Week 1 PHIL

Developry Minds;Reso,,;

Bookfor Teach^g Think*g

3rd Edition

Edited by Arthur L. Cosra

/AOI;. Associarion fcrr Supervision and Curriculum Development ,L-l-- r,gr'd uJ^

^lll|lllo.Ltl]- Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 1703 N. Beauregard St. . Alexandria, VA ZL3ll-l?14 USA Glephone: 1-80A.%3.2723 or 703-578.9600 . Fax: 703-575-5400 'Web site: http://wwwascd.org . g-11u,1: [email protected]

Copyright O 2001 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any rn"rrrr, .L.rronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD. Readers who wish to duplicate materiaf copyrighted by ASCD may do so for a small fee by contacting the Copl'right Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewooj D*, Da.ruer, , ua otgzt,USA (telephone:978'750'8400; fax: 978-750-44?0). ASCD has authorized the CCC to collect such fees on its behalf Requests ro reprint rather than photocopy should be directed to ASCD's permissions office at 703-578-9600.

Because ASCD does not hold copyright to the following chapters, they may not be reproduced in any form without the consent of the authors, their publishers, or the agents listed in the copyright notice on the firsr page of each chapter:

L,4,7, ll,13,1.6,17,21, Section IV Introducrion,26,28,Zg,3L,39,40,41,45,46,50,52,6?,63,66,67,7e,74,g0, g3, g4

ASCD publications present a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in this book should not be interpreted as oficial positions of the Associarion.

Printed in the United States of America.

ASCD Product No. 101063

ASCD member price: 932.95

s612001

nonmember price: $39.95

Library of Congress Cataloging.in.Publication Data

Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking/edited by Arthur L. Costa.-3rd ed. p.cm'

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0871203790 (alk. paper)

1. Thought and thinking-Study and teaching. 2. Cognition in children. Costa, Arthur L. LB1590.3 .D 48 2001 370.15/2 2t

200t006466

07 06 05 04 03 1098765432

The Art and Craft of "Cently Socratic" lnquiry Tuottrus E. Jtcrsow

"/7 ently Socratic" inquiry recognizes that a paramount tJ :ff: :ffi ,$,:1mru;:*:il;ilfi: ff ':: use this ability in responsible ways. It also acknowledges that much of current schooling still falls short of helping children achieve rhls abiliry ro think. Frequently, by the time children reach 3rd grade, the sense ofwonder with which they entered kindergarten-wonder our of which authenric thinking and thus thinking for oneself develops-has begun to diminish. By 6th grade it has practically disappeared. Childrens think. ing focuses instead on what the teacher expects. A major contributing facror to this loss of wonder is the failure to prop. erly nurture the true voices of children. Due to a variety of pressures, both internal and exrernal, the typicai classroom teacher does not appear to have time for childrens genuine wondering and questioning, from which structured inquiries can grow. This apparent lack of time is exacerbated by the fact that most teachers simply have never been exposed to this gpe of inquiry. If teachers are ever to do this successfully in their own classrooms, they need time and guidance in leam- ing how to conduct such inquiries.

Wuar Is GrNrry Socnanc lvpurnv? The "gentle" in gentiy Socraric inquiry involves highlighting both a connection and distinction from what Socrates and Socratic method too often have come to represent, Socrates is often portrayed as the consummate lawyer, cleverly ques. tioning and manipulating his adversary inro an 'Ahal Gor youl" position of contradiction. Socratic method is construed as methodical questioning and cross.examining, peeling away layers of half.truths, exposing hidden assumprions. The So- cratic method becomes an almost algorithmic, step.by.step procedure.

The term "gently Socratic" is meant to distance the nature of inquiry presented here from Socratic method or the

Socrates described above, Hannah Arendt (1978) eloquently portrays the Socrates whom she contends would be worthy of the admiration that history has bestowed upon him as a model thinker and inquirer. Gentiy Socratic inquiry draws its inspira- tion from this portrayal ofSocrates.

The first connection with Socrates in gently Socratic in- quiry is dialogue. A salient feature of dialogue is nor quesrion- ing (let alone, cross.examination) but listening. Dialogue,s first interest is not to counte! debate, disagree, lead, or expose, but to genuinely and simply listen. This qualiry of listening requires setting aside one's own thoughts in order to be truly open to what the other is saying. This is especially imporranr because the "other" in this case will most often be a child, and gentle- ness must be foremost in one's mind if one hopes to be privi. leged with an authenric response from a child.

Many factors in contemporary teaching and teacher prepa. ration work against the kind of listening essential for genuine Socratic inquiry, As Peter Senge suggests, we all intemalize a mental model of what it means to be a teacher. Central to this tendency is the idea that the teacher is the one who is ,,in the know" and the student is the "leamer." Too often, the teacher focuses her listening on hearing an expected answe! or on probing the student's understanding of a particular idea or concept. "Has the student understood what I am trying to teach?" is a stance that precludes the kind of listening that is essential for the success of gently Socratic inquiry.

The focus on dialogue means rhar a particular reladonship must develop among the members of the classroom commu. niry that is quite different from standard classroom practice. This new relationship places much more emphasis on listen- ing, thoughtfulness, silence, and care and respect for the thoughts of others. The teacher provides ample time for stu- dents to express and clarify what they mean, to understand, to respond to rvhat others have said, and to delve further into what other students intended. Above all, the classroom is an intellectually safe place that is not in a rush ro get somewhere.

459

D r v E I O p t N C M t N n S A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking

'!ilhenever possible, students and teacher sit in a circle during

inquiry time. Students call on each other, no longer relying on the teacher to carry this responsibility. Each has the opporru, niry to speak or to pass and remain silent. In this environment, inquirywill grow.

Gently Socratic inquiry is essentially about creating a par- ticular place, time, and context in the classroom within which to establish a different relationship berween reacher and stu. dents. The teacher becomes a co.inquirer in dialogue u,lrh the children, rather than their guide or sage. Over time, tools and criteria come into play that enhance the qualiry and rigor of the discourse and inquiry but always within the context of an intellectually saG place.

To develop the classroom communiry and the needed skills, the teacher needs to deliberately set aside time for both. A minimum of fwo sessions per week is highly recommended. As the children internalize the skills and procedures, the sffare. gies and skills that emerge fiom the inquiry sessions ultimately appear at other times of the school day and in other content areas. The children begin to ask qualitatively different sorrs of questions; they persist in seeking to scratch beneath the sur- face ofa text, or lesson, or personal situation.

WHer GrNrry Socnetc lNeuny Is Nor Gently Socratic inquiry is not about having a particular answer in mind beforehand. Nor is it a method in any algorithmic sense. In particular, it is not a Socratic method. It invoives cer- tain skills, but no method.

Gently Socratic inquiry is also not a program specifically for a targeted group such as the gifted. It works u.ith virtually any ability group, or mix thereof,

Dnvrropwc A CoMMUMTy oF h.leuny Gendy Socratic inquiry begins by developing a context within which dialogue and inquiry unfold. Certainly, classrooms must be physically safe places. For dialogue and inquiry to occur they must be emotionally and intellectually safe as well. In an intel. lectually safe place there are no put.downs and no comments intended to belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule. \Tithin this place, the group accepts virtually any question or comment, so long as it is respectful of the other members of the circle. \7hat develops is a growing trust among the participants and with it the courage to present one's own thoughts, how. ever tentative initially, on complex and difficult issues.

Anyone who knows how to pretend they understand some. thing even though they don't, or who has been in a context

where they had a question but were afraid to ask it, has felt the influence of a piace that was not intellectually safe. Intellec, tual safety is the bedrock upon which inquiry grows.

An important detail relevant to intellectualsafery is proper acknowledgment of the diversity of views that emerge in the course of various inquiries. Intellectual safety arises, in part, out of acknowledging and celebrating this diversiry, This is not the same as saying there are "no right or wrong answers" or "any answer is okay." Sometimes a student will fail to present reasons, or well-thoughl.out reasons, to support their answer. The group may not fully understand the implications of a par. ticular answer, nor the assumptions that underlie them. Over time, the group begins to understand thar it needs to take these criteria into account in considering a proposed answer. Mere opinion-unsupported opinionJoes not suffi ce.

Equally important is this: The goal is not to persuade any- one to any particular answer, but rather for everyone to reach a deeper understanding of the complexity of the issues involved and a $eater abiiity to navigate among these complexities.

CnrMNc rrn CoMMUNTTY The most favorable configuration for developing a commu,

nity is for the class, including the teacher, to sit in a circle, on the floor if possible. Unlike the more traditional configuration with students in rows, the circle allows all members of the communily to make eye contact, to see each other. In the en, suing dialogue, participants are better able to hear what others are saying and aiso to see how they are saying it; in other words, the facial expressions and mannerisms of those who are speaking. The circle also facilitates seeing the impact on each other of the interaction. What is the impact of acceptance or rejectionl Of careful listening as opposed to indiflbrence?

An early objective is to establish a protocol rvhereby stu. dents feel empowered to call on each other. One effective ac. tivity for accomplishing this is to create a "community ball" together as a way to give shape to what wili become an inquiry communiry. This activiry is effective with groups from kinder- garten through university (see Figure 73,1). Once the group has made the ball, the agreement is that the person with the ball is the speaker of the moment. That person, when finished, passes to whomever he or she wishes. One caveat is that if the ball comes to a person who has not asked to speak or does not wish to speak, she has the absolute right to pass.

Another strategy is to introduce certain "magic words" (see Figure 73.2) that members of the community will use to facil, itate procedures. The use of magic words has been effective in developing a safe place where inquiry can unfold in a non-

t+6o

l-:i; Anr .lsn Cn..rrr or ,,Grrrlr SocR.lrrc" Irpurnr

-Figure 7J.t- Making a Community Ball

Materials needed;. 12" x 4" stiff cardboard. Skein of multi-colored yarn. One long piece of heavy-duty string for tying Procedure: l. Fold the cardboard in half lengthwise, so that it

is 12" x 2". 2. Place the tie-string inside the center fold.3. Wrap yarn from the skein around the width of

ca rdboard. 4. Hold on to the tie-string while pulling the yarn off

the cardboard. The tie-string will- be iunning through the center of the yarn coil. Grasp both ends of the tie-string and tie them together se_

_ curely, forming a bagel shape.5. Cut through the yarn at the outer edge, creating a pom-pom ball.

The group sits in a circle. The teacher begins wrap_ ping the yarn around the cardboard, whiie the stu_ dent next to her feeds the yarn from the skein. The teach.er.responds to a question that each person in the circle will answer in turn. This question can be anything the teacher thinks will draw out the chil_ dren, such as, "What is your favorite food or music?,, or "What do you like best about school?,, When Ihe teacher finishes speaking, she passes the cardboard to the student beside her. who begins to wrap and rap(l) as the teacher takes over f-eeding the'yarn. This.p.rocess-one person wrapping unj rp..i ing, and his neighbor feeding the yarn-continues unt]i all have had the opportunity to speak.

Source: From-Getting Started.in phitosophy: A Staft_l)p Kitfor K_l,byf Jackson & L. 0ho, 1993. UnpublisheO manuicript.

threatening way. Children who are soft-spoken readily speak up when someone in the group says ,,SpLAT" (speak louder please). Ir's okay to say "IDUS" (l don't understand). And when several people are speaking at once, ,,pOpAAT" (please, one person at a time) works. The teacher and students can write these "words" on cards and display them for all to see as needed. Each group can, of course, develop its own set of words. Vhatever words you use, they can be powerfully in- strumental in developing a communiry where all ..rt.rr, rather than just the teache6 share in the responsibiliry for moving an inquiry forward, and where the members share a common vocabulary with which ro engage in this task.

46r

-Figure 73.2- Magic Words

. SPLAT = Speak a little louder, please. SpLAT means that what a person said .just barely got out of their mouth and then went ,,splat', onio the floor. ln other words. we need you to speak louJer so we can hear you.. IDUS = I don't understand. IDUS can empower students to be able to say when they don,t under_ stand. lt has proven much easier for students to say IDUS than "l dont understand.,,Teachers find it encouraging when IDUS begins to show up in other content areas.. P0PAAT = Please, one person at a time. Once stu_ dents. learn that during inquiry time the group is uery interested in what they have to siv. t'h.u often all want to speak at the same time. pbpnni is effective in this context. When people start speaking out of turn, someone says F0eAAt which means that all must stop talking. The per- son holding the ball then continues.. OMT = One more time. OMT is a request for the speaker to repeat what he has said.. N0P = Next question, please.. LMO = Let's move on.. PB0 = Please be quiet.. G0S = Going off subject. A qroup member can sav G0S when the discussion is losing focus.

Sourc.e: Fro.m Philosophy for Children: A Guide for Teacherq by T. Ja ckson, 1989. Unpublished manuscript.

Once the teacher introduces the magic words, anyone may hold up a card. If the community seems bogged down in a topic and is not getting anywhere, someone may offer ,,LMO, to the community. At that moment, the community votes to see if the majority would indeed like to move on. If a minoriry still has interest in the topic, they can pursue it at a later time.

DEvnroprNc AN UNDERSTANDTNG oF INeurRy Perhaps most basic to successful inquiry is the clear and

shared understanding that "we aren't in a rush to get any. where." In other content areas there is pressure to cover the material, to get on with it. The dialogue and inquiry sessions have a different feel.

Co.inquiry: In gently Socratic inquiry no one, especially not the teacher, knows either "the', answer to the question (if the inquiry begins with a quesrion) or where the inquiry will

D r v p I o p r N c M t N o S A Resource Book f or kaching Thinking

lead, Any effort to guide an inquiry to a predetermined an. swer or outcome corrupts the process from the smrt. The dia. logue develops its own integrity, its own movement, going where "it" wants or needs to go. At various points it may bog down and need an occasional nudge ("LMO") but in the main, the inquiry emerges from the context. It frequently pushes what Vygotsky (Vygotslq, 1986; Lipman, 1996) refers to as the "zone of proximal development" of all participants, including the teacher.

Gently Socratic inquiry is co-inquiry in the best sense. The teacher is not a priviieged knower. In such inquiries, the chii- dren are not infrequently ahead of the thinking of the teacher, leading the inquiry down unexpected paths. Indeed, what the teacher knows can interfere with participation in the unfolding inquiry. Matthew Lipman, of New Jersey's Montclair University, has developed a curriculum called Phi. losophy for Children that is designed to nurture this form of inquiry (1980).

The source of the inquiry: \Whenever possible, the in. quiry arises out of the questions and interests of the children and moves in directions that the children indicate. There are a wide variery of possible ffiggers, occasions, and topics for in- quiry. Plain Vanilla is one strategy for finding a trigger and then giving shape to an inquiry (see Figure 73.3). A salient feature of gently Socratic inquiry is its sensitivity to the inter. ests and questions of the children, their thoughts, and where they take the topic. Even very young children generate so. phisticated lines of inquiry from deceptively simple begin- nings. One kindergartner, in response to the question, "'What do you wonder about?" answered: "The other night, whiie I was gazing at the stars, I wondered whether anything came before space." In the discussion that ensued, the children's ex. ploration ranged from dinosaurs to God, Other inquiries have explored such topics as "Could there be a greatest number?" (3rd grade); "'$7hat constitutes a right?" and "What is the pur. pose of rights?" (5th grade); and "What is more important- friends, fame, or fortune?" (6th grade). Once children realize that the topics can indeed come from them and be pursued along lines they are interested in, the quality of their thinking is truly astounding.

The self,conective nature of inquiry: Matthew Lipman (1991), following in the pragmatist tradition of the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, emphasizes the centraliry of self-corrective inquiry. In classrooms where inquiry has be- come an essential and ongoing activity, community members

-Figure 73.1-

Plain Vanilla

Step 1, Read-A paragraph or two, an episode, a chapter, or a whole story. ln the primary grades, the teacher may do the reading, or she may write the story on chart paper for everyone to read together. Alternatively, students could look at paintings, espe- cially those by the students themselves; watch a video; read a poem; listen to a piece of music; or se- lect a topic from a "wonder box" into which children have placed things they wonder about.

Step 2. Ouestion-Ask the children for questions or comments they have about the story. Write them down on chaft paper with the child's name next to their comment.

Step 3. Vote-As a class, the children vote for the question or comment they would like to inquire into first. Note this beside the question. Write N0P beside the question with the next highest number of votes.

Step 4. Dialogue/lnquiry-lnquire into the ques- tion selected, using WRAITEC (letters from the tool kit) and magic words as appropriate. lf the children lose energy for the question selected, the group fo- cuses on the question marked NOP

Step 5. Evaluate-Use the criteria suggested in this chapter, some subset thereof, or other criteria you select.

Source:From Philosophy for Children: A Guide for Teachers, by T. Jackson, 1 989. Unpublished manuscript.

will change and develop their thoughts about a particular topic. "Before I thought. . ., but now I realize that . . . ." be. comes an increasingly common comment in a maturing in. quiry community in the course of a school year,

Ixeunv Toors FoR ScRATCHTNG BnwserH tn Sunrecn Gently Socratic inquiry is more than a conversation or sharing of ideas within a group. It is characterized by an intellectual rigor that certain cognitive tools can facilitate, These tools comprise the "good thinker's tool kit." They are the means for giving shape and direction to the notion that, although we aren't in a rush to get aryrvhere, we do have an expectation that we will get somewhere.

462

One of the goals in developing inquiry skills is leaming to scratch beneath the surface ofany topic or question' The ac' dve use of the good thinker's tools is one indication that "scratching" is occurring. In addition, at least three rypes of progess can result from effective scratching.

One form of progress occurs when an inquiry reveals how complicated the question or topic really is. At the end of the session, things might well appear in a muddle, more mixed up than in the beginning. This muddle can be a form of progress when participants realize that the topic was much more com' plex than they thought at first'

Another form of progress is when connections begin to emerge among the various ideas that present themselves in the course of the inquiry. For example, an inquiry that began with the question, "tWhat does it mean to say, 'That wasrlt fair'?" led a group of 3rd graders to questions of whether it wasrlt fair because someone was treated differently, and whether treating someone differently is ever consistent with being fair. The chil. dren thereby made a connection between "fair" and "how someone is treated."

A third type of pro$ess is when the shape of an answer begins to emerge. In the faimess inquiry above, "how one is treated" might emerge as a criterion of faimess such that it might be proposed that "I/ a person is treated differently in a particular sort of way, then thatwouldn't be fair."

Moreover, various participants in the same inquiry may in- dividually experience different types of progress. For some, it may just be a muddle. For others, connections may begin to emerge, while still others may begin to have an answer in mind. Each form of progress has value and merit. A valuable exercise is to have students keep joumals of inquiry sessions to promote an ongoing intemal dialogue for each individual.

Certainly there will be days and times when it appears that students are not making progress in any of these ways. Yet there may be progress of a different, equally important kind. For example, in a given session, a particularly quiet student may feel moved to participate verbally for the first time.

Tnr Goop Tunucils Toor Krr Helping students and teachers intemalize good thinkers'tools of inquiry equips them with the ability to think for themselves in a responsible way. With sustained experience in dialogue, students become more adept at giving and asking for reasons, detecting assumptions, anticipating consequences, reflecting on inferences they draw, asking for clarification, and seeking evidence and examples as well as counterexamples. They also

leam to seek out altematives and to form criteria for the judg-

men$ they make. The letters V( R, A, I, T E, and C represent the good thinker's tools (Jackson, 1989):

W = What do you/we meanbv . . . ? V/highlights the im' portance of being sensitive to possible multipliciry of meanings and ambiguity; hence, a readiness to seek clanfication when needed.

R = Reasons. R reflects that in inquiry one should expect that it is not enough to simply offer an opinion. \il4renever possible, group members should support their opinions with reasons.

A = Assumptions. A represents the importance of mak- ing explicit, whenever appropriate, the assumptions that un- derlie the discussion during inquiry.

I = lnferences;If ... then's; Implications.Ihighlights the cennal role of inferences we might make, of possible im' plications of what someone has said, and of hypotheticalstate' ments such as, "I/what Jody said is true, then 'real' can't just be things we can see or touch."

T = Tiue? T indicates that a major concem in our inquiry is the question of whether or not what someone has stated is in fact true, and how we might go about finding out.

E = Examples; Evidence. E points out the importance of giving examples to illustrate or clarify what someone is saying and of providing evidence to support a claim.

C = Counterexamples. C represents an important check on assertions or claims that possibly cast too wide a net. For ex- ample, "always" or "never" frequently occur in conversations, such as "The boys always get to go first" or "'We never get to stay up late." The search for counterexamples is a way of checking the truth of such a claim. For example, "You get to stay up late if it's a holiday" is a counterexample.

An important class activiry is to make tool kits together, so that each student has her own kit, Students design 3 x 5 cards, one for each lette5 mitrng on the back of each card whatever clarifying notes will help them remember the significance of each letter. \7hen desiring a reason fiom someone who is speaking, a student displays the R card. If an important as- sumprion is going unnoticed, a student can show the A card, and so on.

The class should also devote time, separate from the in- quiry sessions, to becoming more familiar with each tool. In the course ofan inquiry anyone can place a card representing a given tool in the circle when they want to use that particu- lar tool. This can facilitate the evaluation of the session at the

463

D p v E l- o p r N c M t N n s A Resource Book for kaching Thinking

end, as it makes apparent which tools made their appearance in the course of the day's inquiry.

RnrrncnNG oN TtrE INQUIRY Finally, it is important that the inquiry community reflect on how well it has done on any given day flackson, 1989). \7e suggest the following criteria, which the teacher can present to the group prior to beginning the inquiry cycle and again at the end of each session. The criteria fall into fwo categories, those dealing with how we did as a community and those dealing with the inquiry itself

How did we do as a communiry? ' Listening-\7as I listening to others? !7ere others listen'

ing to meJ ' Participation-Did most people participate rather than

just a few who dominated?

' Safety-\7as it a safe environmentJ How was our inquiryl ' Focus-Did we maintain a focusJ ' Depth-Did our discussion scratch beneath the surface,

open up the topic, or otherwise make some progressl . Understanding-Did I increase my understanding of the

topic?

' Thinking-Did I challenge my own thinking or work hard at it?

' Interesl-\ilas it interesting? At some point it is importanl for the group to discuss more fully what each criterion means' \7hat, for example, counts as participation? Does one need to speak in order to participate? \7hat does it mean to scratch beneath the surface? At an ap' propnate time, the teacher can introduce the notion of three rypes ofprogress and the use ofthe various tools as indicators ofscratching or its absence.

The evaluation can occur in a variety of ways. The teacher can list each criterion on a separate card, He displays each card one at a time, and the members indicate how they thought the community did on that criterion with "lhumbs up" or "thumbs down." A thumb midway between up and down indicates neuffal. At first the teacher can handle the cards, but as soon as possible it is useful to ask individual stu- dents to take a particular card and ask the group for their re' sponse to that criterion. As the communiry gains experience, it can establish a standard for what "thumbs up" means within the context of the experiences of that community.

Related to evaluation of an inquiry session is a feature lhat will inevitably emerge wherever inquiry has become a regular part of the classroom: Once intellectual safety is firmly in place, diversity of viewpoints will make their appearance. One way of preparing for this is to make clear that with complex topics, one can expect a number of legitimate, different points of view. Indeed, as individuals, we may have differing points of view at different points in time.

At the end of a discussion into whether a particular action was fair, or indeed any other topic of similar complexity, it's im- portant to acknowledge at least four possible places someone might be in their thinking at any given time. They might be prepared to answe! "Yes, I think it was faiq" or "No, I dont think it was fair," but also, importantly, they might be at an "l don't know" or "Maybe so" place'

Asking students and teacher to raise their hands in re- sponse to where their thinking is on the particular topic is a way of displaying to the group the diversiry of their thinking on a particular issue, Asking for such a display of hands is also a way of bringing closure to an inquiry that is still ongoing but must pause because it is time for lunch' recess, or another class.

Trn RorB oF Tm TBecHnn The teacher is absolutely pivotal to the success of gently So- cratic inqurry In the beginning it will be the teacher who in- troduces the ideas behind such inquiry' She will be responsible for establishing, monitoring, and maintaining the safety within the group. This will include monitoring the proper use of the community ball and calling on each other, and seeing that members have ample opportuniry to speak as well as permis' sion to remain silent. \fith younger grades, for example, one problem that often appears initially is that boys only call on boys, girls call on girls, and close fiiends call on each other.

The teacher is responsible for introducing the magrc words and seeing to their proper use. In some cases, students may ini' tially abuse the freedom offered by these words and repeatedly utter "SPLAT" (speak louder please) to someone who is shy, or "LMO' (let's move on) the moment there is any pause in the dialogue.

The teacher conducts the lessons that involve making the tool kit and follow-up lessons that focus on a particular tool. For most students and many teachers, "inference" and "as' sumption" are little more than vocabulary words' The group needs to spend time on developing deeper understanding of what these telTns mean. Similarly, what makes a reason a good reason, how counterexamples function, and how one might go about finding out whether a given claim or statement is true

464

THe Anr ,qNo Cnnrr or "Ge n rlv Socnn-rtc" INQutnv

may be areas where understanding is cunently quite shallow. In early sessions the teacher should call attention to uses ofthe various tools and encourage their use.

Most importantly, it is the teacher, especially in the begin, ning who sets the tone for the group. "Not being in a rush'de- pends on a teacher sufftciently comfortable with silence and "wait time" beyond what is typical in most classrooms. It re. quires a teacher whose own sense of wonder is still very much alive and who is keenly interested in what the authentic thoughts of the children are on a given topic; one who is com- fortable with uncertainty, not eager to push for closure, but willing to allow an inquiry to move where "it" and the children seem to want to take it. She must be willing to risk not know- ing the answe! to indeed be a co-inquirer in the quest for an answer.

Initially the teacher needs to make the crucial judgments about using both magic words and good thinker's tools. The teacher is the one who asks for reasons, examples, and clarifi. cation, at the same time displaying letters that represent the particular tool requested, at once modeling and highlighting their use.

The teacher begins to weave threads of conversation into dialogue, asking who agrees or disagrees or has other thoughts about the topic at hand, offering a counterexample, asking "lf what Tanya said is true, would it follow that . . . ?" or making some other comment to nudge the dialogue along. This is es- pecially delicate and challenging because a major objective is

for the children to intemalize and thus take over these skills and behaviors. They need as much opportuniry as possible to try them out, and providing these opportunities is the teacher's responsibility.

It is the teacher who brings a given session to a close and sees to it that the group conducts an evaluation. How long are inquiry sessions? \7ith kindergarten children they last from 10 minutes to more than an hour. Sessions with older children tend to be more predictable in terms of length, but also more subject to the time demands of the school day and curriculum.

In this kind of inquiry the teacher's role is to be pedagogi- cally strong but philosophically selleffacing. The teacher should be firmly in control of the procedures but allow the content of the inquiry to unfold as it needs to, rather than fol- lowing the desires of the teacher.

RrrnnnNcrs

Arendt, H. (1978). The life of tlw mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Jackson, T (1989). Phibsoplry for childrar: A guide for teachers. Unpublished manuscript.

Lipman, M. (1980). Phtbsophy mtlwckusroun (Znd ed.). Philadelphia: Tem- ple University Pres.

Lipman, M, (1991) . Thinking in educatirn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygo*kian ilalngues. New York: Gachers Col- lege, Columbia University.

Vygotslq', L. (1986). Thaughtadlor,g^cr. Cambndge, MA: MITPress.

465