these considerations. How should we approach the idea of directive teaching in training facilitators? What should moral inquiry cover? In doing so, I see much of value in Hand’s approach, but also recommend some modifications.

Philip Cam’s Double Trouble can be found in his 1998 collection Twister, Quibbler, Puzzler, Cheat. This story is an especial favourite of mine, which I have used successfully with classes from mid-primary to senior secondary.This paper consists of two parts: the story in full; and an exploration of the philosophical background to many of the ideas contained in the story, including some references to discussions of the ideas in the philosophical tradition to support facilitators who use the story within a community of inquiry. I will consider three central issues in some detail, and four other emergent issues more briefly. In conclusion, I offer some more general thoughts as to how facilitators can prepare for using the story.

The following paper was written in 1999, as the opening speech at the Hobart FAPCA National Conference. I was, at the time, Chair of FAPCA. The keynote speaker at the conference was Professor Gareth Matthews from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and author of, among other books, The Philosophy of Childhood. As the paper was written as a speech, and not as an academic article, I did not cite all the points made in full academic mode. Rather, for publication in Critical and Creative Thinking, I added a list of further reading which gives details for all the articles and books mentioned in the speech. At the time, I had just completed my PhD, and taken up the position of International Baccalaureate Coordinator at The Friends’ School in Hobart. Subsequently in 2001, a revised and abridged version of the thesis was published by Routledge under the title Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education, and readers who are interested in following up some of my points made in the paper can find more detail there.

Peter Worley’s latest book provides a wealth of interesting and engaging lessons based around the pedagogy of philosophical discussions in the classroom. The book’s subtitle references the curriculum, and indeed the book contains ‘thought adventures’ to deepen and enliven learning in many of the subjects taught in schools. While the curriculum in question is pretty clearly the National Curriculum in England, none of the lessons are so closely tied to the details of that curriculum that they could not be used in other countries.

If Lipman’s claim that philosophy is the discipline whose central concern is thinking is true, then any attempt to improve students’ scientific critical thinking ought to have a philosophical edge. This chapter explores that position. The first section addresses the extent to which critical thinking is general – applicable to all disciplines – or contextually bound, explores some competing accounts of what critical thinking actually is and considers the extent to which scientific thinking builds on, or is quite different from, generic thinking. Evidence that traditional science education does not teach scientific thinking well leads to the conclusion that some different pedagogical approach needs to be added to science curricula. The second section surveys several approaches to ‘minds-on’ science education, each of which shares an emphasis on the students identifying areas of puzzlement, rigorous discussion of these puzzles, attention to metacognition and opportunities to address thinking across different contexts. Finally, a summary of the main conclusions is followed by consideration of possible objections and suggestions as to further research that could help to clarify and fine-tune the teaching of good scientific thinking in primary and secondary schools.

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of calls for moral education to receive greater public attention. In our pluralist society, however, it is difficult to find agreement on what exactly moral education requires. Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education develops a detailed philosophical defence of the claim that teachers should engage students in ethical discussions to promote moral competence and strengthen moral character. Paying particular attention to the teacher's role, this book highlights the justification for, and methods of, creating a classroom community of ethical inquiry.