ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module · PDF fileED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools ... Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module Handbook ... Analytic Teaching

If reproducing or using in any form please reference Bath Spa University. Contributor, Darren Garside.

ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module Handbook School: Education Subject: Education and Childhood Studies Module Code & Title: ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Co-ordinator details: Dr. Darren Garside

ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module Handbook Contact information

Introduction to the module Module descriptor / Where it fits in the programme

Intended Learning outcomes: as approved Learning outcomes

Employability Transferable skills Opportunities for placements, visits, visiting speakers

Outline teaching schedule Assessment details

Tasks with assessment briefs Dates, times and places

Marking criteria for each task set/ referencing expectations Peer assessment / Seminar report

Reflective task 1 Reflective task 2 Submission format

Essay Other matters including Mitigating Circumstances and Unfair Practices

Resources Set texts, supplemental and general reading

Minerva and other online material/links Student Evaluation of the module

Method of student evaluation (paper or Minerva link) Evidence of student evaluation in previous cycle and resulting action Details of student rep system where issues can be raised


Contact information

Your module leader is Darren Garside and I can be contacted at the following locations and times:

Office Telephone: x6579 [+44 (0)1225 876579] Office: TNG.06, Newton Park Email: [email protected]

For the academic session 2014-15 I work in Education Studies on Monday to Friday but on Wednesdays and Fridays will be hard to get hold of. My email policy is to respond within 24 hours if the following conditions are met i) that I perceive the email to be urgent and ii) that the answer is not readily available from this or other student handbooks and websites. In other situations I will aim to reply within four working days.

Introduction to the module

Module descriptor / Where it fits in the programme

This module is the first of three philosophy of education modules sitting in the Philosophy, Politics and Sociology pathway of the Education and Childhood Studies degree programme. The level 4 module, ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools, is an introduction to normative enquiry in the context of schooling. The level 5 module, ED5002: Values, Philosophy and Education, clarifies the further the relationships between normative and empirical modes of enquiry in Education Studies. The level 6 module, ED6028: The Subject of Education, explores different strands of philosophy of education in the context of educational subjectivity with a particular focus on ethics.

Intended Learning outcomes: as approved

Harðarson (2012)1 has recently concluded “that a successful course of education serves purposes that cannot be completely stated in advance”. Please be aware of this as you read the following section:

Learning outcomes

1. To know about the general types and particular examples of thinking skills programmes used in UK educational settings.

2. To know about the historical, philosophical and pedagogical context of the development of P4C.

3. To understand the philosophical and linguistic features of dialogic enquiry and communities of philosophical enquiry.

1 Harðarson, A. (2012) Why the Aims of Education Cannot Be Settled, Journal of Philosophy of

Education, 46/2, 223-235


4. To analyse different programmes using criteria identified in the academic literature. 5. To analyse and reflectively evaluate the formation of and participation in a community

of philosophical enquiry.

Employability No specific measures.

Transferable skills

See above.

Opportunities for placements, visits, visiting speakers


Outline teaching schedule

Week / Session Theme Core reading Notes

1 Weeks 1-5: SAPERE form community building

Haynes

2 Fisher

3 Matthews (1994)

4 Murris (2000)

5 Splitter and Sharp

6 Self Directed Study

7 Weeks 7-11: P4C form

Lipman (2008)

8 Lipman (2002)

9 Lipman (1996)

10 McCall (2009)

11 Krohn (2004)

12 Essay Q&A

13 Group preparation Assignment 1: Essay due 17.01.14, 5pm, Turnitin only

14 Self-directed preparation time

Darren available in seminar room

15 Group facilitation 1

Set by Group 1 by 22/01



University Reading Week




18 Group facilitation 4 Set by Group 4 by 19/02

19 CoPI Cassidy (2007)

20 Socratic Dialogue

21 Other thinking skills programmes

Johnson

22 Other programmes Somerset

23 Case studies Garside (in press)

24 Assessment 2: Peer-assessed reflective commentary, in session

25 & 26

Assessment details

Tasks with assessment briefs

The assessment philosophy of this module mirrors the module’s content. At heart this module is about philosophy and critical thinking and how this type of thinking is analysed and evaluated. The community of inquiry is central to the process of inquiry and learning and it is together as a community that you will assess the quality of your and your peers’ work. Half the marks awarded for this module are from peer-assessment, moderated by tutors and the remaining half are from a tutor-marked assignment. The peer assessment component is a 2500 word reflective commentary on the process of participating in and facilitating P4C inquiries. In parts 1 & 2 of the module you will spend part of each weekly session engaged in inquiry. After the inquiry you will have opportunities to discuss the reading and to note your thoughts, reflections and observations. Eventually you will transform these notes and any additional reading, into an account of “To what extent has my understanding of P4C affected my understanding of learning and education?”. This recount will be assessed by your peers and subsequently moderated by the module leader and one other tutor. The essay component is assessed by the module leader. You must choose one title from the list enumerated later in this section. Work on the assignment


can take place throughout the year and in part 4 P4C inquiries are used to help examine in detail the underlying issues in the question.

Dates, times and places Peer assessed Seminar report: Session of 9th April 2014. Subsequent moderation by DG/ANO. Feedback: 21 May 2014 via Grademark Essay: Monday 06.01.2014, 5pm; electronic copy only, submit to TurnItIn. Feedback: Monday 27 January 2014 via Grademark

Marking criteria for each task set/ referencing expectations

Peer assessment / Seminar report This piece of assessment assesses your understanding of the following learning outcomes:




4. To analyse different programmes using criteria identified in the academic literature. 5. To analyse and reflectively evaluate the formation of and participation in a community

of philosophical enquiry.

Reflective task 1

Each week you will be preparing for the seminar, participating actively in the seminar, and following-up issues after the seminar. As you do these things you will generate evidence of your activities which you will be able to assemble into a portfolio. Examples of pieces of evidence might include

● Annotations of an article you have read ● A book review ● A prec´ıs of website you have read ● A diary or journal entry ● An exercise carried out in class ● A reflective recount of another seminar or lecture ● A written account of a personal inquiry into a topic ● A mindmap ● A Carroll diagram ● An personal reflection on a Youtube video

This is by no means an exhaustive list and I look forward to being surprised and delighted by the range of evidence submitted. There are no restrictions to the medium by which the portfolio can be made available. You may wish to present a wiki, personal website, electronic portfolio or good (old-fashioned?)


ring-binder.

Reflective task 2

Before Christmas the responsibility for organising and facilitating the inquiries will be assumed by the module leader. In those eleven weeks you will have encountered two distinct styles of P4C - Lipman’s original P4C and SAPERE’s P4C. After the Christmas break there will be six P4C inquiries organised and facilitated by small groups of 4-5 students. However, the first two weeks will be devoted to practical facilitation skills and planning your inquiry. You will need to plan and organise an inquiry that lasts for a minimum of 40 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes. The remaining time in the seminar will be facilitated by the module leader who will assume responsibility for facilitating the peer assessment of your management of the inquiry. In your groups you will need to decide on

1. What style you are going to adopt (Lipman/SAPERE) 2. Working pairs (If there is an odd number in the group then there may be one trio) 3. What pairs/trios will take responsibility for each element/stage of the inquiry 4. How you will prepare and co-ordinate your efforts 5. What resources you will use (stimulus, exercises)

Submission format

The final commentary needs to be a 2500 word piece of continuous prose (50% of the available module mark). In this you will define your terms and describe your starting position. By referring to pieces of evidence from task 1, included as appendices at the end of your commentary, you will address the question: To what extent has my knowledge and understanding of P4C affected my position on learning and education?

Essay The first assessment component is a written essay. The essay assesses your understanding of the following learning outcomes:




4. To analyse different programmes using criteria identified in the academic literature. The written essay is worth 50% of the module mark which is equivalent to 2500 words. There is a tolerance of 10% on the word limit which gives an effective range of 2250-2750 words. Please consult the Education Studies Student Handbook for further details on what is/is not included in the word


limit. You must choose one of the following two titles:

1. Analyse and evaluate similarities and differences between P4C and contemporary educational practice.

2. What is the educational worth of P4C practice? Books under 370.1 classmark in library. Journal of Philosophy of Education Studies in Philosophy of Education Educational Philosophy and Theory Education and Ethics Education Theory Childhood & Philosophy http://www.periodicos.proped.pro.br/index.php/childhood/index Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Practice http://www.viterbo.edu/atpp/ Thinking http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc/thinking/ (Contact me for articles)

Other matters including Mitigating Circumstances and Unfair Practices

In the first instance please refer to the Education and Childhood Studies Subject handbook and then to the Undergraduate Modular Scheme handbook.

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/services/academic-office/quality-and-standards/student%20handbooks/Education%20Studies.pdf http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/services/student-services/current-students/your-course/guide-for-students-course-of-study/2011_12%20Modular%20Scheme%20Guide%20for%20StudentsDec2011revised.pdf

Unfair practice

· All assessed work will normally be submitted electronically, and is checked via the

online Turnitin system for evidence of plagiarism. Plagiarism involves the copying of

someone else’s work and passing it off as if it were your own. Students should be in no

doubt that plagiarism is CHEATING, and is a very serious offence in higher

education. Plagiarism will result in a penalty even when it is unintended or unwitting.

Full information of the university policy and penalties related to unfair practices is in

the Guide to the Modular Scheme available online at · http://www2.bathspa.ac.uk/services/student-services/current-students/your-

course/guide-for-students-course-of-study/default.asp

http://www.periodicos.proped.pro.br/index.php/childhood/index

http://www.viterbo.edu/atpp/

http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc/thinking/

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/services/academic-office/quality-and-standards/student%20handbooks/Education%20Studies.pdf

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/services/academic-office/quality-and-standards/student%20handbooks/Education%20Studies.pdf

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/services/student-services/current-students/your-course/guide-for-students-course-of-study/2011_12%20Modular%20Scheme%20Guide%20for%20StudentsDec2011revised.pdf





· Late submission of work · Please note that the submission dates given in this Handbook must be adhered to. Late

work received within one week of the submission date will normally receive a

maximum mark of 40%. If you do not meet this cut-off date you risk failing the

assessment item. See the Education Studies student handbook for information about

extension requests, late submission procedures, claiming mitigating circumstances and

penalties for late submission. If you have medical reasons for late submission then a

doctor’s certificate must be provided to the Student Programmes Office.

Resubmission of failed tasks – requirements for August

· You will be notified of your final mark for the module at the end of the year via the

student portal. If you gain less than 35% in any of the above tasks you will need to

resubmit and pass it before completing level 4 (year one). Work marked between 35

and 39%, although failed, may be compensated by other work for the module that has

passed. Talk to your tutor if you are not sure about the implications for a failed piece

of work. It is your responsibility to understand course regulations and requirements. A

final resubmission date for all tasks will be set for August – again see the student

portal for the exact date.

If you had a claim for mitigating circumstances accepted for this assessment item,

then you may submit the initial assessment task and not the one detailed above. If

you are in any doubt please email [email protected]

Resources

Set texts, supplemental and general reading

Following a peer-review process in 2011-12 I have decided to organise reading material into three categories. Core readings are essential and must be read in preparation for the weekly seminar. Familiarity with core readings are a necessary but not sufficient condition for successfully passing the course assessments. Supplemental readings can serve many functions such as exploring specific arguments, providing more detail on philosophers, movements and concepts, helping make links to other parts of the degree programme. Drawing on supplemental readings is a necessary but not a sufficient condition in order to achieve the higher mark bands. General readings are suggestions that are loosely related to the module and degree programme and an understanding of which allows for a more sophisticated and informed position to be taken on many matters. This is a ‘barebones’ handbook. The following URL links to the Philosophy of Education annotated bibliography. Comments are enabled and you are welcome to comment on the document for whatever reasons such as accuracy, suggestions, etc. https://docs.google.com/a/bathspa.ac.uk/open?id=0Bw7A58IFo7-FNWRzNExvTTVXUkU Update [03/12/12]: The bibliography is taking longer to produce than anticipated. Please refer

mailto:[email protected]

https://docs.google.com/a/bathspa.ac.uk/open?id=0Bw7A58IFo7-FNWRzNExvTTVXUkU


instead to the following list. Articles from ‘Thinking’ can be obtained by applying to me directly since the library is unlikely to stock them.

Articles from ‘Thinking’

Boyum, S., 2004. Philosophical Experience in Childhood. Thinking, 17(3), pp.4–12.

Brenifer, O., 2003. How to Avoid Children’s Questions. Thinking, 16(4), pp.29–32.

Buenaseda-Saludo, M., 2003. Cultivating Social Imagination in the Community of Inquiry.

Thinking, 16(3), pp.36–41.

Butnor, A., 2004. Bringing P4C Into the Undergraduate Classroom. Thinking, 17(1/2),

pp.65–68.

Cane, M., 2003. Group Roles in Community of Inquiry. Thinking, 16(3), pp.12–16.

Carter, F.-C., 2006. Developing Communities of Inquiry in the Secondary School Creative

Arts Classroom. Thinking, 18(1), pp.40–46.

Cassidy, C., 2004. Children: Animals or Persons? Thinking, 17(3), pp.13–16.

Colbeck, J., 2003. Children Under Power: Philosophers as Children. Thinking, 16(4), pp.22–

28.

Collins, L., 2001. Philosophy for Children and Feminist Philosophy. Thinking, 15(4), pp.20–

30.

Coppens, S., 1999. Some Ideological Biases of the Philosophy for Children Curriculum: An

Analysis of Mark and Social Inquiry. Thinking, 14(3), pp.25–32.

Curren, R., 1996. In Their Best Interest? Thinking, 12(4), pp.44–45.

Dunne, J., 1998. To Begin in Wonder: Children and Philosophy. Thinking, 14(2), pp.9–17.

Fresquet, A. & Maciel, D., 1999. Some Reflections on Philosophy for Children from a Co-

constructivist Perspective. Thinking, 14(3), pp.11–19.

Friquegnon, M.-L.L., 1997. What is a child? Thinking, 13(1), pp.12–16.

Garcia-moriyon, F., Rebollo, I. & Colom, R., 2003. Evaluating Philosophy for Children : A

Meta-Analysis. Thinking, 17(4), pp.14–22.

Gazzard, A., 1996. Philosophy for Children and the Discipline of Philosophy. Thinking, 12(4),

pp.9–16.

Gregory, M., 2002. Are Philosophy and Children Good for Each Other? Thinking, 16(2),

pp.9–11.

Guin, P., 2004. The Political & Social Ends of Philosophy. Thinking, 17(3), pp.41–47.

Havas, K.G. & Hayas, K.G., 1997. Children and Philosophy. Thinking, 13(3), p.26.

Hurtado, A. & Adam, A.H., 2006. Philosophy for Children in Teaching. Thinking, 18(2), pp.8–

12.

JO, S.-H., 2002. Imagination in Community of Inquiry. Thinking, 16(2), pp.39–43.

John Niklasson, Ragnar Ohlsson, M.R. et al., 1996. Evaluating Philosophy for Children.

Thinking, 12(4), pp.17–23.

Junjie, L. (tr. A.C.A.J.Y., 2004. America’s Philosophy for Children Teaching Method and the

Development of Children’s Character. Thinking, 17(1/2), pp.40–42.


Juuso, H., 1999. Ancient Paideia and Philosophy for Children. Thinking, 14(4), pp.9–20 %!

Anent Pade.

Kennedy, D., 1998. Reconstructing Childhood. Thinking, 14(1), pp.29–37. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/816470?origin=crossref.

Kodrat’Ev, I.A., 1998. Philosophy and Philosophy for Children. Thinking, 13(4), pp.20–22.

Kohan, W., 2002. Education, Philosophy And Childhood: The Need To Think An Encounter.

Thinking, 16(1), pp.4–11.

Kohan, W., 2004. Is it Possible to Think? A Response to Phillip Guin. Thinking, 17(3), pp.47–

51.

Kohan, W., 1999. What Can Philosophy and Children Offer Each Other? Thinking, 14(4).

Laverty, M., 2002. Philosophy for Children and The Consolation of Philosophy? Thinking,

16(2), pp.14–17.

Lee, J.-A.A., 2003. The Triadic Relationship in Thinking For Oneself. Thinking, 16(4), pp.13–

21.

Lipman, M., 1998. On Children’s Philosophical Style. Thinking, 14(2), pp.2–7.

Lipman, M., 2002. Where To P4C? Thinking, 16(2), pp.12–13.

Lukey, B., 2004. Rethinking Dialogue: Refelctions on P4C with Autistic Chilren. Thinking,

17(1/2), pp.24–29.

Lushyn, P. & Kennedy, D., 2000. The Psychodynamics of Community of Inquiry and

Educational Reform: a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Thinking, 15(3), pp.9–16.

Maktsuoka, C., 2004. Mindful habits & P4C: Cultivating Thinking & Problem-Solving in

Children. Thinking, 17(1/2), pp.54–55.

Margolis, A.A., 1998. The Philosophy for Children Program. Thinking, 13(4), pp.2–4.

McRae, J., 2004. Scratching Beneath the Phenomena P4C as the Practice of Comparative

Philosophy. Thinking, 17(1/2), pp.30–36.

Murris, K., 2000. The Role of the Facilitator in Philosophical Inquiry. Thinking, 15(2), pp.40–

46.

Power, N.P., 1999. Meno Stottlemeier: Linking Socratic Methods with Socratic Contents.

Thinking, 14(3), pp.20–23.

Reed, R., 1998. Philosophy and Children: A Perspective on the UNESCO Meeting. Thinking,

14(1), pp.38–45.

Reznitskaya, A., 2005. Empirical Research in Philosophy for Children: Limitations and New

Directions. Thinking, 17(4), pp.4–13.

Ronhuis, T. & Rondhuis, T., 2007. Philosophical Quality of Children’s Thinking Patterns.

Thinking, 18(3), pp.16–22.

RORTY, A.O., 2002. Socrates and Sophia Perform the Philosophic Turn. Thinking, 16(2),

pp.18–24.

Saenz, C.L. & Carmen Lopez Saenz, 2000. The Child, the School, and Philosophy: A

Phenomenological Reflection. Thinking, 15(2), pp.34–39.

Schertz, M., 2006. Empathy, Intersubjectivity, and the creation of the Relational Subject.


Thinking, 18(1), pp.22–30.

Scolnicov, S., 2000. The Problematic Community of Inquiry: The Socrates and Kant of

Lipman and Dewey(FN1). Thinking, 15(3), pp.41–45.

Shapiro, T., 2001. What is a Child? Thinking, 15(4), pp.4–15.

SIGURDARDoTTIR, B., 2002. Imagination. Thinking, 16(2), pp.34–38.

Trickey, S. & Topping, K.J., 2007. Collaborative Philosophical Enquiry for School Children:

Participant Evaluation at Eleven Years. Thinking, 18(3), pp.23–34.

Turgeon, W.C., 1998. Metaphysical Horizons of Philosophy for Children: A Survey of Recent

Discussions Within the Philosophy for Children Community. Thinking, 14(2), pp.18–22.

Velasco A., M. & Velasco, M., 2006. Some Challenges in Building a Community of Inquiry.

Thinking, 18(2), pp.24–25.

Wartenberg, T., 2007. Review: The Well of Being: Childhood Subjectivity and Education.

Thinking, 18(3), pp.1–3.

Yulina, N.S., 1998. Teaching People How to Reason: The Philosophical Strategy of

Philosophy for Children. Thinking, 13(4), pp.8–19.

General articles

Anon, 2007a. 70 outstanding picture-book stimuli for P4C enquiries. Gifted Education

International, 22(2/3), pp.266–268. Available at:

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24511836&site=ehost-

live DP - EBSCOhost DB - ehh.

Anon, 2007b. Frontispiece. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.118–119. Available

at:



Astroh, M. & Read, S. eds., 1998. Proceedings of the conference HUGH MACCOLL AND THE

TRADITION OF LOGIC. In HUGH MACCOLL AND THE TRADITION OF LOGIC. Ernst-Moritz-

Arndt-Universit•at Greifswald: Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic. Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.62.4830&rep=rep1&type=pdf#

page=129.

Barnes, D., 2008. Exploratory Talk for Learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson, eds.

Exploring Talk in Schools. London: Sage, pp. 1–15.

Barrow, R. & Woods, R., 2006. Curriculum Theory. In An Introduction to Philosophy of

Education. London: Routledge, pp. 58–69. Available at:

http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk.

Barrow, W., 2010. Dialogic, participation and the potential for Philosophy for Children.

Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(2), pp.61–69. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.01.002 [Accessed March 8, 2011].


Cam, P., 1995. Selecting Story Material. In Thinking Together: Philosophical Inquiry for the

Classroom. Primary English Teaching Association AND Hale & Iremonger, pp. 23–33.

Carr, D., 2000. Teaching and Education. In Professionalism and ethics in teaching. London:

Routledge, pp. 3–20. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19933889.

Daniel, M.-F., 2007. epistemological and educational presuppositions of P4C: from critical

dialogue to dialogical critical thinking. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.135–147.

Available at:



Daniel, M.-F. et al., 1999. Philosophical Reflection and Cooperative Practices in an

Elementary School Mathematics Classroom. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue

canadienne de l’éducation, 24(4), pp.426–440. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585896?origin=crossref.

Echeverria, E., 2007. children and philosophy: is this possible? Gifted Education




Fisher, R., 2007. dancing minds: the use of socratic and menippean dialogue in

philosophical enquiry. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.148–159. Available at:



Fisher, R., 2008. Philosophical Intelligence: Why Philosophical Dialogue is Important in

Educating the Mind. In M. Hand & C. Winstanley, eds. Philosophy in Schools. London:

Continuum, pp. 96–104.

Fisher, R., 1995. Philosophy for Children. In Teaching Children to Think. Stanley Thornes,

pp. 155–183.

Fisher, R., 2003. Philosophy in the Classroom: Reviewing and assessing progress. In

Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. London: Continuum, pp. 169–

201.

Glaser, J., 2007. the need for recognition: P4C as a response to Simister’s “bright girls who

fail”. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.218–228. Available at:



Gregory, M.R., 2007. normative dialogue types in philosophy for children. Gifted Education




Hand, M., 2008. Can Children be Taught Philosophy? In M. Hand & C. Winstanley, eds.

Philosophy in Schools. London: Continuum, pp. 3–17.

Haynes, J., 2008. A distinctive approach to thinking through dialogue. In Children as


Philosophers: Learning through enquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom. London:

Routledge, pp. 27–38.

Haynes, J., 2007. freedom and the urge to think in philosophy with children. Gifted

Education International, 22(2/3), pp.229–237. Available at:



Johnson, S., 2001. Teaching Thinking Skills C. Winch & R. Smith, eds., London: Philosophy of

Education Society of Great Britain.

Krohn, D., 2004. Theory and Practice of Socratic Dialogue. In R. Saran & B. Neisser, eds.

Enquiring Minds: Socratic Dialogue in Education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books, pp. 15–

23.

Lipman, M., 2003a. Approaches in Teaching for Thinking. In Thinking in Education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–63. Available at:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1005(199205)40:2<187:TIE>2.0.CO;2-

Q&origin=crossref.

Lipman, M., 2003b. Obstacles and Misconceptions in Teaching for Thinking. In Thinking in

Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 187. Available at:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1005(199205)40:2<187:TIE>2.0.CO;2-

Q&origin=crossref.

Lipman, M., 2008. The New Jersey Experiment Begins. In A Life Teaching Thinking.

Monclair, New jersey: IAPC, pp. 106–120.

Lipman, M., 2003c. Thinking in Education 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M., Sharp, Ann Margaret & Oscanyan, F.S., 1984. Philosophical Inquiry: An

Instructional Manual to Accompany Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. In M. Lipman, Ann

Margaret Sharp, & F. S. Oscanyan, eds. New York. New York: University Press of America.

Lipman, M., Sharp, Ann Margaret & Oscanyan, F.S., 1980. The Philosophy for Children

Curriculum. In Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 51–

81.

Matthews, G.B., 1994. Theories and Models of Childhood. In The Philosophy of Childhood.

London: Harvard University Press, pp. 19–29.

Maxwell, N., 2007. philosophy seminars for five-year-olds. Gifted Education International,

22(2/3), pp.122–127. Available at:



McCall, C.C., 2009a. Different methods of group philosophical discussion. In C. C. McCall,

ed. Transforming Thinking: Philosophical Inquiry in the primary and secondary classroom.

London: Routledge, pp. 93–112.

McCall, C.C., 2009b. Transforming Thinking: Philosophical Inquiry in the primary and

secondary classroom, London: Routledge.

Moseley et al, 2005a. Biggs and Collis’ SOLO taxonomy. In D. Moseley et al., eds.


Frameworks for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 85–90.

Moseley et al, 2005b. De Bono’s lateral and parallel thinking tools. In D. Moseley et al., eds.

Frameworks for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 133–140. Available at:

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511489914.

Murris, K., 2000. Can Children Do Philosophy ? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(2),

pp.261–279. Available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-

9752.00172.

Nelson, L. & Redfield, J.M., 1993. The Socratic Method / Platonic Education. In M. Lipman,

Ann Margaret Sharp, & F. S. Oscanyan, eds. Thinking Children and Education. Duberque,

Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp. 435–467. Available at:

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1300/J111v23n03_08&mag

ic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3.

Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T., 2002. Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary

Contexts : a conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), pp.405–417.

Nussbaum, M., 1993. Philosophical Books vs. Philosophical Dialogue. In M. Lipman, ed.

Thinking Children and Education. Duberque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp.

298–300.

Ord, W., 2007. dear teacher, where are we going? Gifted Education International, 22(2/3),

pp.238–247. Available at:



Pring, R., 2004. Subject-centred versus child-centred education - a false dualism. In

Philosophy of Education: Aims, Theory, Common Sense and Research. London: Continuum,

pp. 80–98.

Quinn, V., 1997. Introduction. In Critical Thinking in Young Minds. London: David Fulton

Publishers.

Sharp, A.-M., 2007. education of the emotions in the classroom community of inquiry.

Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.248–257. Available at:



Sherman), L. (nee, 1993. Is It Possible To Teach Socratically. In M. Lipman, ed. Thinking

Children and Education. Duberque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp. 444–456.

Splitter, L.J., 2007. delving ever deeper: gifted students and philosophy. Gifted Education




Splitter, L.J. & Sharp, Ann M, 1995. The Practice of Philosophy in the Classroom. In

Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne: Acer, pp.


126–163.

Stanley, S., 2007. a skills based approach to P4C - philosophy: fairy tales and the

foundation stage. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.172–181. Available at:



Staricoff, M., 2007. here comes philosophy man: philosophising the primary school

curriculum. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.182–191. Available at:



Trickey, S & Topping, K.J., 2007. Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’

interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18(3), pp.73–84. Available at:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S187118710700020X.

Trickey, S. & Topping, K.J., 2004. “Philosophy for children”: a systematic review. Research

Papers in Education, 19(3), pp.365–380. Available at:

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/02671520420002480

16&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3.

Trickey, Steve, 2007. an evaluation of philosophical enquiry: a process for achieving the

future curriculum? Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.258–265. Available at:



Turgeon, W., 2007. philosophical adventures: thinking along with beowulf. Gifted

Education International, 22(2/3), pp.192–206. Available at:



Wallace, B. & Hymer, B., 2007. editorial. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), pp.120–

121. Available at:



Winstanley, C., 2008. Philosophy and the Development of Critical Thinking. In M. Hand & C.

Winstanley, eds. Philosophy in Schools. Continuum, pp. 85–95.

Other Journals

http://www.viterbo.edu/analyticteaching.aspx?id=45074 http://fapsa.org.au/resources/journal/ http://www.periodicos.proped.pro.br/index.php?journal=childhood

Philosophy of Education Bibliography Useful journals for this field are: Journal of Philosophy of education

http://www.viterbo.edu/analyticteaching.aspx?id=45074

http://fapsa.org.au/resources/journal/

http://www.periodicos.proped.pro.br/index.php?journal=childhood


Studies in philosophy and education Education Theory Ethics and education Educational Philosophy and Theory Theory and Research in Education Core textbooks in the library include (caveat - anything in library under 370.1 is likely to be analytical philosophy of education only):

Bailey, R., 2010a. The philosophy of education : an introduction / edited by Richard Bailey., London : Continuum, 2010. Bailey, R., 2010b. The SAGE handbook of philosophy of education / edited by Richard Bailey ... [et al.]., Los Angeles, Calif. ; London : SAGE, 2010. Barrow, R. & Woods, R.G., 2006. An introduction to philosophy of education [electronic resource] / Robin Barrow and Ronald Woods., London : Routledge, 2006. Blake, N., 2003. The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education [electronic resource] / edited by Nigel Blake ... [et al.]., Oxford : Blackwell, 2003. Carr, W., 2005. The RoutledgeFalmer reader in philosophy of education / edited by Wilfred Carr., London : Routledge, 2005. Curren, R.R., 2003. A companion to the philosophy of education [electronic resource] / edited by Randall Curren., Malden, MA. : Blackwell, 2003. Pring, R., 2005. Philosophy of education : aims, theory, common sense and research [electronic resource] / Richard Pring., London : Continuum, 2005. Siegel, H., 2009. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of education / edited by Harvey Siegel., Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2009. Stables, A., 2011. Childhood and the philosophy of education : an anti-Aristotelian perspective / Andrew Stables., London : Continuum, 2011.

Minerva and other online material/links Additional resources will be uploaded to Minerva in due course.

Student Evaluation of the module

Method of student evaluation (paper or Minerva link)

Towards the end of the year there will be posted a link in Minerva to a module evaluation questionnaire. The nature of the module is such that there is a continuous and open dialogue concerning student needs and formative evaluations.

Evidence of student evaluation in previous cycle and resulting action

I did enjoy this module a fair amount although I found it rather challenging at times, I believe it has helped me a lot in many different aspects such as thinking and communication skills.

Thouroughly enjoyed the module. Has helped me considerably when evaluating what I have


learnt throughout the past year and, most importantly during assessments as I have used the methods in which the class has been conducted to evaluate my opinions surrounding particular topics. Would recommend to future students!

Very enjoyable, useful and intellectually stimulating module, made me look at things from new and intrigueing perspectives that will definitely help in later life. Darren is a top class tutor.

I felt that this module was not suited to me and I would not choose it if given the chance again. I can see how some people may prefer this style of learning but I believe I am more suited to a traditional method. My attendance was not good throughout and I think that this was partly due to the fact that I felt my other modules were 'more important'. If I had any work to do in other areas I would preference them over this class. Although I know this is not good practice I felt that this module was no real use to me and would prioritize any other work above it.

I would recomend this module to anyone who is looking at going into teaching as philosophy for children may be of interest. I am not sure it is of much use to anyone who dose not.

I found that the weekly reading was useful in understanding the ideas in the module and it was good to go over it in class. The readings also made clear why the class was set up the way it is and the reasons we were doing certain tasks. The assessments were not always clear and there seemed to be confusion with many of the students about what was being asked of us.

I did enjoy the discussions and debating in class and I think that it has made me more aware of what I say and how I should always exaplain my ideas.

Details of student rep system where issues can be raised

Each year ECS identifies course reps with whom issues can be raised and who will make representations if appropriate.

If you have any concerns about the module, please speak to your seminar tutor, who you should find approachable and happy to listen, or contact the module leader. Alternatively, your student academic representatives (STAR) will be identified at the start of the academic year and you can ask them to speak on your behalf. There will be termly Education Studies staff-student liaison meetings where matters can be discussed and reconciled. STARs will also represent student views at meetings organized by the Students’ Union. One of your representatives will also sit on the Education School Board – they will be able to raise any matter of serious concern to senior staff in this forum.

Documents

ED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module · PDF fileED4006: Philosophy and Thinking in Schools ... Philosophy and Thinking in Schools Module Handbook ... Analytic Teaching