The Teaching Of Thinking Using Philosophical Inquiry

Connie Chuen Ying YU

University of Melbourne

Teaching students thinking may bring improvement to school curricula, and enable
students to succeed in their studies and function as competent citizens in future. Researchers
highly recommend thinking skills instruction, using in-content or out-of-content programs.
Thinking skills are abilities of individuals to performmental actions and work on ideas externally
perceived or internally constructed in order to satisfy a goal. One in-content thinking skills
program- Philosophical Inquiry - is described in this paper and suggestions for implementation
are provided. This approach requires the building of a community of inquiry in the classroomand
skilful questioning. Despite the lack of teacher training and assessment tools, the teaching of
thinking may still be implemented successfully with the commitment of teachers, support from
school authorities, and participation in action research.



,
,

1. Introduction
Researchers recommend teaching of thinking in the school curricula, so that students
develop thinking skills - abilities of individuals to perform mental actions and work on
ideas externally perceived or internally constructed in order to satisfy a goal. These
mental actions include visualizing, modelling, idea organizing, categorizing, inferring,
transferring and problem solving (Bowden, 1986; Biggs & Telfer, 1987; Sternberg,
1987:252).
There are basically two different approaches in teaching thinking: in-content
(integrated into school subjects) and out-of-content (taught separately) approaches.
Teaching is focused on students thinking processes and learning how to learn is highly
valued. Students have been traditionally assessed by how much information or facts they
can reproduce in tests and examinations, but now there is a wide awareness that students
should be assessed by how well they perform.
In this paper, the background of the teaching of thinking is outlined from the
literature in only two aspects: pioneers works, and a thinking curriculum. Among
desirable programs studied, the author presents only one promising program -
Philosophical Inquiry within limited scope. This is an in-content approach of teaching
thinking skills through dialogues centred on philosophical issues which emerge from
texts or stories. It requires teachers to build a community of inquiry in the classroom
through skilful questioning, clear logical thinking and ideally training in teaching
children philosophy. Next the author states the problems that concern teaching of
thinking and finally gives suggestions for implementation.

2. Background To The Teaching Of Thinking
2A. Pioneers Works
Teaching students thinking has become a strong movement towards the end of the
twentieth century, as noted by Nisbet (1993) and Mulcahy et al. (1993). Previous
influential psychologists formulated theories and models of human nature based on their
research. Biggs and Telfer (1987) group these psychologists as (1) Behaviourists, who
concentrate on people as reacting to a highly structured environment; (2) Cognitivists,
who concentrate on people as thinkers and problem-solvers in an environment that
signals information to them; and (3) Humanists, who concentrate on how people feel
about themselves and their relationships with others. Educators may prefer one model or
another and they will implement their beliefs in educational practices. There is increasing
awareness of the need to teach students thinking in contemporary literature, showing
wide acceptance of the Cognitivists view.
The theories of constructivism and information processing have contributed to the
teaching of thinking. They reveal how our minds work, help teachers understand how
students learn and how they can plan more effective instruction. Piaget and Bruner were
major theorists in constructivism. Piaget studied the origins of cognition and explained
how children interact with the environment at different stages of cognitive development:
pre-operational, concrete operational, and formal operational. Bruner also described
stages of development and language being a tool of thought which is necessary for the
construction of meaning. Both theorists suggest that teachers should understand students
developmental stages and provide students opportunities to evaluate and give reasons for
what they say (OTuel & Bullard, 1995:9-12). Information processing theorists have




various ways of interpreting the learning sequence, but all their models consist of three
aspects: input, process and output. Both constructivism and information processing point
out learners needs of active participation in the teaching process in order to construct
knowledge for themselves, whereas telling students answers limit their understanding and
opportunities to find out for themselves. Process and not product is emphasised in
instruction and academic time should be spent more on higher levels of thinking (OTuel
& Bullard, 1995:17).
Among the pioneers, Nisbet (1993) reveals that Edward de Bono, being the most
well-known, founded the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) in 1969 and published
Teaching Thinking in 1976 which was later translated into 26 languages. The school
curriculum is overcrowded, according to de Bono (1991), and thinking skills taught are
confined to limited skills such as sorting, analysing and some debating skills. More
important higher order thinking skills like decision making, setting priorities, and
choosing alternatives are lacking. He stresses the great need to teach thinking skills in
schools, because thinking skills are life skills much needed by individuals in order to
operate effectively in an increasingly complex world. He advocates deliberate and direct
teaching of thinking skills, rather than infusing it into subjects.
Lipman (1985) points out that the traditional curriculum is fragmented, caused by
isolated subjects, and he argues for the inclusion of philosophy as a subject in the K-12
curricula. He believes that that the central objective of education is to create
communities of inquiry, through which children learn to value independent and
autonomous thinking rather than just helping children to acquire the knowledge that
adults possess (Lipman, 1985:106). He sees that the Philosophy for Children Program can
sharpen thinking skills and produce educationally significant results, and teaching
students philosophy can reduce their sense of fragmentation in the school curricula. His
view of teaching children philosophy as a way of teaching thinking is supported by Beyer
(1991:72-6) who believes that philosophy offers valuable perspective and adds unique
insights into cognitive processes. He argues that a thinking curriculum should attend to
the methods philosophers used to stimulate thinking, and the dispositions that motivate
thinking, and it will be worthwhile and effective in producing skilful thinkers. Schools
did not have formal instruction in thinking because educators wrongly believe that
students would acquire thinking skills automatically through subjects, and that average
students could not learn philosophy because it is regarded as an area taught in universities
only (Ruggiero, 1995:5-6).
Criticised by Kauchak and Eggen (1989:347), most classroom instruction is geared
to the teaching and learning of information and facts, much memorization in tests and
examinations, and low level of thinking. Students have been taught what to think, but
rarely on how to think. Paul (1994) criticised the present education for wrongly assuming
that students after learning information, concepts, and skills, will automatically replace
ignorance with knowledge, misconception with truth. Paul believes that students learn
through practice and not by teachers telling them what to believe and think about a
subject. Very often values and principles are often learned and memorized without real
understanding. He thinks what students really need is to learn by practice, think and try
out ideas learnt; and to see for themselves when they have succeeded, when they have
failed, and the differences between the successes and failures. Paul, Binker and Weil
(1993), and Paul et al. (1993) have developed handbooks for teachers to teach critical




thinking in order to equip students for the real world. They have developed thirty-five
strategies and instructional procedures to teach thinking through remodelling lesson plans,
and help teachers to develop for themselves thinking skills and ways of teaching their
students.
2B. A Thinking Curriculum
The inclusion of thinking skills instruction in the school curriculum has now gained
wide support, and the teaching of thinking is happening in several countries (De Bono,
1991). The positive effect of teaching thinking/learning strategies in research has led to
the development of its inclusion in content instruction (e.g. Husen & Postlethwaite, 1992;
Mulcahy et al., 1993; Gredler, 1992:137-8). Some facts that call for thinking skills
instruction are pointed out by Resnick and Resnick:

Today society requires individuals to be not only literate, but also able to analyse
information, draw conclusions, generate hypotheses, and find solutions.
Students are now facing the challenges of information explosion, obsolescence of
much past information, and multiple changes at present and in the future.
Advocates regard the process of learning as being just as important as the product
(cited in OTuel & Bullard, 1995:2).

To find out the effectiveness of thinking skills programs and their suitability for
different age groups, Mulcahy et al. (1993) experimented with both approaches.
Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment (IE) was taught outside curricular content (out-of-
content), and the Strategies Program for Effective Learning/Thinking (SPELT) was
taught with curricular content (in-content). The teachers assigned to teach the two
programs were given intensive in-service training beforehand. It was ensured that they
acquired the necessary teaching skills and strategies. The training of teachers was
extended through continued coaching by consultants and peers both in and out of the
classroom situation. Research findings indicated that cognitive education was effective in
improving student thinking. The SPELT program tended to produce more positive
changes in students overall performance. Even after two years of instruction in the two
cognitive education programs, the students comprehensive monitoring skills were
observed to be generally better than their control counterparts. Therefore Mulcahy et al.
(1993), urged that teaching learning/thinking skills should be incorporated in the school
curriculum, using either out-of-content or in-content approach. Parents, teachers and
administrators involved with their studies were also in favour of thinking skills
instruction.
School administrators and policy makers are urged by researchers to include thinking
skills instruction in the school curriculum and to legitimize the time for teaching thinking
skills (e.g. De Bono, 1991). Though they may not be able to schedule time for an out-of-
content program, they may use in-content programs. Meanwhile teachers may still build
up their repertoire and use various techniques to help students develop higher order
thinking skills (e.g. Kauchak & Eggen, 1989; Gredler, 1992; Mulcahy et al., 1993):

In the classroom, teachers use thinking aloud, which is describing thoughts
verbally so that their thoughts and thinking skills can be made known to the
students.




Include reflection in teachers professional development programs.
Provide regular time for students to reflect and teach them to value ways of
thinking used by the others.
Help students to generalize and transfer by relating the thinking skills already
learnt to the new context or situation.
Encourage students to think of possible applications of a learned skill.
Show support and encouragement to a child or the class in thinking exploration.
Teachers act as coaches or facilitators in helping students to think.
Provide language form for young students to express their thoughts or help them
to express their thoughts through drawings or role-playing.
Provide opportunities for students to work together and discuss, share, trial and
evaluate their skills.
Group work and discussion are effective means to develop students thinking
skills.
Parents are recommended to help their children by demonstrating their models of
thinking skills to their children and encouraging them in the development of this
aspect.

Teachers or instructors may develop their own thinking abilities and be able to teach
thinking through reading references such as Ruggieros (1995) popular book, The Art of
Thinking. Paul et al. (1993:37-9) suggest teachers to think beyond the limit of subject
matter, and create an environment which values truth, openmindedness, empathy,
autonomy, rationality and self-criticism. They state that students need to ask questions to
probe meanings, request reasons and evidence, facilitate elaboration, keep discussions
from becoming confusing, highlight contradictions and inconsistencies, and elicit
implications and consequences. Eventually students can learn to believe in the power of
their own minds, to identify and solve problems.
The commitment to improve thinking skills brings the needs to evaluate those skills,
according to Baron (1987:221-44). Administrators want to see whether the effect of
thinking skills programs and professional development activities justify the efforts.
Program developers and researchers want to find out the validity and impact of thinking
skills instruction on students. Through evaluation, we can become more sophisticated
about defining what constitutes good thinking, and we can gain understanding of the
dispositions and attitudes that good thinkers display. Biggs (1995:15) points out that
assessment occupies a key place in determining quality learning outcomes. Because it has
often been determined by traditional procedures and existing standards, it is beyond an
individual teachers control. He contends for changes in the traditional outdated methods
of assessing students learning outcomes. A universal call for educational reform in
student assessment is noted by others as well (e.g. OTuel & Bullard, 1995:2; Acheson &
Gall, 1992:28).
Research findings have enlightened a new direction of helping the students to
manage their studies, i.e. provide students thinking skills instruction, which may remedy
the shortcomings of the current curriculum and enable students to manage their studies
and later their lives successfully. Over the decades, as revealed by OTuel and Bullard
(1995:233-5), hundreds of thinking skills programs have been designed, however
teachers need to search for desirable programs and effective procedures for




implementation. After search of desirable programs, the author identifies some and
presents Philosophical Inquiry as the most promising approach.
3. Philosophical Inquiry
An instructional design may prescribe an optimal method of instruction and bring
about desired changes in student knowledge and skills (Reigeluth, 1983). OTuel and
Bullard (1995:233-5) note that there are hundreds of higher order thinking (HOT)
programs, which however lack of adequate research on their effectiveness owing to
disagreement on what constitutes higher order thinking and how to measure it. After
searching desirable programs for teaching thinking, the author finds that Philosophical
Inquiry is a promising approach. Using this approach, a teacher attempts to teach thinking
skills through dialogues centred on philosophical issues that emerge from texts or stories.
It requires teachers to build a community of inquiry in the classroom through skilful
questioning, clear logical thinking and ideally training in teaching children philosophy. It
is considered desirable because it can be used by teachers in any subjects within a normal
time-table; no extra time is required as it is not a separate subject; and teachers of the
same year level or department may develop their abilities in teaching thinking skills
either on their own or in a group.
Wilks (1995:vi) states that Matthew Lipman was the first to conceive the idea of
using philosophical issues and approaches with children in the 1960s and wrote a series
of texts from classrooms over two decades. He was influenced by Deweys pedagogy of
coverting classrooms into communities of inquiry and insistence on the importance of
experience in learning. During 1970s and 80s Lipman wrote stories containing
philosophical issues appropriate for discussion in classrooms, such as truth fairness and
equality. Lipman (1985:106-8) believes that creating communities of inquiry for children
may enable them to develop independent and autonomous thinking, therefore he has
created the Philosophy For Children Program in which he wrote stories with
philosophical issues for children of different year levels to explore in the classroom. He
claims that teachers using philosophical inquiry in teaching stories may sharpen 30
thinking skills and produce educationally significant results among students. Lipman
(1993:383) is convinced that philosophy can and should be a part of the entire length of
a childs education.
Splitter and Sharp (1995:8) explain the teaching for better thinking means to
cultivate the forms of behaviour which are linked to better thinking. They state that what
is important is to equip students to make good judgements about the quality of the
thinking which they produce and with which they are confronted (p.12). They state that
the crucial ingredient in the teaching of thinking is the establishment and nurturing of a
classroom environment in which the skills, dispositions and overarching sense of care
constitutive of good thinking, are modelled, cultivated and practised. The classroom
community of inquiry is just such an environment (p.17).
Influenced by Lipman, programs similar to his have been created, e.g. Cams
(1993) Thinking Stories 1 & 2, and Wilks (1995) Creative and Critical Thinking,
providing rich resources for teachers to use philosophical inquiry approach in classroom.
Both Cam and Wilks believe that childrens literature provides a rich source of
philosophical themes which may form an effective stimulus for inquiry in the classroom.
Besides, many different topics over a wide variety of subject areas can also be used.
Philosophical inquiry is a powerful teaching approach in developing students thinking




skills, through establishing a community for inquiry in the classroom. A teacher uses
questioning and group discussion techniques on issues raised from novels or subject
materials. Wilks (1995) has trialed Lipmans program in many schools in Australia, and
has found new and practical approaches as she worked with teachers. She identifies the
thinking skills that can be transferred across the curriculum: reasoning, ability to make
assumptions and inferences, correct and improved thinking, and problem solving.
Philosophical inquiry does not require adding a new subject to the curriculum, or
excluding another, and it can enhance the learning of other subjects. Students learn to
respect others experiences and points of view in the approach. Teachers do not
undermine beliefs or erode values, but help children build foundations and frameworks
for their existing beliefs. There is more student talk, extended student answers, more
interaction between students, less of teacher manipulation, and more thoughtful and open
questions asked by students. In case studies, she found that teachers and students enjoyed
the philosophical inquiry approach, with its challenging and encouraging mode. Many
positive changes in students followed the development of a community of inquiry in the
classroom. Students became eager to participate, prepared to listen to each other and
valued each others comments. De Hann, McCutcheon and MacColl (1995:4) also note
that teaching philosophy at school has immense value because it builds self-esteem and
contributes to the development of independent thinking, good judgement and
reasonableness and stress its benefits for children in their school education. Sharp
(1993:337) states that community of inquiry is an educational means of furthering the
sense of community that is a precondition for actively participating in a democratic
society, and it cultivates skills of dialogue, questioning, reflective inquiry and good
judgment.
3A. Teaching Strategies in Philosophical Inquiry
Teachers may use philosophical inquiry in any subjects, particularly in language and
literature. Wilks (1995) reveals the following teaching strategies for philosophical inquiry:
1. Build up a supportive and nurturing environment in the classrooms that fosters
reasoning, critical and creative thinking. Discuss with students and find the
elements of good discussions, e.g. one person speaking at a time, hands up to
indicate wish to speak, ask for clarification if necessary. Rules may be suggested
by students.
2. Having questions prepared, teachers need to keep the overall aims in mind and take
responsibility for the standard of discussions. Be aware of teaching thinking skills
as aims and desired outcomes.
3. Thinking and dialogue skills are not given by the teachers, but learnt by students
through discussion, giving reasons when statements are made, and correcting
mistakes in students reasoning. Reading and writing are natural outgrowths of
conversation which is the childs natural mode of communication.
4. Be prepared to divide a large class into groups. Try having discussions with a
smaller group; meanwhile set the other group to work on some written work
relevant to the issue.
5. Provide activities involving students in analysis, clarification of values, and
appropriate social action. Questions about ones thinking or thoughts may help
students to become accustomed to discussing abstract concepts.
6. Do not inject the teachers own point of view or judgment into class discussion.




Change the habit of saying after students responses Good, Yes, Well done to
What do you think about what Alex said? Who disagrees? Does anyone have
another example?
7. Do not prompt students for neither answers nor steer a discussion towards the
teachers own view points. Students are asked to elaborate instead of the teacher
doing it for them. Students are encouraged to ask questions to clarify meaning,
which is a vital step towards good communication.
8. Include fast talkers as equal participants, not dominators. One way is to distribute
five matches or buttons to each member who places one into the centre of the
discussion circle after speaking.
9. Reluctant participants may need to be allowed a little longer time, or given cards
with a question written on it.
10. Teachers do not praise too much nor show favour for particular answers, and do
not interrupt student talk nor hinder the flow of conversation.
11. Teachers become the facilitators, rather than the sources of information or
affirmation to student action. Teachers and students become cooperative and
caring co-inquirers.
12. The teacher and students share the solution of a problem as co-inquirers.
Encourage active verbal interactions between students rather than between teacher
and students.
13. During the learning process, which is as important as the subject matter, students
learn to be tolerant, recognize and assess value judgments, and become critical
thinkers.
14. Teachers may evaluate philosophical inquiry sessions with their class using
questions such as: Were the participants listening to one another? Were they
responding directly to one another? Were people encouraged to participate? Was
the topic interesting? Did I challenge my own thinking?
3B. Strategies to Encourage Participation of ESL Students in Discussion
In case studies, Wilks (1995) notes that ESL (English as a Second Language)
teachers found the philosophical inquiry approach very beneficial to their students. Being
engaged in philosophical discussions, students experience a natural way of learning a
language in class through immersion in the spoken language. Students express opinions:
agree or disagree with the opinions of others, clarify meaning, and give examples.
Students learn the sorts of skills and vocabulary that they need to cope with their studies
in schools. ESL teachers may encourage student participation by using the following
strategies:
1. Pre-teach new vocabulary or expressions for ones opinions.
2. Use culturally specific resources. Topics such as truth, goodness, childrens rights,
freedom, duty, may have different meanings among cultures.
3. Teachers need to anticipate cultural and individual differences in discussions.
Cultural differences and similarities, which arise, are rich potential resources for
philosophical discussions.
4. The main idea can be highlighted on the board or repeated to help some students
who have difficulty in understanding the flow of the discussion.
5. Encourage clear expression by asking native speakers to repeat or another student
to express an idea in another way, so that communication is clearer.




6. A teacher may like to recap a discussion to help students consolidate what they
have heard: main ideas discussed, how idea was discussed and new vocabulary
used.
7. Five to ten minutes could be assigned at the end of a session for journal entries.
For example, students may write down a question they find interesting and
mention the various ways it has been considered.
8. Such written work reveals whether students understand the philosophical concepts
and helps students to internalize the vocabulary used.
3C. Establishing Philosophical Inquiry in Schools
To use the philosophical inquiry approach in schools, Wilks (1995) proposes setting
up professional development workshops for teachers who need to discuss and understand
the nature of this approach. In workshop sessions, teachers will learn this approach and
practise how to lead discussions. After a workshop, teachers may explore and choose
texts for inquiry in the classroom. A teacher may prepare a session and run a class with
the trainer, or work in pairs in the early stages of using the philosophical inquiry
approach. Teachers may share their experiences about student participation and the
different kinds of thinking demonstrated during formal or informal meetings. They must
note that sound preparation and evaluation are important in the early sessions, so that
teachers become familiar with the philosophical issues and thinking skills used.
To monitor progress in the classroom, different methods can be used; e.g. checklists
with key elements of a philosophical discussion, a report system listing appropriate skills
and attitudes, or Matthew Lipmans suggested evaluation of student progress. Non-
classroom conversations of children may be recorded to ascertain whether there was a
carry-over of skills from classroom philosophy sessions. Units of work can be designed
with philosophical issues and questions developed for inquiry from everyday literature,
e.g. Famous Fables, and Fairytales.
Teachers need to be familiar with the issues in the stimulus material and any
accompanying exercises. A wide variety of issues can be chosen from materials such as
films, newspaper articles and extracts from movies and literature. Relevant philosophical
questions should be prepared for classroom discussion, probing deeper into issues with
students. A philosophical discussion is characterized by: students thinking being
noticeably challenged, reactive and critical approaches, issues that are often abstract, and
questions having no straight forward answers.
Parents may be informed of the schools educational reasons for introducing
philosophical inquiry in sessions for them. Activities and approaches may be
demonstrated or shown in videotapes to the parents who will understand this approach,
and may get some ideas to develop their childrens minds at home.
A coordinator in a school committed to introducing philosophical inquiry can support
the teachers involved and maintain contact with teacher educators or trainers. Progress
and strategies for future classes can be discussed. Keeping a journal will help in
tracking progress, guiding future practice in discussions and for future planning.
Teachers observing others, sharing ideas and experiences will be enriching themselves.
Spreading ideas from school to school may result in a more effective curriculum change
than a Top-down initiative.
3D. A Teachers Application of Philosophical Inquiry
A teacher who has previous training in philosophy may feel competent to try using




philosophical inquiry as a teaching approach in the classroom. An in-service teacher may
study references, explore resources, and join relevant conferences, seminars or
workshops. Workshops may enable the teacher to be better equipped to implement such
approach through learning the expertise and experiences of educators and other teachers.
Lipman Sharp and Oscanyan (1984) provide a series of dos and dont to go together with
their instructional manuals in using philosophical inquiry, and give practical suggestions
for carrying out discussions effectively (pp. i-ii). Teachers are free to develop their own
style after they become familiar with their manuals. Wilks (1995:34-54) has provided
case studies which reveal valuable experiences and ideas of choosing resources, session
planning, developing issues, good questioning and implementation of this approach in
schools. She notes that teachers usually used materials which were specially designed for
introducing philosophical issues at first, but later they included other resources as they
accumulated confidence. Examples of designed units of work are also provided to
demonstrate the philosophical issues present in literature. A unit may consist of a story,
objectives of the session, a discussion planned with philosophical questions, and activity.
For upper classes, a unit may consist of a longer story, more objectives, questions and
appropriate activities.
4. Problems Associated With The Teaching Of Thinking
4A. Lack of Teacher Training
Without training, teachers lack the skills to teach students thinking. Teachers have
been students previously and they are likely to teach in the way that they were taught -
traditional didactic style. Some teachers probably have their own firm beliefs and
consider themselves authoritative with long experiences. They may insist on upholding
tradition and refuse to change. Therefore, it is proposed that teacher education should
include how to give thinking skills instruction to students. When more and more teachers
know how to teach thinking, they may be able to initiate and support curriculum change.
Presently school administrators and staff may join workshops, conferences, or seminars
to learn new ideas, be acquainted with new research findings and learn new methods to
teach students thinking. The principals may encourage department heads and senior
teachers to be trained to supervise other teachers in giving effective thinking skills
instruction. Teachers need to be supported to develop their thinking skills through
providing them professional development opportunities and resources, and chances to
reflect and share ideas in formal or informal meetings. Teachers may develop their
repertoire in teaching thinking through supervision by competent instruction leaders, peer
class observation and regular reflection.
4B. Assessment of Learning Outcomes
Another major problem is the lack of well designed tools in assessing thinking skills
as learning outcomes. Traditionally the assessment of student learning outcomes has been
focused on the content learnt, and students have been required to retrieve facts or
information memorized in standardized tests. However, this kind of assessment does not
reflect students thinking skills which are important skills needed not only in their studies,
but as citizens in future. Biggs (1995) points out that assessment occupies a key place in
determining quality learning outcomes. The traditional assessment practices of students
learning outcomes are outdated and they need to be changed. However, the change will
be beyond an individual teachers control because the assessment practices have often
been determined by traditional procedures and existing standards. The change will also




be complicated and it will affect all levels in the existing system of the institution. In
future the assessment of the acquisition and application of thinking skills will hopefully
be well constructed, if the teaching of thinking is to be regarded as an integral and
focused part of the school curriculum teaching. Meanwhile teachers may design their
own assessment tools or make use of the tools available (e.g. Costa, 1991).
4C. Problems with Philosophical Inquiry
Wilks (1992) reveals some problems related to using philosophical inquiry as a
teaching approach in schools. Some teachers did not value activities and discussions,
which do not appear to have a specific end, and this attitude affects their students. They
often believe that they have most of the answers, and they are used to giving answers to
students questions. Teachers may fear that philosophical discussions will lead to no
definite answers, causing their authoritative image to be undermined. This fear can be
overcome by teachers knowing the nature of philosophical discussions, which normally
have no right answers. Workshops and help by trainers in philosophical inquiry may
equip teachers with skills for leading such discussions. Marks or results are seen to be
important, particularly for the final years of secondary schooling. Traditionally,
established assessment tools for the final year of secondary schooling cannot be
changed easily without very strong evidence of faults. At present, one cannot remove
the emphasis on test scores. If the philosophical inquiry approach can be used in the
earlier years, students may acquire the desired thinking skills to manage their studies. If
teachers can experiment with the powerful approach in higher forms, they may be able
to see for themselves how students can be helped by this approach.
Students who have been successful in the traditional teaching mode may be annoyed
to see the less involved students becoming involved. These students can feel threatened
because they have been trained in the traditional mode which values only what can be
examined and tested. To solve this problem, teachers need to find ways of encouraging
all students to contribute, and to respect others opinions and styles. Skilful teachers may
use strategies to encourage active participation by all students, e.g. treat the fast talkers
equally with the others, allow a greater waiting period for a slower participant and value
the input of each group member. Mix good contributors and non-contributors together, or
group students who do not normally contribute, or group the fast thinkers (Wilks,
1992:48-75).
5. Suggestions For Implementation
On the verge of the new millennium, school leaders are pressured, from outside and
within schools, to cope with numerous changes relating to different issues. One possible
change may be towards a thinking curriculum advocated by many educators. In this
section, suggestions are given for implementation of the teaching of thinking in general
which applies to using the Philosophical Inquiry approach as well.
5A. School Administration and Leadership
Nisbet (1993) states that the changing social and economic demands of the
modern societies have obliged the school leaders to change the traditional educational
systems. The curricula are to be restructured and methods redesigned to promote and
practise thinking and reasoning within the traditional curriculum subjects. School leaders
must now aim at broader competencies than the traditional basic skills. Sternberg
(1987:255) points out the need of a comprehensive formal evaluation to show the worth
of a thinking skills program, and it may include standardised thinking skills and




intelligence tests, measures of achievement, measures of attitudes towards thinking and
learning, or measures of study habits. He believes that thinking skills instruction should
continue throughout schooling as it is for subjects like mathematics or social studies.
Psychological research reveals that the transfer of training cannot occur easily but
students need to be taught for transfer. In order to maximize transfer in a thinking skills
training program, students must learn to think flexibly, look for opportunities to transfer
their skills, and seek analogies between past and future situations. Principles and rules of
thinking must be presented in varied academic subjects. Students can be helped to see the
relevance of these principles across subjects through varied examples chosen from
different subjects, and be expected to apply these skills if they are given examples of
transfer in everyday situations. Instruction is ideally given through multiple media. Then
students may internalize what they are taught and transfer it to real life situations.
For any program to be successful, it is important to win the support of administrators
and teachers who should have a vision for what the school and its students can become.
Researchers find that effective principals target career development for some or all staff,
largely based on frequent in-class observations. Teachers are encouraged to visit each
others classes and learn from each other. A systematic development of an instructional
leadership team may carry out the functions of curriculum, instructional coordination and
supervision. This system includes the rationale, a framework, a process, a method for
assessment, and an approach to develop skills of team members. The principal is the
initiator and leader of the team and remains responsible for its performance (e.g.
Hallinger, 1989:319-29).
Paul (1994) suggests that administrators need to support teachers in the process of
teaching students critical thinking, through on-going structures and activities such as:
making and sharing video tapes, sending key personnel to conferences, establishing
working committees, informal discussion groups, and opportunities for peer review. They
need to show appreciation of teachers effort, provide time and handbooks for
professional development; and actively participate in in-service development. An
educational approach to morality is to be adopted, rather than a doctrinaire one.
Administrators and school leaders should be ready, willing, and be able to explain why
and how critical thinking and ethics are integrated throughout the curriculum. The School
Board, the community or the district should have the enthusiasm to preserve or even fight
for the ideal. Close-minded people may see morality personified in their particular moral
perspectives and beliefs, and hold on to the traditional way of teaching. Make a critical
and moral commitment to a moral and critical education for all students and do this in a
way that demonstrates to teachers and parents alike moral courage, moral perseverance,
and moral integrity (Paul, 1994:374).
5B. Curriculum Change and Action Research
Hill (1995), after wide studies in school effectiveness, reveals that school
improvement is a process and there are no simple blue-prints or recipes. The power of
information about school effectiveness acts as a catalyst for improvement and reform,
and it is increasingly recognized as a means of motivating and shaping improvement
efforts. A similar view is held by Deal (1988:202), Hopkins (1994:1-14) and Grundy
(1995:5) who state that research findings are powerful and may pave the way to reshape
the character of schools, map the process of change and improve schools. Lewis
(1985:139) reveals that in using action research, one schools attempt was highly




successful in strengthening the schools capacity in problem solving and training the staff.
There was a measurable reduction of frustration and confusion amongst colleagues,
improved communication among all parts of the school community and an increase in
innovation within the classrooms. Whether using an in-content or out-of-content program
for teaching thinking, action research may be employed to guide the process of
implementation. The research group aims at improving practical judgment in concrete
situations during the whole process. Its main usefulness is in helping the people involved
to function more intelligently and skilfully (Kemmis, 1988; Burns, 1994; and Grundy,
1995:9).
The research participants can be the Principal, the Deputy Principal, an assistant
master/mistress and any elected or voluntary teachers. A member of a school board, a
school counsellor or a district educational department official may also be involved with
the research process. The research will be designed, implemented, evaluated and finally
reported to the staff, the school board or anybody concerned. For the research group,
many questions can be asked: How resources can teachers use to help each other and the
students to be excellent thinkers? What professional development programs or workshops
are to be designed to equip teachers with skills to teach thinking? How do teachers design
instruction for different subjects and for different year levels? Any problem situations
will be diagnosed, then remedial action will be planned and implemented, and its effects
monitored. Action research procedures for the implemention of a thinking skills program
are outlined in the following. Ideas may be drawn from Burn (1994) and Kemmis (1988).
6. Conclusions And Recommendations
School leaders are challenged to lead with strong commitment, particularly in the
present turbulent educational environment, and bring successful experiences to students
in future. Many researchers and educators have worked hard to find what the most
important knowledge is for the learners, and the new ways to teach that knowledge. That
results in their advocacy for teaching students thinking skills which are assumed to
transform students to be strong thinkers, enable them to manage their studies and later
their lives in the society. The author has outlined one in-content thinking skills programs
- Philosophical Inquiry - which requires teachers to possess clear logical thinking, build a
community of inquiry in the classroom through skilful questioning, and preferably have
training in teaching children philosophy. However, teachers may feel competent and
knowledgeable enough to try out this program. The progress of implementing the
program will best be monitored by the instructional leadership team or the action research
group whose research findings will enable the teachers to see the effectiveness of the
program. Their applications will not require extra time to be scheduled in the school
time-table, nor extra textbooks for students. However, they require school administrators
and leaders to support the teachers by providing them resources, professional
development opportunities or in-service training to develop their thinking skills and
teaching strategies.
Before teachers start any thinking skills program, they may start at once individually
using techniques to develop students thinking through using simple strategies such as
thinking aloud, brainstorming, students sharing ideas and learning strategies. Teachers
may find useful references and resources for thinking skills instruction available in book
stores. They will be much supported if publishers produce materials for giving thinking
skills instruction in schools. For example, Hawker Brownlow Education in Australia, is a




well-known publisher in producing excellent resources for the teaching of thinking.
Approaching the new millennium, the school curriculum for a democratic society should
encourage individuals to develop their mind fully.

References
Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (1992). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers. 3rd. ed. New
York & London: Longman.
Baron, J . B. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). (1987). Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Beyer, B. K. (1991). What philosophy offers to the teaching of thinking. In Costa, A, (Ed.). Thinking, Vol.2.
Rev. ed. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Teaching.
Biggs, J . B. & Telfer, R. (1987). The process of learning. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall of Australia.
Biggs, J . (1995). Assessing for learning, some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational
assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XLI, (1), 1-17.
Bowden, J . A. (Ed.). (1986). Student learning: research into practice. The University of Melbourne.
Burns, R. B. (1994). Introduction to research methods. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Cam, P. (1993). Thinking Stories 1 & 2. Sydney: Hale & Ironmonger.
Costa, A. L. (Ed.). (1991). Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Rev. ed. Vol. 1.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
De Bono, E. (1991). The direct teaching of thinking in education and the CoRT method. In, Maclure, S.
(Ed.), Learning to think: thinking to learn. Pergamon Press.
De Hann, C. , McCutcheon, L. & MacColl, S. (1995). Philosophy with kids, Book 1. Melbourne: Longman.
Deal, T. E. (1988). The symbolism of effective schools. In Westoby, A. (Ed.), Culture and power in
educational organizations. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: The Open University Press.
Gredler, M. E. (1992). Learning and instruction: theory into practice. 2nd ed. Macmillan Publishing Co.
Grundy, S. (1995). Action research as professional development. Innovative Links project.
Hallinger, P. (1989). Developing instructional leadership teams in high schools. In, Reynolds, D., Creemers,
D. & Peters, T. (Eds.), School effectiveness and school improvement. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hill, P. (1995). School effectiveness and improvement. Deans lecture series. The University of Melbourne.
Hopkins, D. (1994). Towards effective school improvement. Keynote address to the international congress
for school effectiveness and school improvement. Leeuwarden Netherlands. 6 J an. 1995.
Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (1992). International encyclopaedia of education. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kauchak, D. & Eggen, P. D. (1989). Learning and teaching: research based methods. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research. In, Keeves, J . (Ed.), Educational research methodology, and
measurement.
Lewis, J . (1985). The theoretical underpinnings of school change strategies. In, Reynolds, D. (Ed.).
Studying school effectiveness (pp. 137-154). London: The Falmer Press.
Lipman, M. (Ed.). (1993) Thinking children and education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M. & Oscanyan, F. S. (Eds.). (1984). Philosphical inquiry: an instructional manual
to accompany Harry Stottlemeiers discovery. 2
nd
ed. Lanham, MD: University of America.
Lipman, M. (1985). Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children. In, Segal, J . W., Chipman, S. F. &
Glaser, R. (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills: Volume 1: relating instruction to research. London;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mulcahy, R. et al. (1993). Cognitive education project (summary project). Alberta Department of
Education. ED367682.
Nisbet, J . (1993). The thinking curriculum. Educational psychology, 13(3), 280-290.
OTuel, F. S. & Bullard, R. K. (1995). Developing higher order thinking in the content areas: K-12.
Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Paul, R. (1994). Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Victoria,
Hawker Brownlow Education.
Paul, R., Binker, A.J.A. & Weil, D. (1993). Critical thinking handbook: a guide for remodelling lesson
plans in language arts, social studies & science, up to year 3. Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Paul, R. et al. (1993). Critical thinking handbook: a guide for redesigning instruction, year 11-12. Victoria:




Hawker Brownlow Education.Prawat.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current
status. New J ersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruggiero, V. R. (1995). The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought. 4th ed. New York:
Harper Collins College Publishers.
Sharp, A. M. (1993). The community of inquiry: education for democracy. In, Lipman, M. (Ed.), Thinking
children and education, pp. 337- 345. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Splitter, L. J . & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: the classroom community of inquiry.
Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Sternberg, R. J . (1987). In, Boykoff, B. J . & Sternberg, R. J . Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice.
New York: W.H. Freeman.
Wilks, S. (1992). An evaluation of Lipmans Philosophy for Children Program. Master of Education Thesis,
University of Melbourne.
Wilks, S. (1995). Critical & creative thinking. Australia, Armadale: Eleanor Curtain.








____________________
Author

Connie Chuen Ying YU, EdD candidate, Department of Education Policy and Management,
Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne
(Received 31.5.99, accepted 5.7.99, revised 15.8.99)