Modeling the Development Process of

Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils

Aged 10 to 12 Years
Marie-France Daniel, Louise Lafortune,
Richard Pallascio, Laurance Splitter, Christina Slade, &
Teresa de la Garza
This research project investigated manifestations of critical thinking in pupils 10 to 12
years of age during their group discussions held in the context of Philosophy for Children
Adapted to Mathematics. The objective of the research project was to examine, through
the pupils discussions, the development of dialogical critical thinking processes. The
research was conducted during an entire school year. The research method was based on
the Grounded Theory approach; the material used consisted of transcripts of verbal
exchanges among the pupils (at the beginning, middle and end of the school year).
Analysis of the transcripts revealed that: (1) critical thinking appears to the extent that a
dia-logue is established among pupils; (2) on the cognitive level, dialogical critical
thinking is comprised of four thinking modes: logical, creative, responsible and meta-
cognitive; and (3) on the epistemological level, dialogical critical thinking is only
manifested in a context where egocentricity of perspective and relativism of beliefs are
transcended.
Keywords: Critical Thinking; Philosophical Dialogue; Philosophy for Children;
Discussion
Marie-France Daniel (PhD, 1992, University of Quebec at Montreal) is Professor, Department of Kinesiology,
University of Montreal; Louise Lafortune (PhD, 1992, University of Quebec at Montreal) is Professor,
Department of Education, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivie`res; Richard Pallascio (PhD, 1970, University of
Montreal) is Professor, Department of Education, University of Quebec at Montreal; Laurance Splitter (PhD,
1983, University of Oxford) is Professor, Department of Education, Hunter College; Christina Slade (PhD, 1982,
Australian National University), is Professor, Department of Communication, Macquarie University; Teresa de la
Garza (PhD, 1992, Universidad Iberoamericana) is Professor, Department of Philosophy, Universidad
Iberoamericana. This research project was partially supported by a grant (410-98-1228) from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Marie-France Daniel can be contacted at
marie-france.daniel@umontreal.ca
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2005 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03634520500442194
Communication Education
Vol. 54, No. 4, October 2005, pp. 334/354
Education is becoming increasingly complex world-wide, largely due to the
expansion of knowledge combined with the accelerated development of technologies,
which further complicate life in our society. In future, schools must provide younger
generations with a form of education that allows them to successfully face these new
challenges. In this regard, the development of critical thinking in pupils is necessary
to favour pupils true comprehension of events rather than developing and
maintaining a simplifying vision of the information related to these events (Delors,
1996, p. 47).
In order to develop this true comprehension of events among children, and to
stimulate their critical judgment, several specialists in the field of education are
turning to socioconstructivist teaching approaches, in particular discussion among
peers. Discussion, as a way of teaching, was valued by Socrates to elicit or give birth
to young peoples knowledge (Plato, Theete`te, 150b/151c). It was then taken up
again by John Dewey (1929/1960), with a view to democratization of the classroom.
These days, many researchers affirm the positive impact of class discussions, either by
placing emphasis on the discussion techniques themselves (e.g., Brookfield & Preskill,
1999) or by emphasizing the interrelations between social interaction and language
abilities (e.g., Cazden, 1988; Garnier, Bednavz, & Ulanovskaya, 1991; Wells, 1999).
Philosophy for Children (P4C) is among these approaches that cultivate learning
through discussion. Numerous researchers have shown that this approach constitutes
a significant tool for development of logical reasoning among young people
(e.g., Lane & Lane, 1986; Camhy & Iberer, 1988; Gazzard, 1988; Lago-Bernstein,
1990). The philosopher Matthew Lipman and his colleagues at Montclair State
University (New Jersey) devised P4C in the 1970s (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980).
The approach is now used in nearly 50 countries, and the accompanying material
(philosophical novels for the pupils and pedagogical guides for the teacher) has been
translated into 20 languages. The essence of this approach is found in what Lipman
calls the community of philosophical inquiry, which has its roots in the Deweyan
concept of community (see Daniel, 1997). P4C is a so-called Socratic approach, since
it aims to stimulate the thinking of young people by means of philosophical questions.
The P4C teaching method is composed of three steps: (1) reading, (2) formulating
questions, and (3) philosophical dialogue within a community of inquiry. The first
step involves reading by the pupils of a chapter from a philosophical novel. The
reading is done aloud, with every pupil taking a turn. These two aspects are
important to ensure peer co-operation. The second step implies that the pupils
invest themselves in understanding the meanings of the chapter they have read, and
that they question the concepts or the situations described in the novel. Questioning
is the core of critical reflection, in that it incites the pupils to enter into a research
process (Dewey, 1929/1960). Moreover, this step assigns responsibility to the pupils,
placing them at the forefront of their own education, since through their questions
the pupils (and not the teacher) develop the agenda for the coming weeks (see
Cazden, 1988). The objective of the third step is to lead the pupils to hold a dialogue,
so that together, within a community of inquiry, they can find elements of answers
relevant to the questions formulated in the preceding step. Dialogue is therefore
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 335
situated within a perspective of cooperation, as each individual intervention
contributes to enriching the groups perspective.
A true community of inquiry is manifested when dialogue among peers is
characterized by pluralism, reciprocity and tolerance (Lipman et al., 1980). Within
the community of inquiry, pupils develop higher-order thinking skills and social-
moral attitudes (Daniel, Lafortune, Pallascio, & Schleifer, 2000).
P4C adapted to Mathematics (P4CM) is a philosophical approach that parallels the
Lipmanian model, but which concentrates essentially on philosophical/mathematical
ideas and concepts. P4CM was proposed by Daniel, Lafortune, Pallascio, & Sykes,
(1996a,b) in order to foster more significant learning of mathematics among pupils
10 to 12 years of age, and to stimulate their dialogical critical thinking, notably by
assisting them in taming, together with their peers, prejudices (e.g., Is there such a
thing as a mathematics wizard?), concepts (e.g., the value of zero, infinite vs.
indefinite, probability vs. chance) and notions (e.g., the four mathematical
operations) inherent in mathematics. The philosophical/mathematical material
stimulates the young people to ask questions like, Does a perfect cube exist on
Earth? If we had the chance to count all the stars in the sky, would we be able to say
that they were infinite or indefinite in number? Does truth exist? Were mathematics
invented or discovered? P4CM is a complementary tool (one hour per week) to be
used in conjunction with the regular mathematics teaching program.
This paper presents the results of a research project analyzing processes by which
critical thinking develops in pupils aged 10 to 12 years when they use the P4CM
material. The objective is not to test Lipmans teaching model, but rather to describe
the cognitive development in pupils when they are significantly stimulated in this
direction. We started off with the postulate that P4CM could fulfill this role.
This article first presents definitions of critical thinking and presents a typology of
exchanges among pupils. It then focuses on presenting a model of the development of
the critical thinking process in pupils aged 10 to 12 years. An illustration of this
developmental process is presented using transcripts of verbal exchanges among a
group of Quebec pupils. Finally, a model of the process of learning to think critically
is proposed, a model that brings together the types of exchanges among the pupils
with the elements that constitute critical thinking.
Critical Thinking
Currently, critical thinking remains much discussed but ill-defined (see Kennedy,
Fisher, & Ennis, 1990), with various conceptions coexisting. Psychology and
philosophy have both contributed in their own way to our comprehension of critical
thinking. Psychologists are mostly concerned with the thinking process and how this
process can help people bring meaning to their experience. Psychologists emphasize
problem solving (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Needham & Begg, 1991).
Philosophys contribution finds its roots in the writings of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle. Ever since these beginnings, philosophers have been interested in using
logical reasoning as a moral force to promote good.
336 M. Daniel et al.
Critical Thinking as Concept
A priori , we share Lipmans (1988) conception of critical thinking. From the
perspective of pragmatist philosophy (Daniel, 1997), it clearly surpasses abstract
logical analysis. Its starting point is situated in the interactions among peers, and its
intention is to improve individual and social experience. In other words, we share
the Lipmanian definition of critical thinking because it is in keeping with the
socioconstructivist triangle to which we subscribe: social interactions*/global
development of the pupil */social development (Daniel, 2005).
Lipman (1988) regarded critical thinking as a useful tool for countering uncritical
thinking and thoughtless action. Individuals need critical thinking to help them
distinguish the most relevant information they receive (in relation to the objectives
they pursue). Lipmans (1988, 1991, 1995) definition of critical thinking includes four
criteria: (1) using particular criteria, (2) forming judgments, (3) self-correcting, and
(4) sensitivity to context. The Lipmanian definition of critical thinking is well
respected in North America (Johnson, 1992). Yet it should be noted that it is not the
sole authority on the subject. Ennis (1993), Paul (1992), and Siegel (1988) have all
promulgated alternatives to Lipmans approach to critical thinking, each of which
places a greater emphasis on rationality.
Teaching/Learning Critical Thinking
The teaching of critical thinking can be conducted using three types of objectives
that are not mutually exclusive, but are rather positioned on a continuum:
(1) information-acquisition objectives; (2) self-development; and (3) personal and
social development and higher-order thinking objectives. The information-acquisi-
tion objective focuses on the transmission of knowledge and the evaluation of
knowledge comprehension. This objective would be the equivalent of what Maier
(1933) called reproductive thinking or learned behaviour, in contrast to
reasoning or productive behaviour. Because of the sort of thinking skills required
during repetition or repetitive exercises associated with information-acquisition goals
(Newman, 1990), pedagogical activities oriented toward this goal primarily develop
lower-order thinking skills.
Teaching objectives centered on self-development highlight values such as respect
and personal experience, as well as reflection concerning self-development according
to these values. The development of critical thinking in this context occurs through
comprehension of the environment, and lies within the scope of an intra-subjective
perspective where each justification, each meaning, each interpretation, is accepted
without question.
Teaching objectives aimed at personal and social development and higher-order
thinking consider the individual as part of society, and assume that the education of
the former must serve to improve the latter. This strategy of development is heuristic
in that it presupposes that the ultimate goal of teaching is to stimulate young people
to question. Within this perspective, the development of critical thinking takes place
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 337
via a praxis and lies within the scope of inter-subjectivity. Social interactions, and
particularly discussions among peers, are fundamental here. Indeed, discussion
among peers contributes to showing pupils their own limits and the importance of
cooperation. Furthermore, discussion among peers stimulates higher-order thinking
skills (Cazden, 1988).
The preponderance of research projects dealing with learning critical thinking takes
for granted that such a capacity cannot be developed in young subjects, particularly
those of elementary school age. Literature reviews (e.g., Jones & Idol, 1990) do bring
to light the development of logical reasoning, of creativity, and of meta-cognition in
young adolescents, however. Although each of these thinking modes is a component
of critical thought, when considered separately, they do not constitute critical
thinking. Critical thinking is more complex, because it encompasses at least two
cognitive modes (logical and creative) if not three (some add meta-cognitive or
caring-thinking). The first objective of our project is thus to study whether young
people attending elementary school can demonstrate critical thought when
adequately stimulated in this direction through a discussion-based curriculum.
Our second objective is to discover the components of critical thinking as it is
manifested in pupils aged 10 to 12 years. Our third objective is to introduce a model
of the development process of critical thinking in these pupils.
A Typology of Exchanges Among Pupils
In order to fulfill these research objectives, we had to build our study on a concrete
and observable basis that is, on the discourses of pupils (Van der Zee & Nikanne,
2000). Another question was thus addressed: Are young people attending elementary
school capable of holding a dialogical and critical exchange with their peers? Our first
task thus consisted of studying the nature of the exchanges among pupils. This task
was accomplished in a precursor study to the current one (Daniel et al., 2002). Five
types of exchanges emerged from that discourse analysis: anecdotal, monological,
non-critical dialogical, semi-critical dialogical and critical dialogical.
Anecdotal Exchanges
An anecdotal exchange refers to an exchange in which pupils are unconcerned by peer
points of view. Also, the pupils do not justify their viewpoints, which they typically
address only to the teacher. Another characteristic is that the anecdotal exchange
takes place using the word I, the pupils having difficulty in turning their focus from
their own experiences (Mexico, Group 1, first transcript):
Facilitator: In the story, why didnt Ramon like mathematics exams?
P1: I get nervous during exams.
P2: Because sometimes I, because I worry.
P3: Because I get nervous.
338 M. Daniel et al.
Monological Exchanges
In a monological exchange, the discussion is focused on the question selected by the
group. Furthermore, pupils interventions are brief; they resemble simple answers
addressed to the teacher much more than well-thought-out statements aimed at
group improvement. Also, in a monological exchange, pupils have difficulty in
justifying their viewpoints (Quebec, Group 1, first transcript):
P1 (showing the facilitator the cube he has just drawn): My cube is perfect.
Facilitator: Tell us why its a perfect cube.
P1: Im not sure.
Facilitator: Its certainly a cube isnt it?
P1: It looks like one.
Facilitator: Is it a perfect cube?
P1: Yes.
Dialogical Exchanges
A dialogical exchange, which presupposes listening skills, is one in which the
participants listen to divergent perspectives and integrate them in order to enrich
their viewpoints. Dialogical exchange is characterized by interdependence of view-
points and respect for diversity. At this point, analysis of the transcripts showed that
all dialogical exchanges are not necessarily critical, and can in fact be subdivided into
non-critical, semi-critical, and critical. A non-critical dialogical exchange is a
dialogue, but it remains simple, without evaluation of viewpoints (Mexico, Group
2, second exchange):
Facilitator: Why do you say that geometry is interesting?
P1: Because its part of our everyday life.
P2: Thats true because in school for example were now learning figures
and when were older and want to buy some land we can figure out
how much land area we own.
P4: I agree with P2. And also because with geometry for example
architects can build schools, buildings and everything, stores and
everything we need in everyday life as P1 said.
Semi-Critical Dialogues
Other transcripts showed that the dialogue is sometimes verges on the critical, but
not yet fully critical. In this type of exchange, the pupils dialogue and formulate
criticisms in the form of oppositions, doubts, etc. Furthermore, these criticisms are,
on one hand, more or less well-justified and, one the other hand, they do not succeed
in influencing the pupils concerned. Consequently, the initial perspective remains
unchanged at the end of the exchange we named this semi-critical dialogue (Mexico,
Group 2, third transcript):
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 339
P1: First you have to learn because if you dont learn how can you understand?
P2: But I dont agree with P1 when he says first you have to learn . . . First you
have to understand and figure out what youre going to do then you learn it
so you can see if its right or not.
P1: How can we understand mathematics if we dont learn it?
P4: I think you have to learn things properly to be able to understand. Because
first you learn the numbers and then you can understand how to use them
how to apply them.
P5: I think that right now in the sixth grade what were doing is understanding.
There are things that we have already learned . . . but maybe we understood
more or less and maybe we have to learn them all over again to understand
them more clearly.
P1: I think first we learn because how could I understand numbers if no-one ever
taught them to me? To understand a formula like the base times the height
first you have to have learned it.
Critical Dialogical Exchanges
A critical dialogical exchange often takes on the appearance of a negotiation of
viewpoints, a transaction among pupils, an open process in which the conclusions,
when they are spoken, are open and temporary, serving as a hypothesis for future
reflection. In this type of exchange, the initial idea that prevails at the beginning of a
discussion is modified or nuanced at the end (Australia, Group 1, third transcript):
Facilitator: Last week, we worked on the notion of order; the order of numbers
and digits, and the hierarchy between humans and animals. Would
someone like to summarize or pursue last weeks discussion?
P1: It depends on the context. It depends if were talking about humans
from the point of view of their inventiveness or of their instinct. And I
think that humans are more intelligent than other animals in their
inventiveness. But then again, it might not be true. In other animals
eyes, we may not be more intelligent, because other animals act
according to their needs, not their desires, like us.
P2: I think humans are the only ones that can do mathematics. Humans
invented English and mathematics. Math is like another language we
invented. We use it to understand things, to do the things we have to
do well, to understand the reasons behind things. Like why the sky is
blue and why cant we float or fly. So we invented mathematics to
explain these things. But animals, they just think sky and they dont
really think, they dont really think about the sky. Because they have, if
for us eating and mating are an instinct, for them, its their principal
instinct . . . If its about intelligence, I think humans are at the top of
the list.
Facilitator: Why? On what criteria do you base yourself?
P2: On how complex they are. And also on the fact that we have other
kinds of intelligence, like we said last week, empathy, sympathy and
things like that.
P1: Well, for me, my theory is that we were a couple of different species
placed on Earth as a test, to see if we could evolve.
Facilitator: Who placed them on Earth?
340 M. Daniel et al.
P1: The universe. The universe is like . . . were a cell inside billions of cells. Its
like a gigantic cell that will always keep on multiplying. And were just an
ordinary cell. Like a cell inside our body that is made of cells that are made of
cells. And it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with whether we
will evolve or not.
P3: Then there would be like two different paradigms.
P4: Yes, theres the intelligence to think about how to make things and theres the
intelligence about how youre going to use those things. Were both the most
stupid and the most intelligent.
(For the full text of this last extract, see Daniel et al., 2002.)
The preceding typology of student exchanges, developed in earlier data analyses
(Daniel et al., 2002), provided a comprehensive portrait of possible types of pupils
exchanges in discussion. The typology permitted us to proceed to examine the central
questions that concerned us: Can young people attending elementary school achieve
critical thinking when adequately stimulated in this direction? If so, how does critical
thinking manifest itself and develop in these young people?
Methods
In accordance with the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which
inspires our process of analysis, we did not intend to deductively verify existing
theoretical foundations regarding critical thinking. Neither did we aim to measure the
impact of P4CM on the development of critical thinking (we did not use control
groups). Instead, from the transcripts of exchanges among pupils, we intended to
describe the manifestations of critical thinking in pupils*/using P4CM as a
pedagogical support */in order to extract the elements likely to lead to a model of
the process of development in critical thinking. Indeed, the purpose of the Grounded
Theory is a construction of theories empirically based on social phenomena, about
which few analyses have been articulated (Laperrie`re, 1997, p. 310). And to theorize,
is to extract the meaning of an event, it is to link various elements of a situation in
an explanatory schema, it is to renew the comprehension of a phenomenon by
shedding a different light upon it (Paille, 1994, p. 149).
Since diverse sources and data are crucial for qualitative research aimed at theory
development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the research project was conducted in three
geographical contexts: Australia, Mexico and Canada (Quebec). These countries
offered diversity in culture (see Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez, 1972; Tsuneyoshi,
2004) and in language (English, Spanish and French). In addition, the research sites
offered diversity in curricula regarding teaching mathematics: Australias public
school system has for a number of years placed particular emphasis on the
development of logical reasoning in the learning of mathematics (Australian
Educational Council, 1994). Mexicos public school curriculum has placed an
emphasis on democratization and technological development (Ramirez, 1997).
Quebec has oriented its mathematics programs toward the development of judgment
and problem solving (Ministe`re de lE

ducation du Quebec, 2001). Diversity with

regard to socio-economic status was likewise present. Four milieus were privileged,
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 341
three were underprivileged, and one was poor (see Barraza & Walford, 2002; Chance,
1986; Kennedy et al., 1990). Finally, diversity also extended to the childrens
experience with the P4C approach. One group was composed of pupils, some of
whom had practiced the P4C philosophical approach since preschool; another group
was in its second year of practicing P4C; while the other six groups were novices to
the approach.
Eight groups of pupils were studied, two in Australia, three in Mexico and three in
Quebec. Each group was composed of an average of 30 pupils aged 10 to 12 years, for
a total of 240 pupils. The classes were mixed, with approximately 50% girls and 50%
boys. The analysis did not focus on specific individuals, but attempted to bring to
light manifestations of critical thinking in the groups of pupils as a whole.
The experimental protocol consisted of conducting philosophical discussions
among peers as recommended by the P4CM approach (Daniel et al., 1996b). The
program took place during one full school year, at a frequency of one hour per week.
For each of the groups, three video recordings were prepared of the philosophical
exchanges among the pupils. Each recording was 60 minutes, the length of the pupils
weekly philosophical exchanges. The first recording was conducted at the beginning
of October in Quebec and Mexico, and at the beginning of February in Australia. The
second recording was completed at the beginning of February in Quebec and Mexico,
and at the end of May in Australia. The third and final recording was conducted at
the end of May in Quebec and Mexico, and at the end of September in Australia. In
total, we obtained 24 video recordings, each representing 30 to 32 pages of transcript
(approximately 8,500 words). A professional transcribed the video recordings in full.
The transcripts were then returned to the teachers for verification of discussion
content. Although the head of research, responsible for transcript analysis, spoke all
three languages, to ensure greater rigor in the analysis, the 24 transcripts were
translated into her mother tongue.
To establish data reliability within a qualitative framework, the 24 transcripts of
exchanges among pupils were first blind coded by the principal researcher, that is, all
data that could allow the pupils or the groups or the time period to be identified were
removed. Then, six weeks later, the same person again subjected the transcripts to a
second blind coding. Finally, excerpts from each transcript were submitted to the co-
researchers in their original languages for analysis and subsequent coordination.
Where a divergence arose, the researchers exchanged views until a consensus was
reached. Below are the coding stages we followed:
(1) We coded each discussion to determine the inherent cognitive skills displayed
(statement, justification, example, etc.). Subsequently, we grouped these emergent
codes (and skills) into categories. Four temporary categories related to thinking
modes (logical, creative, responsible, and meta-cognitive) emerged. We were familiar
with certain traditional definitions associated with each thinking mode (e.g., Jones &
Idol, 1990). However, in accordance with the Grounded Theory approach, we
attempted to de-emphasize these, and to focus as much as possible on the pupils
contextualized manifestations of critical thought, our objective being to analyze data
arising from the elementary school pupils group discussions.
342 M. Daniel et al.
At the conclusion of this stage of coding, a general definition was attributed to each
of these thinking modes. Thus, logical thinking referred to informal logic that
presupposes convergence and coherence in language. Creative thinking referred to a
quest for meaning. It was manifest in the production of items or relations that were
more or less original or divergent, and likely to orient the groups perspective
differently. Thinking was defined as responsible to the extent that pupils invested
themselves in reflection with regard to human behavior and to moral rules. Meta-
cognitive thinking referred to a capacity to evaluate thinking and viewpoints in order
to improve them (for more details of this coding see Daniel et al., 2004).
(2) We analyzed the transcripts of the exchanges once more, this time paying
particular attention to the manner in which these four modes of thinking increased in
complexity as the exchanges progressed, moving from anecdotal or monological
toward critical dialogical. This analysis led us to identify three epistemological
perspectives, which we named egocentricity, relativism and inter-subjectivity. With
regard to egocentricity, within this perspective the pupils viewpoints were mere
statements grounded in their own experience; they were not justified. In relativism,
tolerance and open-mindedness toward plurality characterized the exchanges, but
reflection did not include doubt nor evaluation of the points of view. As for inter-
subjectivity, this perspective was only manifested at the end of the school year, and
not in all the groups of pupils. The inter-subjectivity perspective presupposed that
pupils were motivated to construct meanings with the help of their peers; their
privileged instrument was critical evaluation; their statements were justified and
regularly characterized by uncertainty (for more details see Daniel et al., 2004).
(3) We cross-tabulated the cognitive modes (logical, creative, responsible, and
metacognitive) and the epistemological perspectives (egocentricity, relativism, and
inter-subjectivity) inherent in the development of critical thinking processes. In this
process it proved helpful to characterize a distinction between content and form. The
resulting matrix appears in Table 1.
(4) In the final phase of the analysis, reported in the present paper, we applied
the constituent elements of the dialogical critical thinking process (Table 1) to
the transcripts of pupils exchanges. That is, we used the 4 (cognitive mode)/3
(epistemological perspective) matrix devised in Phase 3 as an instrument for
analyzing each groups transcripts. The objective was to better comprehend and to
model the development of critical thinking processes among groups of pupils. The
following section of the paper is based on this fourth phase of the analysis.
Results
Illustration of the Development of the Dialogical Critical Thinking Process
To present an illustration of the childrens development of the dialogical critical
thinking process as shown in Table 1, we used excerpts from the exchanges of a group
of Quebec pupils. In the first transcript (October), the pupils discussed the following
question: Does a perfect cube exist? In the second transcript (February), they turned
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 343
Table 1 Development of the Dialogical Critical Thinking Process*/Content and Form
Types of thought
Epistemological
perspectives Logical Creative Responsible Meta-cognitive
1. Egocentricity
Content Statement based on sensory
observation of a personal
or of a particular fact
Statement that gives
meaning to the personal
point of view
Response related to ones
own behavior
Statement related to ones own
point of view
Form No justification Statement of units Simple response Simple statement
2. Relativism
Content Statement based on
generalizations stemming from
the senses and reason
Statement that gives
meaning to anothers
viewpoint
Response related to a
peers particular behavior
Statement related to a peers
point of view
Form Incomplete or concrete
justification
Contextual relations Attempt to understand
peers responses
Description
3. Inter-subjectivity
Content Statement based on
simple reasoning
(conceptualization)
Statement that conveys a
divergent meaning
(transformation)
Response related to moral
rules (categorization)
Statement expressing a change
of perspective (correction)
Form Spontaneous and elaborated
justification
Evaluation of meanings Manifestations of doubt Evaluation/modification of
perspectives
3
4
4
M
.
D
a
n
i
e
l
e
t
a
l
.
their attention to the question: When you draw shapes, are you doing geometry? And
in the third transcript (May), they discussed the game of chess and strategies for
success . The sequence showed the increasing complexity of thought on the
epistemological level as the group became anchored in philosophical praxis.
Epistemological Complexity of Four Thinking Modes
Logical thinking. At the level of content, logical thinking tends toward conceptualiza-
tion, and at the level of form, toward the ability to justify ones viewpoints. In the
transcripts for the entire school year from one of the groups of Quebec pupils, logical
thinking developed in the following manner.
At the time of the first recorded small group interaction in October, the group of
pupils exchanged using mostly the logical thinking mode, neglecting other thinking
modes. At the level of content, the pupils contributions were based either on a
concrete referent or on a generalization that combined observation by the senses with
reasoning, whereas with regard to form, the majority of pupils did not justify their
statements:
Facilitator: Does a perfect cube exist?
P1: A die could be a perfect cube.
Facilitator: P2, does a perfect cube exist?
P2: I dont want to say there is no such thing, but I havent really seen
one.
In this excerpt, the pupils needed to base their comments on concrete observation.
They drew little upon abstraction, stemming from reasoning alone. Also, the pupils
simply stated their viewpoints, they did not justify them using reasons or criteria.
With reference to Table 1, and regarding the logical thinking mode, the group was
therefore situated within perspective 1, egocentricity, for both content and form.
By February the pupils thinking had become more complex, and generally
displayed more than one cognitive mode in its expression. Regarding logical thinking,
which still dominated the discourse, the transcript was characterized by thinking that
was slightly more abstract than in the first transcript (see Klausmeier, 1990). Pupils
did question one another without the facilitators intervention, and reasoning was
more explicit in their answers, although pupil interventions were still based on a
system of reference rooted in observation:
P1: When you draw, you make shapes, but then are you doing geometry at the
same time?
P2: Before grade 6, before we started talking about this [P4CM], I drew like this.
But ever since we started talking about it, when I draw, I always question
myself.
P3: Before, I drew like this and I didnt think it was geometry, but now since we
started talking about it, I tell myself it always has to be well done.
The answers were no longer short sentences comprised of simple words, but rather
consisted of one or two complete sentences with logical relations of time, of cause to
effect, etc. At the level of form, in February the pupils generally supported their
statements with justifications (. . . because . . .), but only to the extent that an adult
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 345
prompted them to do so. With reference to Table 1, we estimated that the group was
situated within perspective 2, relativism, for both content and form.
At the time of the final recorded interaction in May, the pupils had progressed in
the logical mode; their reasoning was more elaborate in the sense that the basis of
their argumentation rested on concepts. For example, while the pupils discussed the
qualities necessary for success in chess, P1 mentioned self-confidence, and others
added, in a critical manner:
P2: [Among] the qualities to play chess, there is self-confidence, yes, but you also
have to pay attention. If you dont pay attention, if you listen to someone
talking and you dont pay attention to his move, you wont know whats
happening and then . . .
P3: You also need logic. Lets say you place your queen on a diagonal to a bishop,
it isnt logical because the bishop is going to take your queen. And this is one
of the main rules. Which means you have to have a lot of logic.
P4: You have to know how to think, its good for logic. Also to be able to keep
quiet during the game, to concentrate. If just as you are ready, you have to
speak with someone who tells you Youre no good, youre no good you
wont see whats going on in the game. This is why keeping quiet during a
game of chess is good.
In this excerpt, we noted that pupil contributions were based on abstract concepts
(self-esteem, paying attention, being logical, knowing how to think), which led pupils
to specify, to infer, and to make significant judgments. At the level of form, we also
noted that pupils spontaneously supported their points of view by justifications.
According to Table 1, the group was situated within perspective 3 regarding content
and form, which we refer to as inter-subjectivity.
Creative thinking. At the level of content, creative thinking strives toward the
transformation of ideas and meanings, and at the level of form, toward their
evaluation. In the transcripts from the same group of Quebec pupils, creative
thinking developed during the year in the following manner.
In the October transcripts we very rarely noted manifestations of creative thinking.
The pupils discussions remained relatively convergent. That is, they reproduced
rather than transformed meanings.
By February, expressions of creative thinking were more frequent. Such thinking
was mostly centered on comprehension (as opposed to active transformation) of
meanings, and was often manifested as a question:
P1: Before, you said that when you were drawing and that you thought about it,
you were doing geometry, but when you didnt think about it, you were doing
some. I dont understand what youre saying . . . When youre drawing, even if
you arent thinking about it, you still think its geometry?
Here, P1 was not trying to evaluate his peers point of view. Rather, he wanted to
understand the meaning of his peers intervention, and to do so, he contextualized his
comments. Indeed, the theme discussed created a problem in P1s mind, and he
346 M. Daniel et al.
searched for meaningful relations. With reference to Table 1, we assigned the group to
perspective 2, relativism, at the content and form levels.
At the final recorded discussion (May), creative thinking appeared in a great many
conversational turns. Creation of meaning through the use of an example to illustrate
a personal point of view (egocentrism) or a peer point of view (relativism) was very
evident. At the level of content, we also observed several contributions that we
considered to be more complex, because of the divergence of perspective they
included (inter-subjectivity). By virtue of this divergence, the pupil remarks enriched
the exchanges. On the other hand, the pupils contributions did not succeed in
modifying the exchange because, at the level of form, the divergent viewpoints were
merely juxtaposed (relativism), and were not used as criteria in order to evaluate, to
place in a hierarchy, to prioritize, or to choose the most relevant definition (as would
be required to demonstrate inter-subjectivity).
P1: The strategy is the plan to reach a solution.
P2: Yes, but sometimes the strategy can be the solution.
P3: Yes, but you have to create a strategy to find the solution you want.
This group was at least occasionally characterized by creative thinking, which
establishes critical relations between the various meanings given, and which
contributes to modifying either the context or the initial idea. The following
example illustrates high-level creative thinking.
P1: Its about the reasons why your strategy might not work. Sometimes, its
when your strategy isnt strong enough for your opponent, or maybe its that
hes better than you are, or that he moved a game piece that, according to
you*/in your mind, he wasnt supposed to move for your strategy to work.
So thats one thing that can make your strategy fail. Then theres also
concentration that can keep your strategy from working. You tell yourself
Im not sure this is going to work. Those that get here do this, but Im not
sure. Youre not giving yourself any self-confidence.
In the preceding excerpt, the pupil not only presented points of view that were
different from those previously stated in the community of inquiry, but she also
presented them as hypotheses (or . . . or . . . or . . . ) that she related to a perspective of
critical evaluation of peer points of view. Here, complexity of creative thinking was
therefore manifested in the transition from the search for a convergent meaning to
the divergent evaluation of meanings. This situated the discourse within perspective
3, inter-subjectivity.
Responsible thinking. At the level of content, responsible thinking appears when pupils
invest themselves in reflection*/first, with regard to human behavior, and then to
moral rules (categorization of specific actions). At the level of form, responsible
thinking appears when pupils question and evaluate behaviors, rules, or principles.
Below is the progression in which responsible thinking was manifested in the group.
In October and February, responsible thinking did not constitute a cognitive
modality that was characteristic of the group.
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 347
In May, however, responsible thinking was manifested when some pupils reflected
upon the causes of defeat in the game of chess.
Facilitator: In this instance, what would be the causes of defeat?
P1: It depends on what the other one did.
P2: Maybe its because . . . Lets say that you were looking at what the
other one just did and you told yourself: on my next turn I will
certainly play this move, to be sure to get it. And the opponent
doesnt play it (as expected). Then its your fault too, you know. You
told yourself he could do that but he didnt.
In this example P2, unlike P1, tried to understand the causes of this defeat by
examining both parties at issue. To do so, at the level of content, what she attempted
to explain was related to the behavior of a peer. Furthermore, she was concerned with
making P1 understand her point of view. The intervention was thus in all respects
situated within relativism.
Meta-cognitive thinking. At the level of content, meta-cognitive thinking signifies
thinking about thinking (ones own and that of peers) and exercising a certain control
over it instead of simply being pulled along by it. At the level of form, meta-cognitive
thinking presupposes evaluation and correction of ones thinking. Below is the manner
in which meta-cognitive thinking developed in the group as the months passed.
In October, meta-cognitive thinking was rarely observed. In February, however, at
the level of content meta-cognitive thinking was manifested when pupils agreed or
disagreed with the points of view stated by their peers (relativism). Participants
typically began their comments by explicitly repeating a preceding remark on which
they based their comments, and sometimes by naming the pupil who voiced it and
describing the point of view at issue (Before, you said that . . . or, I dont agree
with her because . . .). At the level of form, the pupils began their intervention by
reformulating, as exactly as possible, the comments of their peers (relativism). In
other words, they were situated more within description than within evaluation. Thus
in February, the pupils discourse was not random; on the contrary, they controlled it
quite well. With reference to Table 1, we considered meta-cognitive thinking to be
expressed primarily within perspective 2 of relativism.
In the final set of transcripts recorded in May, since the exchange was of a
dialogical nature, that is to say, each successive student remark rested on the
preceding one, we could say that meta-cognitive thinking was an integral part of the
pupils discourse. At the level of content, meta-cognitive thinking was manifested
when making references to strategies or mental processes, and to their construction.
P1: Its about the reasons why your strategy might not work. Sometimes, its when
your strategy isnt strong enough for your opponent, or that he moved a
game piece that, according to you*/in your mind, he wasnt supposed to
move for your strategy to work. So thats one thing that can make your
strategy fail. Then theres also concentration that can keep your strategy from
working. You tell yourself Im not sure this is going to work. Youre not
giving yourself any self-confidence.
348 M. Daniel et al.
In this instance, at the level of form, it was not only the statement of mental processes
that was at stake, but also the evaluation of their relation. A high degree of conceptual
complexity was evident. The group was therefore ascribed to perspective 3, inter-
subjectivity, for both content and form.
In this group of Quebec pupils, the preceding series of discussion extracts reveals
the increasing complexity of dialogical critical thinking during their philosophical
praxis. On one hand, thinking modes were increasingly varied; at the beginning of the
school year, pupil interventions mostly reflected one mode of thinking (logical), while
at the end of the year, all four modes of thinking were displayed. On the other hand,
the groups epistemological perspective increased in complexity between the
beginning and the end of the year, shifting from egocentricity to relativism and
even, in some cases, to inter-subjectivity.
The preceding section, because it was meant to illustrate the development of the
dialogical critical thinking process, was based on transcripts of the exchanges within a
single group of pupils. In the following section, we introduce elements of a full model
of dialogical critical thinking. To do so, all 24 of the transcripts of exchanges between
pupils in the eight groups were considered.
Modeling of Dialogical Critical Thinking
In response to our objective of modeling the learning process of critical thinking in
pupils, analysis of the transcripts revealed two fundamental criteria: multi-modality
of thought and epistemological complexity.
Multi-modality. Unlike the works of authors such as Lipman (1988, 1991, 1995),
Ennis (1993), Paul (1992), and Siegel (1988), in our study, multi-modality refers to
four thinking modes (logical, creative, responsible, and meta-cognitive). Analyses of
the transcripts of exchanges, as illustrated above, revealed the prevalence of multi-
modal thinking. For example, logical thinking was present in all of the exchanges,
whether of the anecdotal, the monological or the dialogical type of exchange. On the
other hand, we observed meta-cognitive thinking only when the exchanges between
pupils were of the dialogical type. This is because dialogue is a discursive co-
construction that presupposes not only listening, but also recognizing the soundness
of others points of view and perspectives (Buchler, 1978).
And we observed that the dialogical type of exchange became critical when the
young people, aware of the distinctions between various verbalized perspectives,
adjusted or modified their viewpoints accordingly (meta-cognitive thinking). These
two elements (taking into account the comments of others and correcting) are
inherent in meta-cognitive thinking as it emerged from our analyses. This finding
brings us to posit that, without skills related to meta-cognitive thinking in the
discourse, there cannot be a critical dialogical type of exchange. However, the
converse also applies. That is, along with Roubtsov (1991), Lipman et al. (1980),
Cazden (1988), Wells (1999) and other socio-constructivists who follow Vygotsky, we
consider that communication among peers is what ensures complexity of reflection.
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 349
Furthermore, we observed in the student discussions that creative thinking was
instrumental in transforming the level of exchange and in enabling a transition from
monological to dialogical exchange. Conversely, the more the dialogue reflected the
criteria for critical status, the more creative thinking became manifest in the pupils
discourse. The explanation for this finding is that skills related to creative thinking are
present when providing divergent meanings, unexpected points of view, and critical
evaluations of meanings. Critical evaluation often produces cognitive conflict in
peers, which in turn triggers a more elaborate process of reflection, that is, creative
thinking.
Finally, we observed among the pupils who had experience with P4C that in their
most critical exchanges, responsible thinking was present (e.g., the extract presented
in the section Critical Dialogical Exchange). We explain this presence by the fact that
truly dialogical critical thinking does not aim for personal victory over others points
of view, but rather improvement of the groups, or of societys perspective (see Paul,
1992; Daniel et al., 2000). In other words, development of the responsible mode
among the pupils tempers the exchanges and orients the discussion toward a vision of
mutual understanding and of active participation in the construction of the moral
rules inherent in every group and in every society.
Epistemological complexity. Along with multi-modality, the discussion data revealed
another concomitant of the development of critical thinking: epistemological
complexity. For dialogical critical thinking to develop, the simple presence of the
four thinking modes in the pupils discourses may be necessary, but it is not
sufficient. In our transcripts, dialogical critical thinking was observable only when we
detected also the capabilities associated with inter-subjectivity, that is, conceptualiza-
tion, transformation, categorization and correction. It is within inter-subjectivity
that statements are argued and justified, relations are seen as divergent and meanings
are evaluated, judgments are inclusive and social-moral rules are questioned, and
perspectives are evaluated and corrected. From the perspective of dialogical critical
thinking, multi-modality and epistemological complexity are two inseparable
indicia.
The sequence of learning dialogical critical thinking. In all eight groups participating in
the experiment, the development of critical thinking followed the same sequence
regardless of culture or language. The only difference noted concerned groups
which had previous experience with P4C, as these began with a head start and
finished one step ahead. Following is a description of the general sequence we
observed.
At the beginning of the school year, the pupils communication demonstrated two
types of exchange: anecdotal (rarely) and monological (mostly). Analysis of the
transcripts that reflect these types of exchanges indicated that the pupils discourses
reflected a preponderance of concrete logical thinking.
At mid-year, the pupils exchanges were dialogical. However, the dialogue was non-
critical. Analysis of the transcripts that reflected this type of exchange indicated that
the pupils discourses reflected the use of three thinking modes: semi-abstract logical
350 M. Daniel et al.
thinking, contextualized creative thinking, and meta-cognitive thinking. Overall, the
non-critical dialogical type of exchange reflected a relativism of perspective in which
the pupils enjoyed accumulating as many points of view as possible.
At the end of the school year, the transcripts revealed exchanges that were largely of the
semi-critical dialogical type. Discourse analysis reflected all four thinking modes: logical
thinking, metacognitive thinking, creative thinking, and responsible thinking. In this
phase, the groups waveredbetweenrelativismand inter-subjectivity, between unreflective
acceptance of peers points of view and conscious evaluation of those points of view.
Those groups with prior experience in P4C ended the year more solidly grounded
in critical dialogue and in inter-subjectivity.
Conclusions
The starting point for this study was exchanges among peers, since discourse is
considered to be the concrete manifestation of thought. In contrast to numerous
existing studies on social interactions, and specifically on classroom communication
between peers, we emphasized the critical aspect of these exchanges. A first important
contribution of this study is that it succeeded in inducing the emergence of a process
of learning critical dialogue among young people aged 10 to 12 years when they
employed a philosophical approach centered on mathematical concepts.
Although assessing the impact of P4CM was not among our research objectives, it is
nonetheless interesting to note the role of these classroom discussions in the pupils
cognitive development. In this research project, the steps in the development process
were achieved with the help of a philosophical praxis (rather than a rigid technique),
which was regular (one hour per week) and continuous (extending over at least one
school year). Moreover, it appealed to teachers Socratic abilities, which consist of
stimulating thought in their pupils with questions such as: What is your justification
when you say . . .? What criteria are you basing this on? Do you have a counter-
example? What could you add to improve this point of view? Do you agree with
what was just said? Howwould youorganize the criteria that were just voiced? How
has the groups perspective evolved between the beginning and the end of the
exchange? It would be opportune to verify, in a future research project, the impact
of other non-philosophical pedagogical approaches centered onclass discussions on the
development of young people critical thinking. A priori, two conditions seem
necessary: (1) that these approaches lie within the scope of praxis, and (2) that their
objectives encompass scaffolding young people in the development of multimodal and
complex thought. This scaffolding is necessary, as these dimensions of thought not
infrequently plunge early adolescent pupils into ambiguity and uncertainty, which can
at times render the exchange uncomfortable. Indeed, multimodal andcomplex thinking
presuppose not only a cognitive investment, but also an affective and social investment.
With Dewey (1929/1960), Lipman (1995), Wells (1999) and others, we consider that
classroomdiscussions must be situated within the cooperative context of a community
of inquiry in order to better stimulate pupils toward a common reflection that favors
access to inter-subjectivity.
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 351
A second major contribution of our study resides in the modeling of the process of
learning dialogical critical thinking among young adolescents 10 to 12 years of age. In
most studies, critical thinking is thought to emerge within the context of the cognitive
development of young adults attending college and university. In contrast, our study
focused on preadolescents attending elementary school. The results showed that with
discussion-based praxis, such pupils can develop higher-order thinking skills and
attitudes related to critical. While a number of other studies have examined the
development of various thinking modes (in particular logical reasoning, conceptualiza-
tion, meta-cognition, creativity and problem solving) in young people, these thinking
modes have been generally examined separately (e.g., Jones & Idol, 1990). Our model is
more global, in that it integrates four thinking modes and shows them operating
concurrently. In addition, the model explicated here has the merit of combining these
four modes with a second theoretical axis related to epistemology, in order to better
capture the complexity of the development of critical thinking. Following is our
definition of dialogical critical thinking that summarizes the constituent elements:
Dialogical critical thinking is a process of (e)valuating the object of thought, in
cooperation with peers, in an attempt to eliminate irrelevant criteria in order to
contribute to improvement of experience. Dialogical critical thinking is a process that
ensues from a common quest, which manifests itself in cognitive skills and attitudes
related to conceptualization, transformation, categorization and correction. It there-
fore requires the contribution of four cognitive modalities, namely logical, creative,
responsible and meta-cognitive thinking, which are conjoined with a complex
epistemological perspective, inter-subjectivity orientedtowardmeaning. As a result, a
new understanding of the object of thought is generated, and a modification of the
initial idea occurs.
Learning to dialogue in a critical manner and learning to reflect critically is a complex
task for young people, and takes time. Nevertheless, the ensuing learning acquired
(that is, learning to manage diversity of opinions for collective enrichment;
understanding that uncertainty and ambiguity are a necessary transition toward
attaining a significant solution; perceiving the evaluation of acquired knowledge as a
fundamental activity; grasping that criticism is a privileged instrument in the
evolution of viewpoints and perspectives, etc.) is in keeping with a form of education
that will allow young people to successfully face the challenges that are inherent in the
expansion of knowledge and in the increasing complexity of life in society.
References
Australian Education Council. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum prole for Australian schools .
Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Barraza, L., & Walford, R. (2002). Environmental education: A comparison between English and
Mexican school children. Environmental Education Research, 8, 171/186.
Brookeld, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. Tools and techniques for
democratic classrooms . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Buchler, J. (1978). What is a discussion? Thinking , 1(1), 49/54.
Camhy, D., & Iberer, G. (1988). Philosophy for children: A research project for further mental and
personality development of primary and secondary school pupils. Thinking , 7(4), 18/26.
352 M. Daniel et al.
Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving
transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1147/1156.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning . Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Chance, P. (1986). Introduction: The thinking movement. In P. Chance & R. S. Brandt (Eds.),
Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs (pp. 1/9). New York: Teachers College Press.
Daniel, M.-F. (1997). La philosophie et les enfants [Philosophy and children]. Montreal: Logiques.
Daniel, M.-F. (2005). Pour lapprentissage dune pensee critique au primaire [For the apprenticeship
of critical thinking in elementary school]. Quebec City: Presses de lUniversite du Quebec.
Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Sykes, P. (1996a). Les aventures mathematiques de
Mathilde et David [The mathematical adventures of Mathilde and David]. Quebec City: Le
Loup de Gouttie`re.
Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Sykes, P. (1996b). Philosopher sur les mathematiques et
les sciences [Philosophize on mathematics and science], Accompanying Guide. Quebec City:
Le Loup de Gouttie`re.
Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Schleifer, M. (2000). Developmental dynamics of a
community of philosophical inquiry in an elementary school mathematics classroom.
Thinking , 15(1), 2/10.
Daniel, M.-F., Splitter, L., Slade, C., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Mongeau, P. (2002). Are the
philosophical exchanges of pupils aged 10 to 12 relativistic or intersubjective? Creative and
Critical Thinking , 10(2), 1/19.
Daniel, M.-F., Splitter, L., Slade, C., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Mongeau, P. (2004). Dialogical
critical thinking: Elements of denitions emerging in the analysis of transcripts from pupils
aged 10 to 12 years. Australian Journal of Education, 48(3), 295/313.
Delors, J. (Ed.). (1996). lE

ducation, un tresor est cache dedans. Rapport a` lUNESCO de la

Commission Internationale sur lE

ducation pour le Vingt et Unie`me Sie`cle [Education, in it a

treasure is hidden. Report to UNESCO from the International Commission on Education for
the 21st Century]. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Dewey, J. (1960). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation between knowledge and action. New
York: Capricorn Books. (Originally published 1929)
Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice , 32(3), 179/186.
Garnier, C., Bednarz, N., & Ulanovskaya, I. (Eds). (1991). Apre`s Vygotski et Piaget. Perspectives
sociale et constructiviste. E

coles Russe et Occidentale [After Vygotsky and Piaget. Social and

constructivist perspectives. Russian School and Occidental School]. Brussels: De Boeck
University.
Gazzard, A. (1988). Evidence of effectiveness of the Philosophy for Children program: Quantitative
studies. Thinking, 7(4), 13/15.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gumperz, J., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1972). Bilingualism, bidialectalism, and classroom
interaction. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the
classroom (pp. 84/108). New York: Teachers College Press.
Jones, B. F., & Idol, L. (Eds). (1990). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kennedy, M., Fisher, M., & Ennis, R. (1990). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed
research. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp.
11/41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Klausmeier, H. J. (1990). Conceptualizing. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction (pp. 93/138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lago-Bernstein, J. C. (1990). The community of inquiry and the development of self-esteem.
Thinking , 9(1), 12/17.
Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 353
Lane, N. R., & Lane, S. A. (1986). Rationality, self-esteem and autonomy through collaborative
enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 12, 263/275.
Laperrie`re, A. (1997). La theorisation ancree: Demarche analytique et comparaison avec dautres
approches apparentees [Grounded theory: Analytical process and comparison with similar
methods]. In J. Poupart, J.-P. Delauriers, L. H. Groulx, A. Laperrie`re, & A. Pires (Eds.), La
recherche qualitative: Enjeux epistemologiques et methodologiques [Qualitative research:
Epistemological and methodological stakes] (pp. 309/346). Boucherville: Gaetan Morin.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38/43.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (1995). Good thinking. Inquiry. Critical Thinking Across Disciplines , 15, 37/41.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Maier, N. (1933). An aspect of human reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 24, 144/155.
Ministe`re de lE

ducation du Quebec. (2001). Programme de formation de lecole Quebecoise:

education prescolaire, enseignement primaire [Program of education in Quebec: Kindergarten
and elementary school]. Quebec City: Les publications du Quebec.
Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. R. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical
transfer. Memory & Cognition, 19, 543/557.
Newman, F. M. (1990). Higher-order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the
assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 22, 41/46.
Paille, P. (1994). Lanalyse par theorisation ancree [Analysis with grounded theory]. Cahiers de
Recherche Sociologique [Journal of Research in Sociology] , 23, 147/181.
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why and how. New Directions for Community College , 77,
3/25.
Platon. (1950). Theete`te. In Platon (Trans. Leon Robin), uvres Comple`tes [Complete Works]
(pp. 83/193). Paris: Gallimard.
Ramirez, G. (1997). Leducation aux droits de lhomme et a` la democratie: Des de la societe
mexicaine [Education to human rights and to democracy: Challenges of the Mexican
society], Revue des Sciences de lE

ducation [Journal of Educational Sciences], XXIII (1), 113/

123.
Roubtsov, V. (1991). Lactivite dapprentissage et les proble`mes de formation de la pensee theorique
des ecoliers [Learning activity and the problems related to the development of theoretical
thinking in students]. In C. Garnier, N. Bednarz, & I. Ulanovskaya (Eds.), Apre`s Vygotski et
Piaget. Perspectives sociale et constructiviste. E

coles Russe et Occidentale [After Vygotsky

and Piaget. Social and constructivist perspectives. Russian School and Occidental School]
(pp. 151/162). Brussels: De Boeck University.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York:
Routledge.
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2004). The new foreigners and the social reconstruction of differences: The
cultural diversication of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 40, 55/81.
Van der Zee, E., & Nikanne, U. (2000). Cognitive interfaces: Constraints on linking cognitive
information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Received November 5, 2003
Accepted February 18, 2005
354 M. Daniel et al.