





















































Facilitation is No Mere Technical Skill: A Case Study of a Small Group of 'Different' Students


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

63 

 

Facilitation is No Mere Technical Skill: A Case Study of a 
Small Group of ‘Different’ Students 

Lena Green  

 

ABSTRACT: It is generally recognized that any inquiry must be sensitive to context and that facilitation 
is never simply a matter of following a set of rules. In this paper I list and discuss the particular 
challenges of facilitating an inquiry with a small group of adolescent boys, all of whom had difficulty 
in learning despite being of at least average intelligence.  I describe some adaptations to the classic 
P4C model of inquiry that I found helpful and refer briefly to the progress made by the boys. I conclude 
that, although research suggests that children and young people who learn differently may be those 
most likely to benefit from P4C, we should not underestimate the facilitation challenges they present 
or the time it takes for cognitive and social gains to influence performance in school. The inclusive 
education movement, with its emphasis on accommodating diversity, implies that such children are 
increasingly present in regular classrooms. It is important that trainers are aware of this and ensure 
that teachers who are eager to create classroom communities of inquiry have sufficient quality training 
and support.  My final comment is that, if facilitation is an art, we should not expect all teachers to 
become, or to wish to become, highly effective facilitators of philosophical inquiry after a brief training. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

he rationale for the initiative reported in this paper was my need to explore how and 
to what extent I could help some of the young people I see in my educational 
psychology practice by arranging for them to engage regularly in community of inquiry 

dialogue. I reasoned that, although they struggled at school, they were certainly not stupid, and 
could benefit both socially and cognitively from this type of mediated experience. The Philosophy 
Club is not a therapy group but an experience of thinking together in an environment very 
different from that of the typical classroom.  Its practice is based on the assumptions of Matthew 
Lipman, the author of the original Philosophy for Children program.  In a case study, numbers 
are not as important as in depth description. The intention is to illustrate a particular instance, 
in this case it is through work with a small number of adolescents with autistic spectrum and/or 
attention difficulties. As with any case study, no claim can be made that the findings are 
generalizable, except possibly by analogy.  

 

 

 

 T 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

64 

 

Philosophy for Children 

     Lipman argued that, although everyone can think, it is important to enable all members of 
society to think for themselves and to think well. Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyan (1980) proposed 
more than 30 years ago that education should be structured for thoughtfulness, that children 
should be actively encouraged to think for themselves, and that the way to improve thinking is 
through dialogue with others. As he explains in his autobiography, Lipman (2009) believed that 
this could be accomplished if schools introduced regular philosophy classes to children of all 
ages. He was well aware, however, that many teachers might find this a threatening addition to 
their professional role. His response was to create the Philosophy for Children program as a way 
of making it possible for regular teachers who were not philosophers to engage their students in 
philosophical inquiry. He did not recommend that students in schools should learn about 
philosophy, but that they be allowed to do philosophy, using some of the thinking moves that 
philosophers have found helpful. The pedagogy he proposed for philosophy lessons was based 
on collaborative inquiry. The classroom would become what he labelled a ‘community of inquiry’ 
with the teacher as a facilitator whose task was to monitor how the community thought rather 
than to tell students what to think. The subject matter of any inquiry was to be whatever the 
classroom community found interesting and wanted to explore. In order to provide the best 
opportunities for practising both critical and creative thinking, the teacher/facilitator would 
nudge the collaborative inquiry towards a philosophical question, i.e. one that could not be 
settled by recourse to accepted facts or expert opinion. 

     The Philosophy for Children (P4C) program is known and implemented in many countries. 
Other authors and practitioners worldwide have adapted or modified Lipman’s original P4C 
materials, or use different ways of engaging participants, but the belief in collaborative inquiry 
as a community remains central. Currently valued theories regarding the development of human 
thinking and learning (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Feuerstein, 1980; Feuerstein, Klein and 
Tannenbaum, 1991, together with certain important Piagetian notions) support this practice, 
although it contradicted some beliefs about learning and intellectual development prevalent in 
the 1970s when it was first introduced. There is a growing body of research indicating that regular 
participation in community of inquiry dialogue has many positive consequences. Common 
findings are growth in confidence, reasoning ability, reflectiveness, interpersonal skills, evidence 
of higher scholastic achievement and even gains in measured IQ.  Examples are the work of 
Trickey and Topping (2004, 2007), Green (2009), Marsal, Dobashi and Weber (2009), Santi and 
Oliverio (2012), Reznitskaya (2012) and the study conducted in 2013 by SAPERE, the UK 
charity that supports Philosophy for Children. Studies in South Africa affirm the effectiveness 
of dialogic enquiry in regular classrooms, even in contexts where it is difficult to implement 
(Green, 2008, 2012) There is also emerging evidence of its value in teacher education, both as a 
pedagogy for teachers to employ in the classroom and as a means of developing their own 
thinking (Green and Condy 2012). Further details about research since the 1980s are to be found 
on the SAPERE website and on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy 
for Children (IAPC).  

     Becoming part of a community of inquiry is particularly important for children and young 
people identified as educationally at risk. They are often a mystery to themselves, with little 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

65 

 

understanding of their own thinking and learning processes. They do not automatically develop 
the judgements and habits of mind that facilitate school success. They need to practice thinking 
and become aware of both what and how they think since they have real difficulty in formulating 
and expressing their thoughts coherently. They frequently have had little opportunity to acquire 
the social skills that enable shared inquiry and need to build habits of collaboration and perceive 
its benefits. Their school experience has frequently been one of criticism and failure and they 
have little sense of themselves as competent and respected thinkers, despite their potential for 
insight and creativity.  Ward (2015) highlights the fact that, in his experience with over 100 
young people, “P4C has given a voice to children who otherwise did not have one”.  

The Role of the Facilitator in a Community of Inquiry 

     The quality of any community of inquiry, especially in the early stages, depends on the skill, 
sensitivity and patience of the facilitator.  Haynes and Murris (2011) explain that philosophical 
inquiry in the P4C tradition is not a detached intellectual exercise but an opportunity for shared 
meaning making.  The teacher/facilitator must be able to engage members of the community 
both emotionally and intellectually and, as Lipman said, act as the midwife of their emerging 
thoughts.  Fletcher (2015) speaks to the importance of nurturing ‘the desire to be, share and 
grow’ –the motivation to engage authentically in a shared inquiry– and of the challenge this can 
be for facilitators.   

     The role of facilitator demands flexible movement between critical, creative and caring 
thinking. She is both inside and outside the community –a collaborator sharing in the 
construction of meaning and a sensitive leader who tracks the process of inquiry in terms of its 
respectfulness, focus and reasonableness. In addition, she models the cognitive and social moves 
that she would like the community to be making (Gregory, 2009).   She encourages the expression 
of many different ideas yet insists that participants think before they speak or respond to the 
thinking of others. She may have to teach the community how to speak and listen to each other 
respectfully and how to step back and evaluate their own thinking. 

     The aim of any inquiry, as Gardner (1996) and Fisher (1998) clearly state, is to make progress 
towards truth in the form of the most reasonable provisional answer to whatever question has 
been posed.  In order to advance understanding the skilled facilitator models and encourages 
thinking moves, gives all ideas a fair hearing, examines arguments in order to strengthen or 
discard them, supports minority points of view and alternative positions, normalizes 
disagreement and is comfortable with opinions different from her own as long as they have been 
carefully explored and can be justified. (Green and Murris, 2014).  In other words, she is 
“pedagogically strong but philosophically self-effacing” (Jackson, 2002, page 465).  

     As the community develops the facilitator’s role is, or should be, increasingly taken over by 
the participants themselves. She may offer her own opinions on occasion but has to be sensitive 
to the inevitable power differential (both real and perceived) between herself and those she works 
with. Every context and every inquiry is different although there are some common features.  
Techniques and practical skills are useful but facilitation of a philosophical inquiry, like good 
teaching, is an art. It requires not only a sound conceptual foundation but also the ability to 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

66 

 

reflect critically and creatively in ever changing circumstances, plus the ability to ‘think on your 
feet’. It cannot be reduced to a set of learned practices.  

THE CASE STUDY 

     The ongoing case study reported here is an attempt to establish what kind of practice can best 
mediate the attitudes and skills of collaborative inquiry with young people who are not ‘typical’ 
students. In the course of my practice as an educational psychologist I see many children and 
young people who find schoolwork difficult and are unhappy and/or bored in classrooms.  I 
reasoned that, although there might be some challenges involved, many of them would benefit 
from being part of a community of inquiry. It could build their confidence, often destroyed by 
repeated failures at school. It could help them organize and articulate their thoughts and identify 
ways of managing what was difficult for them. It could be a source of pleasure in using their 
minds, something of which they had little or no experience.  It would be an opportunity to 
expand their concepts and would, I hoped, eventually have some positive effect on their 
behaviour and/or their achievement in school. I chose to label the group the ‘Philosophy Club’ 
to mark the fact that this was not some form of extra lesson or learning support but a voluntary 
engagement in an interesting activity. 

     The group was small, consisting of four adolescent boys aged between 14 and 17 from 
different schools and different backgrounds in terms of race, culture and religion. Two of the 
boys had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), one of whom 
was on medication. Another was diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder and the fourth 
processed information slowly.  All received some form of learning support, either at school or 
independently. The boys came voluntarily for an hour every Monday afternoon over a period of 
18 months, broken by school holidays and interrupted at times by illness or the need to use the 
Philosophy Club time for intensive examination preparation or extra lessons.  

     The aim of the research dimension of the project was to discover to what extent P4C might 
need to be adapted for these young people and in what ways they might benefit from regular 
inquiry dialogues. I planned to track their development as thinkers and learners and monitor 
the process of philosophizing with them.  The most appropriate research approach was a case 
study within the action research paradigm.  Action research, as described by Carr and Kemmis 
(1986: page 162) is “a form of self enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order 
to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these 
practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out.” This form of research 
involves an ongoing spiral process of planning, action and reflection. The information on which 
this paper is based includes session notes and observations, records of written feedback to 
individuals, transcripts of sessions, parent conversations and self-reports by the boys themselves.    

FACILITATION CHALLENGES 

Identifying Questions of Genuine Interest 

     At first the boys struggled to come up with questions that they would really like to explore.  It 
seemed as if they had stopped wondering, or if not, that they did not consider their questions to 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

67 

 

be worth exploring together with others.  It also took time before they trusted that what was of 
genuine concern to them was appropriate for our inquiry. The first question proposed by one of 
them was fairly impersonal –whether to save one beloved person or twenty strangers, in the 
unlikely event of being presented with this choice.  Although it took some work to relate this 
topic to familiar contexts, it was a start.  I found that for several months I needed to be sensitive 
to the boys’ likely interests and suggest at least two possible topics from which they could choose.  
There were times, however, when the school day had presented concerns that were too salient to 
ignore and on these occasions I simply allowed the boys to talk and listened for philosophical 
implications that we might explore in the future.  

     Over time Steven, Joe, Tom and Edwin (not their real names) became much more confident 
and creative about proposing questions, as the selected examples to come will illustrate.  A 
strategy I found to work well occasionally was to present a question that no-one was allowed to 
answer except by saying ‘That makes me think of another interesting question’ so that we built 
upon and extended each other’s questions.  By collaborating in this way we created a bank of 
questions for times when no-one was feeling creative.  Sometimes it was useful to encourage a 
conversation, or pick up on a chance remark, often about some aspect of school life, and try to 
tease out with the group what questions were implied. 

Difficulty in Focusing and Sustaining Attention 

     The boys did not easily remain focused on a specific question or topic or on each other’s 
opinions, especially, as was often the case, if these were not expressed succinctly.  They had 
difficulty in managing their internal distractibility. Their own thoughts were often not clear to 
them and they sometimes needed time to identify and formulate them in words. At other times 
they used too many words, as if in the hope that their meaning would somehow emerge if they 
made repeated attempts at it.  

     It helped if the starting point was extremely interesting to them and captured their attention, 
which was something I had to learn by trial and error.  I used stories, poems, pictures, various 
objects that they could handle, and videos/dvds.  Reading, and especially reading aloud, was not 
popular. Texts had to be short. The wordy prose and unfamiliar context of the extract from Les 
Miserables that Fisher (2001) suggests (the bishop’s candlesticks episode) did not appeal despite 
its interesting moral possibilities. Moreover, this group was unanimous that the bishop had erred 
in trusting the thief and should have handed him over to the forces of law and order. The current 
visibility and prevalence of crime in South Africa may have influenced this perspective.  I used 
this extract at an early stage in the Philosophy Club’s existence and at that time did not choose 
to challenge the boys’ opinions and reasons. It was progress to have them express personal views 
and begin to listen to each other. Later I reintroduced the topic when it became apparent that 
the boys were interested in evil, as presented in the innumerable movies that they recalled in 
great detail.  

     They watched De Boton’s dvd about philosophy but it did not excite them. I am not sure to 
what extent they picked up the main points he was making and it may be that, although they 
appeared to focus on the visual input, they did not pay systematic attention to the auditory 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

68 

 

information in much the same way that they seemed to focus somewhat randomly on aspects of 
written text. When I experimented with art (postcard reproductions) as a starting point for 
inquiry I found that some members of the group tended to be uncomfortable with too much 
ambiguity, which may have been overwhelming given the rich but confused mix of their own 
thoughts.  It was easier for them to respond to pictures of realistic objects or events.   

     I had discovered that it was important to provide variety in terms of our starting point. This 
need for change and new stimulation was even more apparent when we focused on a specific 
question. The boys would each express an opinion and attempt to justify it with reasons but they 
soon felt that they had said all that could be said on a particular topic and wanted a change.  If, 
as Oyler (2015) suggests, the ‘length of string’ is an indicator of the quality of an inquiry, for a 
long time we did not do very well.  

     It helped if activities were structured.  I followed the classic guidelines. We created ‘ground 
rules’; we used a soft toy to signal the right to speak.  I used laminated cards, each of which had 
one word on it, namely. AGREE, DISAGREE, REASON, QUESTION, CONNECT and 
CLARIFY.  The boys were to pick up a card before speaking, ostensibly so that we would all 
know what kind of move they were making but also to help them identify their own thinking 
moves.  However, while structure helped, there was also some resistance to it. If they were really 
engaged they often forgot the rules that we had agreed upon or decided to ignore them. It seemed 
as if they did not like this slowing down of their thoughts or the way it interrupted their attempts 
to focus on the content of what they wanted to say. It was a breakthrough when Joe, not I, said 
at one point, “I think we should go back to using the toy”.  

     Structure in the form of a series of questions to direct an inquiry was extremely helpful. One 
of our early inquiries involved a brief extract from Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery –where Lisa 
and her friends are speaking about ‘mind’. We read a short passage together (the spacing and 
size of the font helped) and then worked through the questions suggested in the manual. This 
experience highlighted for me the value of a series of clear, simply worded questions in focusing 
an inquiry.  

     Those who do not easily focus their auditory attention have difficulty recalling what they have 
heard and tend to retain only a fuzzy sense of what was said.  It helped to ask other participants 
to repeat what someone had said, or to check for meaning myself, and at times, but not too often, 
to use a whiteboard to capture the process as it happened.  I found this very difficult to do 
because the main threads of an enquiry (and often the main point of an utterance) would only 
emerge fairly late and it was hard to know what was important. I tried, however, to create a brief 
written summary or a visual map immediately after each session.  By the following week the boys 
had usually forgotten what we had talked about. The ‘map’ was useful as a starting point for 
continuing an inquiry, as long as it did not involve a great deal of reading. 

     I found, too, that after an extended period of concentration we needed a break. It worked 
well to introduce some kind of playful activity, such as a philosophy board game or an activity 
that involved answering ridiculous questions such as ‘Would you rather walk on broken glass or 
slip your feet into shoes filled with snakes?’  Another option was to introduce a simple creative 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

69 

 

task, such as the example below in which individuals completed sentences about themselves that 
provided a starting point.  

My mind is like a computer because…. 

… because it stores memories in my brain and I can go back and remember things that I want to experience 
again. 

My mind is like a calm sea because…  

… my mind can make peaceful sounds that a sea makes. It can also put me on a beach. 

My mind is like an empty room because… 

… an empty room lit up by a candle to light the dark.  An empty room because sometimes I could have 
nothing to think about or when I’m bored I can think of nothing. 

My mind is like a grasshopper because 

…A grasshopper that’s wild and delicate …because sometimes I would like to be left alone or I could be 
wanting to make sounds when I have nothing to do. 

My mind is like a bubble bath because… 

…because all the bubbles can represent things that are worth thinking about. I could be thinking many 
things. 

Low Self-Esteem 

     All members of our mini-community had a history of negative school experiences.  They did 
not expect to be ‘right’ and disliked taking risks.  They anticipated possible humiliation if they 
said what they thought. Almost all those who joined the group were clearly anxious at first.  It 
manifested as silence, or as the hesitant and apologetic offer of an opinion, or as a tendency to 
‘put down’ and tease others, or to speak too much and too loudly. It helped to model respectful 
responses and, when intervention became necessary, to be very tactful about the wording of any 
comment that could be construed as a reprimand.    

     I became increasingly aware of the significance of the physical and social setting.  The boys 
sometimes appeared exhausted after a long school day of sport and lessons. They liked the fact 
that they sat informally on comfortable chairs or a couch, facing each other.  This was highlighted 
for me when we discussed inviting new members and the comment was ‘you will have to get 
another couch’.  After some months I asked for suggestions about improving the Philosophy 
Club.  These included a coffee machine and a few more participants, especially if these could be 
girls.  The Philosophy Club, as I had hoped, was developing an identity as a safe and comfortable 
social venue in which they could begin to take intellectual risks. 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

70 

 

Insistence on Relativist Views  

     Opinions were expressed and often apparently strongly held.  It was encouraging, however, 
that occasionally someone changed his mind as a question was explored.  Nevertheless, there was 
a very general tendency to insist that any viewpoint was ‘just my perspective’ and that other 
perspectives, whatever they might be, were equally valid. This attitude might be related to the 
emphasis on accommodating diversity in the very diverse context of post apartheid South Africa 
but I was interested to learn from international colleagues that it was common in other contexts 
as well. It may also relate to a reluctance to take a stance in case it is proved to be ‘wrong’. I 
suspect now that it may take some time before these boys, whose experience of the world so far 
has tended to be fluid and inconsistent, are fully convinced of the value of reasoned justification.  

     I can think of only one occasion when someone committed to a position. I had pushed the 
group about whether all perspectives were equally valid and after considerable discussion he said, 
“I think where the catch comes in is that if your perspective would put anyone else in harm or 
put yourself in harm that’s where the line is crossed between it’s OK and not…”  

Group Size and Composition: 

    The size and composition of the group limited somewhat the number of perspectives to which 
we had access. This was exacerbated when there were the inevitable absences from time to time. 
It also at times made individuals more ‘visible’ than they would have liked. I had never intended 
that the group should consist of less than six members, which would have allowed for the 
occasional absence.  I had also anticipated a more or less even gender balance, but it did not 
happen this way. Reasons may include the fact that conditions such as ADHD and autism are 
more frequent in boys than in girls, but the main reasons for the group’s size and composition 
seemed to be either the priority given to extra lessons or sport, or difficulties with transport.  The 
challenge for me was to have a range of options available for every session since attendance was 
unpredictable. 

Opportunities for Facilitator Growth: 

     In the early months I was forced to think creatively, to experiment with starting points that 
might engage the boys and to find ways of making questions the norm. I think I have become 
better at nudging thinking step by step towards philosophical questions, for example from ‘Why 
do we have to learn about Romeo and Juliet’ to ‘What is the purpose of education’, about which 
the boys had a great deal to say.  Being unable to generate questions is one outcome of schooling 
that focuses almost exclusively on answers. Lack of confidence about answers gives rise to lack of 
confidence about questions. Generating more and better questions and becoming more 
confident went hand in hand.  I became more alert to occasions when someone had taken a 
small step forward, and made comments such as ‘I notice that today you have been very careful 
not to interrupt Tom –this is really helpful’ but I took care only to do this when it was justified 
and did not praise indiscriminately. 

     Although I was aware of the importance of a self-esteem, I learned from this group just how 
easily a belief in oneself as a person capable of worthwhile thoughts can be damaged by negative 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

71 

 

school experiences and how this perception of the self can interfere with the social interactions 
that are a necessary part of growing up and learning. I learned, too, that the process of sharing 
thoughts appropriately sometimes has to be explicitly taught.  Because the group was small it was 
possible for me to observe carefully the thinking strengths and challenges of each individual, to 
notice small signs of growth and to feedback my insights to each individual in the form of a brief 
written report every six months.  

     Although managing attention and retaining focus remain challenges, I value the occasional 
rewarding glimpses of the unusual ‘takes’ on life and the rapid creative connections of which this 
particular community is capable. I have become more aware of each individual’s store of 
knowledge, both useful and extraordinary, and better able to link it to our enquiries. I have a 
much better idea now of what will NOT work in this context, although I still make mistakes. I 
am not yet sure how best to address the insistence that all perspectives must be treated as equally 
valid but I consult with colleagues and have found Gardner’s recent update of her 1996 paper 
helpful. 

Progress to Date 

     I have observed that the boys have become more confident and creative, more able to generate 
philosophical questions, and more able, at least at times, to remain focused on a particular 
question.  They have begun to develop insight about themselves and understanding of the 
inquiry process, as the quotations below illustrate.  

o …I think the number one thing I’ve learned is self-control - for example when I first started coming 
to Philosophy Club I would interrupt people to say my answer… 

o … I think what I find difficult in particular is because I’m worried I’m going to forget something 
while I say it…  

o …I think I have become more open to other ideas… 
o …I like the discussion in philosophy on points of view – your point of view why you think this is 

wrong and this is right…you can have many answers… 
o … I think that the difference between philosophy and a conversation is that philosophy usually poses 

a question that doesn’t necessarily have a definite answer but more challenges your perspective….ja 
so I think that it’s more in depth than a conversation and we have to talk longer and we have to 
search in ourselves to get the answers while talking and I think a conversation would just be…I 
don’t think that it’s lesser but I do think that it’s different… 

 Some of the questions generated by the boys over a period of approximately one year were: 

o What is evil?  
o Can we know the real truth? 
o What is the right kind of education? 
o Does everyone see the same? 
o Are conventional ways (of bringing up children) still the best? 
o Do human beings have free will? 
o If you speak about/acknowledge race does that make you a racist? 
o Would it be a good idea if human beings could start life with old age and become younger? 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

72 

 

o Would it be a good idea if someone invented a chewing gum that knew everything? 
o If other people could read our thoughts would we have different thoughts? 
o Is love at first sight possible? 
o If you cloned yourself would your clone have your memories? 

DISCUSSION 

     In the case of this group the key facilitation issue was flexibility. I frequently could not use 
what I had prepared. The reason might be a pressing issue that was brought to the Philosophy 
Club or the energy level and mood of the group and of individuals. Variety and structure were 
always important, as was careful attention to each individual and the management of interactions 
between them.  In the sessions the boys involved became more confident, and more aware of the 
content and process of their thinking but I have no evidence of any direct transfer to school 
related tasks.  Parents reported that their sons liked the sessions but did not pinpoint any specific 
changes.   

     At the start of the project I had hoped to be able to track improvements in academic 
achievement but I became aware that this was unrealistic for several reasons.  If there were 
improvements in school grades it would be impossible to exclude the influence of factors such 
as extra lessons, good teaching, and the nature of school and home contexts. I might have chosen 
to ‘bridge’ more explicitly to schoolwork but this would have reduced the Philosophy Club to a 
special form of ‘extra lesson’ –and not a particularly successful one as each individual had 
different needs.  Even had I done so, cognitive interventions that make a significant difference 
to school learning tend to require at least two years of regular input, generally for more than one 
hour per week.  It should also be noted that the South African curriculum, which pays lip service 
to critical and creative thinking, is becoming increasingly prescriptive and assessment driven.  
There may have been effects on thinking and behaviour both in and out of school in the form 
of confidence, attitudes to knowledge and to the ideas of others, of which I was unable to gather 
evidence.  The main purpose of this paper was, however, to illustrate the challenges and time 
involved in making progress within this particular community. It may be ‘normal’ to expect 
progress within the community but communities vary in terms of the ease with which progress 
is accomplished and in terms of the extent to which such progress manifests itself in other 
contexts.   

     Lipman and his colleagues made very explicit the connection between experiences of dialogue 
and scholastic achievement.  They questioned the assumption that, because the outcome of 
education is the ability to read and understand text, and to produce meaningful written text, the 
process of education should offer practice in such activities without the prior experience of 
dialogue.  The skills acquired in dialogue, they argued, are a necessary prerequisite for the skills 
required in the classroom.  Many educationists now believe in the importance of talk prior to 
reading and writing. However, they tend to justify this practice as a means of activating existing 
schemas about a topic and often fail to recognize that dialogue also has a much more important 
function.  It is through dialogue with others that children acquire the tools to think.  Listening 
to others and teasing out shared meanings prepares them to seek and find meaning in what they 
read.  Articulating, structuring and defending their own ideas in collaboration with others 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

73 

 

becomes over time a way of thinking in private that can direct their written work.  The thinking 
moves that are encouraged and practiced during dialogic enquiry create a growing repertoire of 
reflective skills and habits that enable thoughtful judgements.  Making thoughtful judgements is 
particularly difficult for children who are inattentive and frequently impulsive and they need 
many experiences that not only build habits of thoughtfulness but make them aware of the value 
of this kind of thinking.  These are persuasive arguments.  This small case study highlights the 
need for early and ongoing experiences of inquiry and suggests that we should be realistic about 
the time required for change to manifest itself in school contexts.  

     There is nothing new in saying that all schoolchildren can benefit from P4C or that 
facilitation of an inquiry is not easy. It does need to be said, however, that schoolchildren who 
learn differently and/or need special accommodations may be those who most need the 
experience of dialogic inquiry in the P4C tradition and are at the same time those who present 
facilitation challenges that we would be unwise to underestimate. Given the international move 
towards inclusive schools and classrooms every regular classroom is likely to be a diverse 
community and teacher training in P4C needs to take this into account.  

     It would be pleasing to believe that education worldwide could be transformed if 
philosophical inquiry were inserted into every school curriculum and all teachers were trained 
to facilitate collaborative philosophical inquiry. It would also be naïve.  Facilitation of a 
philosophical inquiry, like teaching itself, is an art.  It is not a competence to be acquired but a 
way of thinking, an ongoing learning experience which is only possible if one is comfortable with 
ambiguity and uncertainty.  Not all teachers are likely to be, or wish to be, effective facilitators of 
inquiry, even if they have received some training. This is particularly true in contexts where 
teachers themselves have not been encouraged to develop as thinkers and where there is not the 
possibility of regular collegial mentoring and support.   
  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

74 

 

REFERENCES 

Carr, W & Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming critical. Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Fisher, R. 1998. Teaching thinking. London: Continuum. 

Fisher, R. 2001.Values for thinking. London: Continuum. 

Fletcher, N. 2015. Aspirational eros in philosophical inquiry: cultivating the desire to be, share                                                                                            
and grow. Paper presented at the ICPIC Conference, Identity and philosophical 
inquiry in an age of diversity, Vancouver.  

Feuerstein, R. 1980. Instrumental Enrichment. Baltimore MD: University Park Press. 

Feuerstein, R., Klein, P.S. & Tannenbaum, A.J. (eds.) 1991. Mediated learning experience: 
theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. London: Freund. 

Gardner, S. 1996. Inquiry is no mere conversation (or discussion or dialogue): facilitation of 
inquiry is hard work! Analytic Teaching, 16(2) pp 102-111. 

Green, L. 2012. Evaluating community of inquiry practices in under-resourced South African 
classrooms. Three strategies and their outcomes. In: Santi, M. and Oliverio, S.2012. 
Educating for complex thinking through philosophical inquiry. Napoli: Liguori 
Editore, 349-363. 

Green, L and Murris, K. 2014. Philosophy for Children. In: L.Green (ed.). Schools as thinking 
communities.  Pretoria: Van Schaik, 121-140. 

Gregory, M.R. 2009. A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. In: E, Marsal, T. Dobashi 
& E. Weber (eds.) Children philosophize worldwide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 
277-299. 

Jackson, T. 2002. The Art and Craft of “Gently Socratic” Inquiry. In: A.L. Costa (ed.) 
Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. 3rd Edition. Alexandria, VA: 
Association for Supervision and Curriculum (ASCD), 459-465. 

Lipman, M. , Sharp, A.M. & Oscanyan, F. 1980. Philosophy in the classroom. 2nd Edition.  
Philadelphia: Temple University Press 

Lipman, M. 2008. A life teaching thinking. Montclair: IAPC. 

Oyler, J. M. 2015. Expert teacher contributions to argumentation quality during inquiry 
dialogue.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montclair State University. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 36 (2015-16) 

  
 

75 

 

Reznitskaya, A. 2012. Dialogic teaching: rethinking language use during literature discussions. 
The Reading Teacher, 65(7), pages 446-456. 

Splitter, L. J. & Sharp, A.M. 1995. Teaching for better thinking. Melbourne: ACER. 

Taylor, J. & Oyler, J. 2015. The identity of the facilitator. Who is she and who should she be? 
Paper presented at the ICPIC Conference, Identity and philosophical inquiry in an age 
of diversity, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.  

Trickey, S. & Topping, K.J. 2004. Philosophy for Children: a systematic review. Research 
Papers in Education, 19(3). 363-278 

Trickey S & Topping, K.J. 2007 Collaborative enquiry for schoolchildren: cognitive gains at 2-
year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4): 787-796, 

Vygotsky, L.S. 1962 Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978 Mind in Society. Translation revised by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT 
Press. 

Ward, J. 2015. Engaging the disengaged with Philosophy for Children (P4C). 
http://saperep4c.wordpress.com/20150209/  Accessed 26-09-15. 

Websites 

http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc Institute for the 

Advancement of Philosophy for Children 

http://www.sapere.org.uk  UK P4C Community  

Address Correspondences to: 

 Dr. Lena Green, 
 Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology,   
 Faculty of Education 
  University of the Western Cape, South Africa  
 LGREEN@MWEB.CO.ZA         
 

http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc
http://www.sapere.org.uk/

