



















































Liberation Philosophy and the Development of 
Communities of Inquiry: A Critical Evaluation

Patrick J.M. Costello and Richard E. Morehouse

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to offer a critical evaluation of the role of liberation philosophy in developing commu-
nities of inquiry. The article is divided into three sections. In the first, we examine the relationship between 

liberation philosophy and liberation pedagogy. The second section focuses on a discussion of relationships 
between liberation pedagogy, communities of inquiry and the teaching of philosophical thinking. Finally, we 
discuss what we regard as some of the challenges of liberation pedagogy and outline future directions for research 
and practice. While a number of scholars have offered radical critiques of education and schooling (Latta, 1989), 
this article considers the work of Paulo Freire as expressed in what is perhaps his best-known book, Pedagogy of 
the Oppressed (Freire, 1996). 

Liberation Philosophy and the Development of Liberation Pedagogy

According to Dussel (1985, p.9), while the concept of “liberation philosophy” has been articulated only 
comparatively recently, “its antecedents are older than modern European philosophy.” With this in mind, it is 
interesting that the Call for Papers for this special issue of Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis was made in 
the context of a conference on Bartolomé de Las Casas, which was held at Viterbo University in October, 2012. 
Bartolomé de Las Casas, who lived from 1484 to 1566, was a Spanish social reformer and Dominican friar. Per-
haps the best known of his writings, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, discusses the colonization of 
the West Indies, to which he was opposed. Dussel (p.9) refers to his work as follows:

Bartolomé de Las Casas ... wrote that ‘they have used two ways to extirpate these pitiable nations 

from the face of the earth,’ referring to the two ways Europeans used to dominate the periphery. 

‘One is by unjust, cruel, bloody, and tyrannical wars’ - that is, the Europeans assassinated the 

inhabitants of the periphery. ‘The other way is that after they have assassinated all those, such 

as adult males, who can yearn for freedom - usually they do not leave any survivors of war except 

children and women - they then oppress survivors with the most violent, horrible, and hateful 

slavery.’ They assassinated the Amerindians; if they left any alive, they debased them, oppressing 

them with servitude. They spared women, to live in concubinage (sexual domination) and 

children, to be educated in European culture (pedagogical domination). And thus in the name 

1

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2



2

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

of the ‘new god’ (gold, silver, money, pounds sterling, or the dollar) there have been immolated 

to the god of nascent mercantilism, the god of economic imperialism, and the contemporary 

imperialism of the multinational corporations, millions more human beings of the periphery 

than those the Aztecs immolated to their god Huitzilopochtli - to the horror of civilized, 

religious-minded Europeans!

The notion of “pedagogical domination,” to which Bartolomé de Las Casas refers, is a familiar one in 
the context of liberation philosophy and, more particularly, “liberation pedagogy” (also referred to as “critical 
pedagogy” - see Giroux, 1988, 2011; McLaren, 1999; McLaren, Macrine and Hill (2010); and Nocella, Best and 
McLaren (2010)). One of the foremost scholars of liberation pedagogy is Paulo Freire, who has written exten-
sively in this area (Freire, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2008; see also Irwin (2012), Schugurensky (2011), and Glass (2001)). 
In what follows, we will focus on his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1996: hereinafter referred to as ‘PO’) to 
make explicit connections between his liberation pedagogy, communities of inquiry and the development of 
philosophical thinking.

Liberation Pedagogy, Communities of Inquiry and the Development of Philosophical Thinking

The concept of a “community of inquiry” is well-known within the field of Philosophy for Children/phi-
losophy with children.  Indeed, a number of papers have been published in this journal on the nature and de-
velopment of such communities (see, for example, Costello, 2007a, 2010a; Morehouse, 2010). For the purposes 
of this article, a brief summary of the concept and its application would be useful (see Costello, 2007b for an 
expanded account). Matthew Lipman, founder of the Philosophy for Children programme, and his colleagues, 
have argued as follows:

When children are encouraged to think philosophically, the classroom is converted into a 

community of inquiry. Such a community is committed to procedures of inquiry, to responsible 

search techniques that presuppose openness to evidence and to reason. It is assumed that these 

procedures of the community, when internalized, become the reflective habits of the individual 

(Lipman et al., 1980, p.45). 

The authors also tell us that in order to create a community of inquiry, certain prerequisites are necessary. 
There should be a “readiness to reason, mutual respect (of children towards one other, and of children and teach-
ers towards one another) and an absence of indoctrination” (1980, p.45). Following the work of Lipman and 
other scholars at the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC), the term “community of 
inquiry” is now widely used by educators, whose aim is to enable their students to develop and demonstrate an 
ability to think, reason and argue effectively, both orally and in writing.

As is well known, the Philosophy for Children programme utilises novels and teachers’ manuals to engage 
learners in philosophical thinking. In Philosophy in the Classroom, the following rationale for the novels, which 
have been written specifically to develop reasoning skills, is given:



The books are works of fiction in which the characters eke out for themselves the laws of 

reasoning and the discovery of alternative philosophical views that have been presented through 

the centuries. The method of discovery for each of the children in the novels is dialogue coupled 

with reflection. This dialogue with peers, with teachers, with parents, grandparents and relatives, 

alternating with reflections upon what has been said, is the basic vehicle by which the characters 

in the stories come to learn. And it is how real students likewise come to learn - by talking and 

thinking things out (Lipman et al., 1980, p.82).

The modus operandi advocated by the IAPC for undertaking philosophical discussion in the classroom will 
also be familiar, both to teachers utilizing the programme, as well as to those undertaking research in this field. 
A typical session would take place as follows. First of all, children are asked to read aloud an episode or chapter 
from one of the novels. A key pedagogical component of the program is that poor readers or those who do not 
wish to read are permitted to “Pass” (Fisher, 2003). In preparing teachers to teach philosophy, Lipman argues it 
is necessary that they should be introduced to the novels by reading them aloud in the same way that children 
are asked to do. As he suggests:

This gives them experience in hearing the language of the text as well as in listening to one 

another. Taking turns is an exercise in moral reciprocity, and the collective effect of the ensuing 

discussion is a sharing of the meanings of the text through their appropriation by the group 

as a whole. Thus, even in the very first stage of exploring the curriculum, the members of the 

seminar begin to experience themselves as members of a community of shared experience and 

shared meanings, the first step toward becoming members of a community of inquiry (Lipman, 

1988, p.156).

When the designated episode or chapter has been read, children are asked for their comments on it and they 
have an opportunity to determine which issues are then discussed (Costello, 2007b).

Hannan and Echeverria (2009, p.7) suggest that what they refer to as a “community of philosophical inquiry” 
has the following characteristics:

•	 Safe	environment.

•	 Expressing	disagreement.

•	 Cooperative	endeavour.

•	 Practice	and	development	of	thinking	skills.

•	 Topics	for	discussion	are	based	on	student	interest.	

•	 Topics	discussed	are	philosophical.

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

3



•	 Knowledge	is	understood	as	evolving	constantly.

•	 Knowledge	is	co-constructed.

•	 Teachers	and	students	are	co-enquirers	in	the	search	for	meaning.

•	 A	space	for	the	development	of	a	personal	and	social	project.

With this summary in mind, we would argue that the theory and practice of developing communities of 
inquiry have a close affinity with Freire’s conception of  “liberation pedagogy” and, in particular with his discus-
sion  of several key terms and themes, including “narrative,” “banking education,” “indoctrination,”  “problem-
posing education,” “dialogue,” “critical thinking,” “reflection” and “action.” We will discuss these in the context 
of extracts from PO. 

 

The Teacher as “Narrator”  

In PO, Freire sets out a distinctive view of the teacher-student relationship. Central to this perspective is his 
view of the teacher as “narrator”:

A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, 

reveals its fundamentally narrative character. The relationship involves a narrating Subject (the 

teacher) and patient, listening objects (the students)... The teacher talks about reality as if it 

were motionless, static, compartmentalized and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic 

completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His task is to ‘fill’ the students 

with the contents of his narration - contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from 

the totality that engendered them and could give them significance. Words are emptied of their 

concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating verbosity. (PO p.52) 

Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the 

narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into ‘containers’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by 

the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more 

meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are. (PO, pp.52-

53).  

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

4



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

5

According to Roberts (1996, pp.52-53), in Freire’s view “...the relationship between teacher and students 
tends to be overwhelmingly monological: the teacher narrates the subject matter to students who are expected to 
receive passively, memorize and (if requested) repeat the content of the narration.” Freire’s view is made explicit 
in the following schema:

•	 the	teacher	teaches	and	the	students	are	taught;

•	 the	teacher	knows	everything	and	the	students	know	nothing;

•	 the	teacher	thinks	and	the	students	are	thought	about;

•	 the	teacher	talks	and	the	students	listen	-	meekly;

•	 the	teachers	discipline	and	the	students	are	disciplined;

•	 the	teacher	chooses	and	enforces	his	choice,	and	the	students	comply;

•	 the	teacher	acts	and	the	students	have	the	illusion	of	acting	through	the	action	of	the	teacher;

•	 the	teacher	chooses	the	programme	content,	and	students	(who	were	not	consulted)	adapt	to	it;

•	 the	teacher	confuses	the	authority	of	knowledge	with	his	or	her	own	professional	authority,	which	she	
and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;

•	 the	teacher	is	the	Subject	of	the	learning	process,	while	the	students	are	mere	objects.	(PO,	p.54)	

The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education 

Freire’s conception of the teacher as “narrator” leads him to discuss the notion of “banking education,” in 
which students are regarded as mere “containers” or “receptacles,” whose role involves being “filled” with the 
knowledge, skills, attitudes etc. that teachers possess. According to Freire (PO, p.53):

In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider 

themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing... The teacher 

presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance 

absolute, he justifies his own existence... The raison d’être of libertarian education, on the 

other hand, lies in its drive towards reconciliation. Education must begin with the solution of 

the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are 

simultaneously teachers and students.  

Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and 

the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and 

makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize and repeat. This is the ‘banking’ 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

6

concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as 

receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. 

Problem-posing Education

At the heart of Freire’s liberation pedagogy lies the idea of “problem-posing education.” According to Freire 
(PO, pp.60-61):

Accordingly, the practice of problem-posing education entails at the outset that the teacher-

student contradiction be resolved... Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the 

students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-

teachers. The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches but one who is himself taught 

in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly 

responsible for a process in which all grow. (pp.60-61)

... the problem-posing educator constantly re-forms his reflections in the reflection of the 

students. The students – no longer docile listeners – are now critical co-investigators in dialogue 

with the teacher’. (PO, pp.61-62)

Whereas banking education anaesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem-posing education 

involves a constant unveiling of reality. The former attempts to maintain the submersion of 

consciousness; the latter strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in 

reality. (p.62)
 

Dialogue and Critical Thinking

Dialogue and critical thinking are essential both to Freire’s liberation pedagogy. Consider the following:

Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education regards dialogue as indispensable 

to the act of cognition which unveils reality. Banking education treats students as objects of 

assistance; problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers. (PO, p.64)

Dialogue is thus an existential necessity... this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one 

person’s ‘depositing’ ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

7

‘consumed’ by the discussants. (pp.69-70)

Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking. 

Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true 

education. (PO, pp.73-74)

The above extracts from PO offer a concise summary of the key aspects of Freire’s liberation pedagogy. We 
will discuss these with particular reference to communities of inquiry and the development of philosophical 
thinking. Let us begin with Freire’s view of the teacher-student relationship. In evaluating this, we would argue 
first of all that it offers a very fixed and rigid representation of the educational process. Writing in 2012, we are 
bound to ask to what extent this conception represents the very rich and varied ways in which teaching and learn-
ing currently take place in schools, both in a national and international context. Nevertheless, it is always very 
instructive to discuss the above extracts with students who are undertaking teacher education programmes, ei-
ther at undergraduate or postgraduate level, as this enables them to share their own previous (and current) expe-
riences as learners within the educational system and then to reflect critically on their own pedagogical practice. 

We would wish to express similar reservations about Freire’s conceptions of “banking education” and “prob-
lem-posing education,” at least to the extent to which, as in his view of the teacher-student relationship, these 
terms represent a fixed, unambiguous, “all or nothing,” view of the educational process. Again, writing from the 
vantage point of twenty-first century schooling, we need to ask whether and to what extent Freire’s dichotomous 
account of education as either “liberation” or “oppression” represents the current state of thinking and practice 
in schools today. Of course, it is possible to argue that one of the reasons why so many schools have moved away 
from the forms of pedagogy epitomised by “banking education” is because of the widespread influence of libera-
tion pedagogy and the writings of scholars such as Freire, and we would agree with this view. Indeed the praxis in-
volved in teaching philosophy in schools has strongly underpinned a liberation education perspective. The shift 
from the kind of traditional education epitomised by Mr Gradgrind in Dicken’s novel Hard Times (2003) to the 
more progressive forms of schooling evident today is to be welcomed and Freire’s notion of “banking education” 
offers us a stark warning about how the teaching-learning relationship should not be enacted in the classroom. 

The relationship between “banking education” and indoctrination is a strong one and Freire refers to the 
latter in PO (p.59): “Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students with the ideo-
logical intent (often not perceived by educators) of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression.” As 
we saw above, Lipman et al. (1980) argue that a prerequisite of developing communities of inquiry is that there 
should be an absence of indoctrination. Indeed the IAPC is well aware of the problems posed by indoctrination:

There is no study that can more effectively prepare the child to combat indoctrination than 

philosophy (Lipman et al., 1980, p.85).

[A philosophical] education is the antithesis of indoctrination as it aims to give children the 

intellectual tools that they need to think autonomously about moral issues, to explore the 

metaphysical, logical and aesthetic dimensions of these issues and eventually move toward the 



formation of their own answers (Sharp, 1984, p.3).
 

 We would argue that the notion of “problem-posing education,” with its emphasis on dialogue and 
critical thinking, has a close affinity both with communities of inquiry and the development of philosophical 
thinking in schools. For example, in the context of such education, Freire suggests that students are no longer 
“docile listeners” but rather “critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher.” This approach is essential to 
any viable conception of a community of inquiry and, indeed, to the teaching of philosophy itself. Freire’s view 
of “banking education” as involving the “submersion” of consciousness also reminds us of indoctrination and, 
in particular, of the indoctrinated state of mind. The emphasis of “problem-posing education” is on the “emer-
gence” of consciousness, and again, this is key to the development of successful communities of inquiry. 

Curriculum Content

In discussing curriculum content, Freire (PO, p.103) offers an example that is reminiscent of the Philosophy 
for Children program, with its emphasis on novels that have been written for use in schools: “Another didactic 
resource - as long as it is carried out within a problem-posing rather than a banking approach to education - is 
the reading and discussion of magazine articles, newspapers, and book chapters (beginning with passages).” Of 
course, a broad range of alternative approaches to the teaching of philosophy in schools (which may be grouped 
under the heading ‘philosophy with children’) is now available. For example, Morris (2009) outlines a number 
of classroom activities to encourage the development of philosophical thinking, and Hannan and Echeverria 
(2009) discuss how the community of inquiry can be developed within individual subject areas.  

We referred above to what we consider to be Freire’s very fixed view of the teacher-student relationship and 
the educational process. In our view, this has led him to propose an unrealistic account both of the nature and 
implementation of school curricula. Why do we argue this? Consider the following statement (PO, p.90): “In 
contrast with the antidialogical and non-communicative ‘deposits’ of the banking method of education, the 
program content of the problem-posing method -  dialogical par excellence -  is constituted and organised by the 
students’ view of the world, where their own generative themes are found.” 

It is clear that the view espoused by Freire does not pertain in most schools; the curriculum is neither consti-
tuted nor organised primarily by reference to how students see the world. This is not to say that what Freire refers 
to as “problem -posing education” does not (or should not) take place in schools; indeed, it should and it does. 
Rather, we are arguing that the concept of “education” is rather broader than Freire conceives of it, involving 
as it does introducing learners to a broad range of knowledge, skills, world views, academic disciplines etc. about 
which currently they may know very little. As Richard Peters (1981, p.52) has argued, in the context of moral 
development and moral education, children “can and must enter the Palace of Reason through the courtyard of 
Habit and Tradition.” Similarly with the other disciplines that make up the school curriculum. For example, on 
the Ask a Mathematician, Ask a Physicist website (2012) and in response to the question, “How can we prove that 
2 + 2 always equals 4?” a number of answers is given, including this one: 

In science, theories are often not proven, but disproven. Perhaps the same concept would have 

to be applied here. If the numbers 0 through 4 are set quantities (so that I can’t just turn around 

and say, oh let’s make 2=3 (artificially, as in a linguistic change, not a mathematical one)), then 

by definition a physical total of two 2s would yield four. It may be impossible to prove that 2+2 

8

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

9

always yields four, but perhaps it is impossible to disprove 2+2 equalling four ever. Because the 

physical evidence is overwhelmingly in 2+2=4’s favour, perhaps it is a postulate or observing type 

of thing, like right angles are always equal, not a proof type of thing.

It is important to note that, although participants in such discussions are clearly engaging in high-level inquiry 
and debate, they do so having initially being taught (and having successfully learned), in the elementary school 
classroom or elsewhere, that  two plus two does equal four. 

Unfortunately, Freire’s perspective has been embraced much too readily by some advocates of the teaching of 
philosophy in schools. In a review of Hand and Winstanley’s (2009) book, Philosophy in Schools, Costello (2010b) 
considers three quotations from one of the chapters:

...adults’ psychological need to be in control has contributed to a curriculum that is focused on 

subject and knowledge content and to the questionable but popular conception of knowledge as 

infallible, as an ever-expanding body of facts that can be readily transmitted... (p.115).

The emphasis on closed questioning in schools gives a false picture of what knowledge is. 

Whatever the discipline, ‘facts’ should always be tentative... Meanings cannot be given or 

handed out: they need to be acquired (p.116).

Political correctness in Britain can be a barrier to authentic enquiries in class. There is an 

assumption that children should not question their faith... talk about taboo subjects, or 

be exposed to literature that gives the ‘wrong message’... It is crucial that the integrity of 

philosophical enquiries is not compromised by subtle manipulation (steering enquiries into 

‘safer’ territory)... by avoidance (of what may upset children or parents) or by projection (of 

a need for answers and certainty). Teachers’ urge to protect must not be allowed to stifle 

independence of thought and autonomy (p.117).

The notion of “control” in education has been much discussed. However, it is evident that teachers are (and 
should be) “in control” in classrooms and schools. This does not mean that, ipso facto, such control will stunt 
pupils’ intellectual growth and ability to reflect critically on ideas and subject content. An argument could just as 
easily have been presented to suggest that effective control by teachers is essential to developing a classroom en-
vironment that is conducive to philosophical thinking taking place (ensuring that children listen to others, have 
an opportunity to speak etc.). The acquisition of facts is a necessary (and unavoidable) part of the educational 
system. Again, this does not (nor should it) preclude the development of a reflective disposition in children. 
As regards the third quotation, we need to remember that schools are social institutions into which, as it were, 



philosophy enters as a welcome guest at a party, rather than the host. 

 When teachers enable and encourage children to discuss philosophical ideas, to express points of view, to 
offer reasons to support their arguments and so on, all of which are entirely desirable, this does not (nor should 
it be taken to) imply equality in the domain of teaching and learning. This is not to say that teachers have 
nothing to learn from the arguments which their students advance. In the spirit of Freire’s conception of the 
“teacher-student with students-teachers,” we agree that they certainly do. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge that 
society has given teachers a role which, if denied or ignored, will lead to  students’ educational impoverishment. 
Teaching philosophical reasoning constitutes an important addition to the school curriculum. To increase the 
likelihood of its successful introduction, we need to ensure that we do not claim more for it than it is able to 
deliver (Costello, 2010b).

The Challenges of Liberation Pedagogy: Future Directions for Research and Practice

The above examination of some of Freire’s key themes and arguments leads us to conclude that liberation 
pedagogy offers a number of challenges to teachers. In this final section, we outline what we consider to be 
some of these challenges, beginning within the field of teaching philosophy and then moving on to the broader 
educational context in schools. 

We would argue that there is a need to expand programs of education that focus on the teaching and learning 
of philosophy in schools. We are all indebted to Matthew Lipman and his colleagues at Montclair State Univer-
sity for developing and implementing the Philosophy for Children program so successfully. Their work has acted 
as a catalyst for reflective thinking and practice, and has led to the emergence of a broad range of alternative 
approaches. One way to convince teachers that such programs should be introduced into schools is to focus on 
the contribution they make to developing communities of inquiry and to improving thinking and learning more 
broadly in the classroom.

Allied to this, proponents of teaching philosophy in schools need to convince practitioners that, in imple-
menting programs in the classroom, they will be fully involved as participants who are able and willing to develop 
their pedagogical practice and to reflect carefully on it. In short, in order to be successful, teaching philosophy in 
schools is an initiative that must be undertaken by and with teachers; it should never be imposed on them. This 
notion of active teacher participation in programs for teaching philosophy can be expanded in two ways. First, 
it is important for teachers to engage in research on their own professional practice, with a view to improving it. 
The authors would argue that action research is ideally placed as a vehicle to assist in this task (Costello, 2011). 
Furthermore, action research is concerned principally with the relationship between “reflection” and “action” 
and this resonates strongly with Freire’s own view: “But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is 
praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is 
theory and practice; it is reflection and action” (PO, p.106). 

Within	the	UK,	for	example,	teachers	have	undertaken	funded,	small-scale	action	research	projects	that	focus	
on the teaching and learning of thinking skills (including philosophy). We suggest that this work should increas-
ingly incorporate projects undertaken for academic qualifications such as taught Master’s degrees in Education, 
both	in	the	UK	and	elsewhere.

Second, active teacher participation should be encouraged in publications about the teaching of philosophy 
in schools. For example, while the increase in books being published on what might be generally termed “critical 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

10



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

11

thinking” is to be welcomed, it is of vital importance that these should reflect teachers’ “voices.” Not all texts are 
successful in achieving this (Costello, 2010b).  

Moving on to the broader context of education, we would argue that it is in the spirit of Freire’s liberation 
pedagogy that all classrooms should become communities of inquiry. This is an idea that has become increas-
ingly popular in the literature on school improvement. Indeed, although the term is rarely used in this context, 
the essential characteristics of a community of inquiry are evident. For example, Lucas and Claxton (2010, p. 
116) refer to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of “communities of practice,” which is used to describe social 
learning, and argue that “Members of a community pursue a common interest and help each other as they do 
so. And as they work and solve problems together, so their learning habits and attitudes rub off on each other.” 
Gerver (2010, p.123) supports this view and refers to the practice of “Learn Share,” which he introduced into 
his school: 

This was developed from the need to help our children communicate and empathize with 

others. In most schools children tend to work and play with the children of their own age, in 

their own class. We wanted to ensure that our children began to see themselves as a whole-

school community and to be able to develop skills that allowed them to empathize and interact 

with other children outside the usual grouping. Learn Share evolved out of a weekly session 

where children throughout the school were paired with a child from another class and year 

group and would work with them to share reading. The system proved so successful that we 

expanded it to allow children to share all aspects of their learning and, indeed, their interests. 

Krovetz	(2008,	p.111)	argues	that	the	following	are	characteristics	of	a	“resilient	learning	community”:

•	 Students	are	working	in	the	library,	computer	lab,	laboratories,	and	hallways,	individually	and	collabora-
tively with peers.

•	 Students	are	engaged	in	required	helpfulness.

•	 Older	students	are	seen	working	with	younger	students.

•	 Students	are	engaged	with	peers	as	peer	helpers,	conflict	resolvers,	and	tutors.

•	 Students	spend	time	each	week	in	service	learning	projects	on	and	off	campus.

•	 Class	meetings	and	school-wide	forums	are	held	regularly	to	gather	student	input	regarding	meaningful	
school issues. These meetings are often facilitated by students.

•	 An	effort	is	being	made	to	include	all	student	groups	in	the	daily	life	of	the	school;	students	are	not	seen	
on the fringes of the school campus, alienated and voicing displeasure with the school, staff, and peers.

•	 A	large	percentage	of	the	students	participate	in	and	lead	a	wide	range	of	school	activities.

•	 Signs	on	campus	encourage	students	to	join	activities	and	do	not	indicate	hurdles	to	complete;	the	words	
‘students must’ do not appear on school postings.

•	 Time	is	provided	at	 least	weekly	for	teachers	to	work	together	on	curriculum,	instruction,	and	assess-



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

12

ment.

•	 Most	students,	faculty,	and	staff	are	known	and	welcomed	by	name,	and	many	parents	and	community	
members are known and welcomed by name. 

•	 Drug,	alcohol,	smoking	and	fighting	infractions	are	statistically	small	and	show	an	annual	decrease.

Similarly, Peters (2008, p.72) outlines “goals for creating a #1 classroom” and suggests that students:

•	 Become	partners	in	learning.

•	 Learn	in	a	respectful,	productive,	positive	atmosphere.

•	 Are	encouraged	to	share	their	thoughts,	difficulties,	successes	and	dreams.

•	 Recognize	and	respect	their	own	culture	and	those	of	others.

•	 Have	opportunities	to	explain,	clarify,	expand	on,	or	question.

•	 Receive	honest,	timely,	and	respectful	feedback	about	their	work.

•	 Recognize	their	own	areas	of	strength	in	thinking	and	learning.

•	 Identify	their	dreams,	aspirations,	and	natural	gifts.

•	 Receive	direction	and	vehicles	for	future	success.

•	 Receive	instruction	from	amazing	teachers.	

In conclusion, we would agree with Gilbert (2011, p.45) who suggests that “The ‘guess my thought and I’ll 
throw you a fish’ approach to teaching and learning has got to change if we want confident creative thinkers 
capable of both convergent and divergent thinking according to what each individual situation merits. And part 
of that thinking skill set needs to be the ability to confidently and without malice throw out an old idea and 
come up with a new one.” The Call for Papers for this special issue of Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis is 
entitled “The Promise of Liberation Philosophy.” We would argue that such philosophy, when translated into 
a viable liberation pedagogy, has much to offer education systems internationally. Again it is in the spirit of 
Freire’s philosophy of education that, while his readers may not always agree with everything he says, yet through 
studying his arguments carefully they may gain valuable insights that will enable them to clarify and enrich their 
own thinking and practice.

References

Ask a mathematician, ask a physicist (2012). How can we prove that 2+2 always equals 4? Retrieved from http://
www.askamathematician.com/2009/10/q-how-can-we-prove-that-22-always-equals-4/ 

Costello,	P.J.M.	 (2007a).	Promoting	communities	of	 inquiry	 through	 teacher	education	 in	 the	UK.	Analytic	
Teaching, 27(1),16-23.



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

Costello, P.J.M. (2007b). Developing communities of inquiry: The role of narrative. Prospero: A Journal of New 
Thinking in Philosophy for Education, 13(1), 10-16.

Costello,	 P.J.M.	 (2010a).	 Developing	 communities	 of	 inquiry	 in	 the	 UK:	 Retrospect	 and	 prospect.	 Analytic	
Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 30(1),1-20.

Costello, P.J.M. (2010b). Review of Philosophy in Schools by M. Hand and C. Winstanley (Eds.). Journal of 
Beliefs and Values, 31(3), 365-367. 

Costello, P.J.M. (2011). Effective action research: Developing reflective thinking and practice (2nd ed.). London: 
Continuum.

Dickens, C. (2003). Hard times. London: Penguin Books.

Dussel, E. (1985). Philosophy of liberation. New York: Orbis Books.

Fisher, R. (2003). Teaching Thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom (2nd ed.). London: Cassell. 

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books. 

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of hope. London: Continuum.

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum. 

Freire, P. (2008). Pedagogy of the heart. London: Continuum. 

Gardner, S.T. (2012). Teaching children to think ethically. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 32(2), 
75-81.

Gerver, R (2010). Creating tomorrow’s schools today: Education - our children – their futures. London: Con-
tinuum.

Gilbert, I. (2011). Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google? Abingdon: Routledge.

Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New

York: Bergin and Harvey.

Giroux, H.A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. London: Continuum.

Glass, R.D. (2001). On Paulo Freire’s philosophy of praxis and the foundations of liberation

education. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 15-25.

Hand, M. and Winstanley, C. (Eds.). (2009). Philosophy in Schools. London: Continuum. 

13



Hannam, P. and Echeverria, E. (2009). Philosophy with teenagers. London: Continuum.

Irwin, J. (2012). Paulo Freire’s philosophy of education: Origins, developments, impacts and legacies. London: 
Continuum. 

Krovetz,	M.L.	(2008).	Fostering	resilience:	Expecting	all	students	to	use	their	minds	and

hearts well (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Latta, R. (1989). The critics of schooling. Canadian Journal of Education, 14(4), 482-496. 

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lipman, M. Sharp, A.M. and Oscanyan, F.S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Tem-
ple University Press.

Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2010). New kinds of smart: How the science of learnable intelligence is changing 
education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

McLaren. P. (1999). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. London: Routledge.

McLaren, P., Macrine, S., and Hill, D, (Eds). (2010). Revolutionizing pedagogy: Educating for

social justice within and beyond global neo-liberalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Morehouse, R.E. (2010). Developing communities of inquiry in the USA: retrospect and

prospect. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 30(1), 21-31.

Morris, I. (2009). Teaching happiness and well-being in schools. London: Continuum.

Nocella, A., Best, S. and McLaren, P. (Eds.) (2010). Academic repression: Reflections from the academic indus-
trial	complex.	San	Francisco:	AK	Press.

Peters, R.S. (1981). Moral development and moral education. London: George Alien and Unwin.

Peters, S.G. (2008). Teaching to capture and inspire all learners: Bringing your best stuff every day! Thousand 
Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Roberts, P. (1996). Structure, direction and rigour in liberating education. Oxford Review of Education, 22(3), 
295-316. 

Schugurensky, D. (2011). Paulo Freire. London: Continuum. 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

14



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS    Vol. 33 Issue 2

Sharp, A.M. (1984). Philosophical teaching as moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 13(1), 3-8.

Address correspondence to:

Patrick J.M. Costello
Glyndwr University, Wales
Wrexham,Wales
p.costello@glyndr.ac.uk

Richard Morehouse
Professor Emeritus
Viterbo University, La Crosse WI
remorehouse@viterbo.edu

 

 

 

15


