Commentary on ‘Inquiry is no mere conversation’

Abstract

There is a long standing controversy in education as to whether education ought to be teacher- or student- centered. Interestingly, this controversy parallels the parent- vs. child-centered theoretical swings with regard to good parenting. One obvious difference between the two poles is the mode of communication. “Authoritarian” teaching and parenting strategies focus on the need of those who have much to learn to “do as they are told,” i.e. the authority talks, the child listens. “Non-authoritarian” strategies are anchored in the assumption that youngsters ought to be encouraged to develop their natural interests and talents and hence that it is important to allow the children to do the talking and that adults listen. Both strategies seemed flawed due to the absence of the inherent wisdom of its opposing view.This chasm can be overcome. The Community of Inquiry, a pedagogical method used in Philosophy for Children, demands a method of communication which is able to bridge this gap. A Community of Inquiry is neither teacher-centered and controlled nor student-centered and controlled, but centered on and controlled by the demands of truth. Truth is absolutely essential to this method; it is only because of progress toward truth that participants are ultimately convinced of the fruitfulness of the process. Truth, however, is a hard taskmaster; it places severe restrictions on participants and puts exacting demands on the facilitator. These inherent restrictions and demands are too often underplayed, overlooked and sometimes seemingly overtly denied (see Reed 1992a) by those who, quite correctly emphasize that ultimately this method depends on maintenance and enhancement of student autonomy. This underrating of the role of the facilitator has led to a severe undervaluing of this otherwise brilliant pedagogical method, but worse, it has left novice teacher/facilitators ill prepared to utilize this method successfully.

Child-led enquiry in primary science

“…In many ways, this is a similar role to the characteristics of a good teacher. The facilitator mediates (Lipman 2003 ), acts as a discourse guide (Mercer 2008) and co-enquirer (Gardner 1996 ). These different conceptions have in common that they highlight the need for the teacher/facilitator to create the environment for the enquiry (Palsson, Sigurdardottir, and Nelson 1999 ), to model skillful thinking (Sprod 2001 ), to focus the discussion, and to encourage deep consideration of the topic through the use of procedural questions (Gardner 1996 ).…”

“…The facilitator mediates (Lipman 2003 ), acts as a discourse guide (Mercer 2008) and co-enquirer (Gardner 1996 ). These different conceptions have in common that they highlight the need for the teacher/facilitator to create the environment for the enquiry (Palsson, Sigurdardottir, and Nelson 1999 ), to model skillful thinking (Sprod 2001 ), to focus the discussion, and to encourage deep consideration of the topic through the use of procedural questions (Gardner 1996 ). Although not referring to P4C, Bohm ( 1996 ) proposes that the ultimate role of the facilitator is to work themselves out of a job: the members of the community should end up facilitating their own enquiry.…”

teaching critical thinking and metacognitive skills through philosophical enquiry. A practitioner's report on experiments in the classroom.

“…However, it could also be because the sessions, being more evaluative, were more difficult, more demanding and required more from them intellectually. If the sessions are more evaluative and less a 'mere conversation' (Gardner 1995), then this is what we might expect and, possibly, even hope for.…”

Teachers' Epistemic Cognition in the Context of Dialogic Practice: A Question of Calibration?

“…Rather, many, if not most, dialogues may result in several reasonable conclusions. Importantly, however, the ideal of striving toward the most reasonable conclusion makes the discussion center on and being controlled by the demands of truth (Gardner, 1996(Gardner, , 2015. Thus, it is the "collective commitment Teachers' epistemic cognition 8 to move toward truth" (Gardner, 2015, p. 72) that turns the dialogue into an inquiry and makes participants eliminate less reasonable answers, even if they do not necessarily come to agree on the most reasonable one.…”