View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Philosophy for Children Approach to Professional Development of Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Philosophy for Children Approach to Professional Development of Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Lam, Chi-Ming (ORCID 0000-0002-5902-2891)
Source: Cambridge Journal of Education. 2023 53(1):1-17.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Dialogs (Language), Teaching Methods, Inquiry, Program Effectiveness, Faculty Development, Foreign Countries, Inservice Teacher Education, Philosophy, Teacher Attitudes, Integrated Activities
Geographic Terms: Hong Kong
DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2022.2056143
ISSN: 0305-764X
1469-3577
Abstract: Dialogic teaching has been demonstrated to be conducive to the development of important competencies and skills such as creativity, communication skills and critical thinking skills. Yet, the literature confirms that teacher--student interactions in the classroom are predominantly monologic rather than dialogic across subjects, grades and countries. This article reports the results of a study that evaluates the effectiveness of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme in facilitating the development of dialogic and inquiry teaching in teachers in Hong Kong. In the study, training and support were provided for teachers to enable them to teach P4C to their students during Integrated Humanities and English lessons. P4C was found to help enhance the teachers' effectiveness in the classroom in terms of their ability to engage in dialogic and inquiry teaching. The findings of this study suggest that P4C plays a significant role in promoting the professional development of teachers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1376831
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGneHamfG2WBrHrAFIiZS1zAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPjfp_NdRhWe-SylbAIBEICBmjEvK_ZXhiGaSWyrq2-2nXoPEUCkYiFOtmdQSxiePQLqeyX2Dvj1b0apgCVcbvGxCFaq6gKYmDOAKt6-FxfUeax0a5s-SipXcbU9GyPcpPCc4IReksMbfFZFl_Tv5ryJcEUeySrnJQiGzVqL6CdfZB7sd35f_Xs3ubbM_M_akFNtBRq61O1LkPFTTGY2MQka6NPx-NIzG4kHkzU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161688012;caj01feb.23;2023Feb07.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161688012-1">A philosophy for children approach to professional development of teachers </title> <p>Dialogic teaching has been demonstrated to be conducive to the development of important competencies and skills such as creativity, communication skills and critical thinking skills. Yet, the literature confirms that teacher–student interactions in the classroom are predominantly monologic rather than dialogic across subjects, grades and countries. This article reports the results of a study that evaluates the effectiveness of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme in facilitating the development of dialogic and inquiry teaching in teachers in Hong Kong. In the study, training and support were provided for teachers to enable them to teach P4C to their students during Integrated Humanities and English lessons. P4C was found to help enhance the teachers' effectiveness in the classroom in terms of their ability to engage in dialogic and inquiry teaching. The findings of this study suggest that P4C plays a significant role in promoting the professional development of teachers.</p> <p>Keywords: Philosophy for Children; teachers' professional development; dialogic and inquiry teaching; teachers' attitude; Hong Kong</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Ample evidence demonstrates that dialogic teaching is conducive to the achievement of desirable learning outcomes, including deeper understanding of concepts, better reasoning in new contexts, enhanced inferential comprehension of texts, and improved quality of argumentative writing (Reznitskaya, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]). These learning outcomes are in line with the competencies and skills widely recognised as essential for students to succeed in the twenty-first century, especially critical thinking skills, communication skills and creativity (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]). However, the literature confirms that teacher–student interactions in the classroom are predominantly monologic across subjects, grades and countries: while monologic interactions emphasise imposing the teacher's dominant voice on students, dialogic interactions are characterised by the teacher's non-manipulation of students and co-creation of meaning with them (Kathard, Pillay, & Pillay, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). For example, English teachers have been found to impose tight control over the content and direction of classroom interactions by adhering to their regimented lesson plans, evaluating students' responses in matters of opinion, and elaborating on students' contributions whenever possible (Xie, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]). Science teachers have been found to prefer monologic discourse in their teaching due to some factors like having little knowledge of argumentation strategies, viewing legitimate science as value-free, and fearing losing control over the class (Kilinc, Demiral, & Kartal, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]). A major reason behind the preference of teachers across contexts for monologic over dialogic teaching is that they are under pressure to complete the prescribed syllabus and thus have no time to engage in dialogue (Kathard et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]). The problem is that monologic teaching, which usually uses the IRE pattern of interaction that involves teacher initiation (I), student response (R) and teacher evaluation (E), does not facilitate the development of the twenty-first-century competencies and skills (Li, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Means and standard deviations of participants' responses to likert-scaled attitudinal statements in workshop A.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Statement<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>3.58</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>4.00</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3.92</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4.33</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3.58</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2.83</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3.50</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>4.17</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>3.58</td><td>1.08</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. The questionnaire return rate was 100% (n = 12).</p> <p>2 <sups>a</sups>The response rate for each statement was 100%.</p> <p>Table 2. Means and standard deviations of participants' responses to likert-scaled attitudinal statements in workshop B.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Statement<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>4.60</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>4.60</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>4.80</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4.80</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>4.40</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>3.80</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>4.80</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>4.20</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>4.00</td><td>0.71</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Note. The questionnaire return rate was 100% (n = 5).</item> <item>4 <sups>a</sups>The response rate for each statement was 100%.</item> </ulist> <p>Education in Hong Kong reflects this global trend towards monologic teaching (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]). As far as language education is concerned, although teachers have an effective framework for teaching literacy, they often lack a systematic framework for developing thinking. As a result, most students 'have learnt to read the lines, but they are less good at reading between the lines or beyond the lines' (Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>], p. 69). The situation is aggravated by teachers who cling to an individualistic mode of learning and thinking, treating students as isolated learners and downplaying the importance of thinking as an essentially collaborative activity (Splitter, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref10">35</reflink>]). By way of illustration, local English language teachers were found to constantly deprive their students of the opportunity for critical thinking and creativity, in that they employed such ineffective questioning techniques as asking mostly lower-order questions and waiting only a short time, and a product-centred pedagogy which disregarded originality and self-expression in writing, respectively (Mok, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]). Indeed, similar findings were reported in annual inspections, say for 2009/10 and 2017/18, of local schools for teachers of different subjects apart from English language: 'It is not common for teachers to probe or seek to extend students' responses or raise a range of questions to stimulate in-depth thinking' (Education Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>], p. 34) and 'The learning activities provided in some schools do not ... sufficiently promote enquiry-based learning, giving little room for students to exercise their creativity' (Education Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>], p. 29), respectively.</p> <p>This article reports a study of the impact of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme on secondary teachers in Hong Kong. The purpose of the study was to determine to what extent a P4C programme facilitates the development of dialogic and inquiry teaching in teachers. The contribution of P4C to such development lies in its use of <emph>community of inquiry</emph> as methodology of teaching. A community of inquiry creates a supportive classroom community where students learn to explore issues of personal concern and lively controversy, to develop their own ideas yet examine and challenge the ideas of others, to make thoughtful judgements based on reasons, and to respect and listen to one another (Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). To do so, teachers need to adopt inquiry-oriented strategies in P4C classes. Depending on whether teachers prioritise enabling students to learn to inquire for themselves or to always get the 'right' answers, they can either take an inquiry-educating approach that allows students to co-inquire with their teachers even at the expense of reaching 'wrong' answers or an outcome-leading approach that expects students to follow the path of inquiry decided by their teachers (Golding, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]). A preference for the former requires teachers to be willing to relearn with what Zen Buddhism calls a 'beginner's mind' (<emph>shoshin</emph> 初心) and thus to inquire with their students with an attitude of openness and eagerness without attempting to lead them to their preconceived ideas and arguments. In a similar vein, Haynes and Murris ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]) argue that inquiry teachers should act like a stingray that paralyses not only others but itself, allowing themselves to be as perplexed as students, being willing to experiment and play with new ideas, and opening up a space for fulfilling their role as a co-inquirer. An effective means of achieving inquiry teaching is through questioning. On the one hand, teachers can use Cam's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]) Question Quadrant to teach students how to formulate philosophical questions which are central to philosophical inquiry. On the other, they should use open procedural questions – e.g. 'Can you explain what you mean?', 'How do you know?', 'Can you give an example/counter-example?' and 'How is that relevant to what we are discussing here?' – to invite further inquiry into the claims and questions made by students so as to scaffold and challenge them (Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the following discussion, I first review the literature, present the questions and describe the significance of the present study. I then elaborate on its participants, instruments, design and procedure one by one. Finally, I analyse the results of this study, derive conclusions from them, and make suggestions for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-3">Review of related literature</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-4">P4C's effects on teachers</hd> <p>There is growing recognition of the positive impact of P4C not only on students, but also on teachers. More precisely, P4C can have a significant effect on teachers' perception of students, development of reflection and improvement of pedagogy. First, P4C training can influence the expectations of pre-service and in-service teachers about what students are capable of, challenging their assumptions about the levels of thinking students are able to reach and their ways of categorising students according to performance in academic subjects (Prescott, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]). For example, Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]) found that P4C enabled teachers to gain insights into students' abilities to use imagination, express personal opinions and be critical in a respectful way; Jenkins and Lyle ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]) have shown that P4C allows students with poor results on standardised tests to demonstrate their capability of using higher-order thinking and language skills usually possessed by highly literate people, forcing the teacher to reassess the ability of students and to question the results of such tests as a reliable indicator of their capacity.</p> <p>Then, with regard to the development of reflection or reflective thinking in teachers, evidence is accumulating that it can be fostered by such thinking skills programmes as P4C (Haynes, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]). Indeed, it has been revealed that P4C training provides an opportunity for teachers to think reflectively about key educational concepts like teaching, learning, knowledge and reflection. Perhaps more importantly, P4C has the advantage of being able to develop teachers' dispositions for reflection, to which the approaches commonly adopted by teacher educators (e.g. reflective logs and journals) do not pay much attention (Demissie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]). The reasons for this advantage are twofold: first, P4C is underpinned by four dimensions of thinking that facilitate reflection, viz. critical, creative, caring and collaborative thinking; and, second, P4C establishes ground rules that create a safe space for reflection, e.g. respecting others' views and confidentiality. A study by Green, Condy, and Chigona ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]), by way of illustration, found that P4C empowered pre-service teachers to develop and use metacognitive awareness – the ability to think about their own thinking.</p> <p>Finally, recent evidence emerged that P4C can benefit teachers' learning and improve their teaching. According to Demissie ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]), P4C can challenge and enhance teachers' pedagogical orientations towards student-centred and inquiry-based approaches, changing the way they question students, listen to students' responses and use collaboration in the classroom. As far as questioning is concerned, while teacher questioning has been identified in inspection reports for a long time as a weakness in the classroom (Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]), research has shown that teachers increase the use of open-ended questions during collaborative philosophical inquiry (Topping & Trickey, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]). The influence of P4C on the improvement of teachers' pedagogy can be attributed to some primary internal goods in P4C pedagogy (Välitalo, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]): one of them is the doing of philosophy which 'calls for a willingness to take the risk of preparing for the unexpected and throwing oneself into a state [of] ignorance. This enables more authentic exploration of meanings, connections, and relationships between ideas stemming from the dialogue' (p. 279). Another is the practice of questioning which 'works in both intra- and inter-subjective modes of being ... as a permanent (dis)order of collective and individual habit ... a quest for truth ... a quest for meaning' (p. 282). This partly explains the results of Scholl, Nichols, and Burgh ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]), who, after a review of six studies on teachers, found that collaborative philosophical inquiry transformed pedagogical style, promoted higher-order thinking, developed attentive listening, and increased self-awareness, self-knowledge and self-esteem.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-5">P4C's implementation in schools</hd> <p>Although the adoption of P4C has grown steadily in schools across the world in the past few decades in terms of informal philosophy programmes that are offered as supplementary or extra-curricular activities, the vast majority of children in North America, Europe and Australasia have no statutory or established entitlement to formal philosophy programmes during the primary and lower secondary school years that form part of the prescribed local or national curriculum (Hand & Winstanley, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]). The difficulty of formalising philosophy programmes in schools lies in the fact that teachers are being judged by how well they deliver the curriculum and achieve its learning objectives, and that most teachers have little or no experience of philosophical inquiry, whether formal or informal, in their own education (Lewis & Sutcliffe, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]). The latter fact explains the resistance or at least hesitation of Matthew Lipman, founder of the P4C programme, to the development of new resources and practices in the 1990s to replace his 'carefully structured curriculum for teachers without an academic background in philosophy .... Without such curriculum support, it is very unlikely that teachers will teach "proper" philosophy' (Murris, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>], p. 64).</p> <p>Such difficulty also exists in Hong Kong, where schools seldom, if ever, run philosophy programmes for students. Since 2003, the author of this article has pioneered research into the impact of P4C on students in Hong Kong. For example, a study on the effects of Lipman's P4C programme found that philosophy played a significant role in developing the critical thinking of the Secondary 1 students when taught in first language with effective teaching strategies, such as offering students sufficient wait-time to think and respond, as well as encouraging them to convey and accept justifiable criticism without taking it personally (Lam, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]). Another study on the effects of the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE)'s P4C programme found that integrating philosophy into the English curriculum could foster critical thinking, creative thinking and English language proficiency in Secondary 4 English as a Second Language students (Lam, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]). The P4C programmes developed by Lipman and SAPERE share the same use of philosophy as subject of inquiry and of community of inquiry as method of teaching, but they differ in the sense that, rather than philosophical novels in the P4C curriculum, SAPERE uses diverse stimuli for philosophical discussion, such as poems, photographs, picture books and news articles. A crucial question arises here: how about the impact of P4C on teachers? This article reports a study of a P4C programme, or rather a SAPERE's P4C programme, for secondary teachers in Hong Kong. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of the P4C programme on the teachers. More specifically, it was to assess the extent to which the P4C programme facilitates the development of dialogic and inquiry teaching in the teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-6">Questions and significance of the study</hd> <p>To gain a comprehensive understanding of the research problem, both quantitative and qualitative data were used as appropriate in the study reported in this article to address the following two research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What role does P4C play in the professional development of teachers?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the attitude of teachers towards teaching philosophy in the classroom?</item> </ulist> <p>The significance of this study lies in two areas. First, the present study is the first to explore the impact of P4C on teachers in Hong Kong, and, in particular, whether P4C can enable teachers to facilitate philosophical inquiry in the classroom within a Chinese context. Second, considering that there is a great need for the professional development of teachers in improving the quality of teaching and learning in Hong Kong (Mak, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]), this study contributes to establishing a professional development programme that is highly feasible and sustainable: apart from being able to be implemented through integrating philosophy into existing school curriculum, P4C incurs very modest running costs and hence has great potential for replicability (Topping & Trickey, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-8">Participants</hd> <p>The sample for this study consisted of three Secondary 3 and two Secondary 4 teachers from two separate schools in Hong Kong, School A and School B, respectively. Both schools were girls only, religious (one Anglican and one Catholic), and using English as the medium of instruction. All five teachers, together with their students, were Chinese, used English as a second language, and volunteered for the study. During the study, the three teachers from School A taught Integrated Humanities (IH) to three separate groups of S3 students, while the two teachers from School B taught English to two separate classes of S4 students.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-9">Data collection and sources</hd> <p>Data relevant to the research questions were collected in this study from the participating teachers using a combination of the following four data sources.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-10">Observations</hd> <p>Non-participant observation, together with an observation protocol, was employed to examine teacher–student interactions in the P4C classroom. With the help of 20 protocol questions, such as 'Does the teacher choose a good stimulus for inquiry?', 'Does the teacher encourage students to build collaboratively on each other's ideas?', 'Does the teacher try to ensure that everyone is included and interested in the inquiry?' and 'Does the teacher encourage students to be more critical of each other's ideas, questioning their evidence or reasons?', the observations were documented in the form of field notes. The field notes of the lesson observations (FNLO) were both descriptive and reflective, containing information about what the researcher had directly seen or heard onsite and capturing his thoughts during and reactions to the observations, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-11">Interviews</hd> <p>Unstructured and semi-structured interviews were employed to explore the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the participating teachers towards teaching philosophy in the classroom. The unstructured interviews were conducted with individual teachers after the lesson observations based on what was observed onsite and were recorded as field notes (FNUI). As for the semi-structured interviews, they were conducted by means of an interview protocol not only with individual teachers after the end of the study, but also with teachers in two focus groups, one from each participating school, before the start and after the end of the study. While the former semi-structured interviews were videotaped and recorded as transcripts (TSI), the latter ones were manually recorded as field notes (FNSI).</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-12">Questionnaires</hd> <p>Two questionnaires were employed to collect written responses to the teaching of and training for P4C, viz. the teacher questionnaire (TQ) and the training evaluation questionnaire (TEQ), respectively. The TQ was developed by the researcher to examine the attitude of the participating teachers towards teaching P4C. It was made up of two sections, A (TQA) and B (TQB). The TQA included 20 Likert-scale items that asked teachers to indicate whether they strongly agreed (SA), agreed (A), were uncertain (U), disagreed (D) or strongly disagreed (SD) about the statement in each item. The following point values were assigned to the positive statements, i.e. all but the statements 2, 3, 9, 10 and 14: SA = 5, A = 4, U = 3, D = 2, SD = 1. An example of a positive statement is 'I enjoy teaching philosophy' (statement 1). A score of 5 or 4 on this item would indicate a positive attitude towards teaching P4C. For the negative statements 2, 3, 9, 10 and 14, the point values were reversed – i.e. SA = 1, A = 2, U = 3, D = 4, and SD = 5 – so that a high total score across all items on the TQA would be indicative of an overall positive attitude. As for the TQB, it included two free-response items that provided teachers with the opportunity to create and explain their own responses. The content validity of the TQ as a whole was established through the review of relevant literature and consultation with P4C experts. As far as the TQA was concerned, its internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha was found to be 0.81 for the present sample, indicating a reasonably high reliability.</p> <p>With regard to the TEQ, it was developed by the researcher to collect feedback on the two-day P4C training workshop organised for interested schoolteachers, including the participating ones. It was made up of nine items that asked trainees to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the positive statement in each item on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 5; strongly disagree = 1), and one free-response item that asked them whether they would like to share any other opinions on the workshop. A high total score across all the nine items would indicate an overall positive attitude towards the P4C training workshop.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-13">Recordings</hd> <p>Twelve P4C lessons were videotaped in each school (four per teacher in School A and six per teacher in School B) at different periods to record the complex interactions among students and the teacher during philosophical discussions in the classroom. The video recordings (VR) thus obtained allowed the researcher repeated viewing for in-depth analysis of both visual and verbal data. Specifically, these VR were employed to assess the impacts of P4C on the participating teachers in terms of the amount of teacher talk time, the level of student participation, and the frequency of open-ended questions. Moreover, after the completion of the TQ, five semi-structured individual teacher interviews were conducted, the VR of which were employed to explore the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the teachers towards teaching philosophy in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-14">Design</hd> <p>A triangular mixed-method design was adopted in this study to evaluate both the process and outcome of the P4C programme. The quantitative data (from TQA, TEQ and VR) and qualitative data (from FNLO, FNUI, TSI, FNSI, TQB, TEQ and VR) were collected simultaneously and weighted equally. The results from the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data were compared or triangulated, to ascertain whether the two databases supported or contradicted each other.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-15">Procedure</hd> <p>A formal invitation was sent via email to all principals of local primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong to attend a briefing on this research project. After the briefing, a two-day P4C training workshop was organised by the researcher for interested schoolteachers, including the participating ones, before the start of the project. The training workshop was modelled on the successful P4C Foundation Course Level 1 run by the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education in the UK, including such topics as the aims and processes of the community of inquiry, the role of the facilitator and philosophical questioning (Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]). At the end of the workshop, the trainees were asked to complete the TEQ. During the project (i.e. from 1 February 2016 to 24 June 2016 in School A and from 19 September 2016 to 22 June 2017 in School B), 19 onsite training and support sessions were provided for the participating teachers by the researcher (10 in School A and 9 in School B), focusing on lesson observation and evaluation. More specifically, three and four P4C lessons of each teacher in School A and School B were observed by the researcher over a period of three and seven months, respectively. Post-observation interviews were conducted with the teachers right after the lessons to discuss and evaluate the researcher's observations and their own perceptions. At least one week before the start of the P4C lessons, a focus group interview was conducted with the teachers in each school to discuss how to prepare the lessons well.</p> <p>The participating teachers taught students P4C by means of the curricular materials and discussion plans they developed based on the requirements of the academic curricula (i.e. IH in School A and English in School B) and P4C programme. The curricular materials were easy to understand and filled with philosophical ideas and concepts that the questions in the discussion plans were designed to explore and extend. The P4C lessons, each taking 45 to 50 minutes, were taught to each group or class once a week (for 12 weeks in School A and for 17 weeks in School B). A typical P4C session operated as follows: after being presented with an article or video by the teacher as a stimulus for philosophical thought, the students first took turns to share with the others what they found intriguing or perplexing about its content in the form of questions, and then decided on a question that was agreeable to the majority for in-depth inquiry in a teacher-facilitated whole-group discussion.</p> <p>About three weeks after the end of the P4C lessons, the teachers were asked to complete the TQ and to take part in two follow-up interviews – one individual and one focus group – to collect their feedback on the P4C programme. The videotaped individual teacher interviews were transcribed as TSI before analysis, while the videotaped P4C lessons were viewed and analysed, in particular to determine the amount of teacher talk time, the level of student participation, and the frequency of open-ended questions in the classroom. The teacher interviews were followed by a close analysis of all data collected in this project. The quantitative data from the TQA, TEQ and VR were analysed by means of the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0. As for the qualitative data from the FNLO, FNUI, TSI, FNSI, TQB, TEQ and VR, they were carefully examined to identify themes related to the research questions and thoroughly searched not only for examples in support of, but also for evidence against (if any), the emerging themes, so as to bring the data to a fair and justified interpretation.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-17">Professional development of teachers</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-18">Training evaluation questionnaire (TEQ)</hd> <p>A two-day P4C training workshop was organised on 12 December 2015 and 9 January 2016 for the participating teachers from School A (Workshop A) and on 20 and 26 August 2016 for those from School B (Workshop B), respectively, together with other interested schoolteachers. The workshop aims to introduce the theory and practice of P4C and demonstrate how to conduct dialogic and inquiry teaching in the philosophy classroom. The participants were asked to respond to nine statements and one free-response question in the TEQ that examined their attitude towards the P4C training workshop. For each statement on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), a mean score of three was taken as expressing a neutral attitude, while a mean score of more than three and less than three a positive and negative attitude respectively, towards a certain aspect of the workshop. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the participants had a positive attitude towards eight statements in Workshop A and nine statements in Workshop B, among which they showed the most positive attitude towards the statement 4 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.89), i.e. the trainers' professional knowledge of the training topics, in Workshop A; and the statements 3 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45), 4 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45), and 7 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45), i.e. the usefulness of the distributed learning materials, the trainer's professional knowledge of the training topics, and the effectiveness of the training in meeting their expectations, respectively, in Workshop B. Despite the fact that the participants in Workshop A had a negative attitude towards statement 6 (<emph>M</emph> = 2.83, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.83), i.e. the sufficiency of the length of training, suggesting a need for further training and support, while those in Workshop B were less positive about some aspects of the workshop, an overall mean score of 3.72 in Workshop A and 4.44 in Workshop B indicated that they had, in general, a positive to very positive attitude towards the P4C training workshop.</p> <p>Such a positive attitude was also reflected in the following comments made by the participants in response to the free-response question, 'Any other opinions you would like to share with us?':</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The integration of P4C into local schools needs to be explored and promoted. It was a very fruitful experience to participate in the P4C training programme. (Participant 8, Workshop A)</item> <p></p> <item> The training sessions have improved my lesson planning in every aspect of the subjects I teach, and awakened me to the possible role of students as members of the 'community of inquiry'. (Participant 1, Workshop B)</item> <p></p> <item> One of the most insightful parts of the workshop was the explanation of the role of the facilitator in philosophical inquiry, from which I have learnt more useful facilitation skills in asking philosophical questions and leading philosophical discussions. (Participant 2, Workshop B)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0161688012-19">Field notes of lesson observations (FNLO) and unstructured interviews (FNUI)</hd> <p>Based on in-depth analysis of all the FNLO and FNUI, two important findings about the onsite training and support provided for the participating teachers were made. First, onsite support was essential to reinforce and contextualise the learning of P4C in the teachers' own classrooms. The reasons are threefold: the teachers tended to forget what they had learnt in the training workshop (e.g. Teacher Q forgot the emphasis placed by the trainer on distinguishing between philosophical and psychological questions and asked students psychological questions that could hardly lead to a philosophical inquiry on 2 December 2016); they were accustomed to and found it difficult to unlearn traditional teaching strategies (e.g. Teacher Q asked students to applaud all the questions proposed by each group for class discussion even if some of them would get low or no votes afterwards, and stood in front of rather than sitting among students during facilitation even if this wouldn't help to shed her image as an authority in the classroom or to cultivate one as a member of the community of inquiry, on 8 November 2016); and they had some misunderstanding about the practicalities of P4C in their own contexts (e.g. Teacher Q didn't provide language support for students when they were constructing questions so that she could assess their competence in expressing themselves in English, creating, unconsciously, a language barrier to free expression of their thoughts on 9 March 2017).</p> <p>Second, sustained P4C training in the form of onsite support could help increase teacher effectiveness in the classroom. For instance, after receiving onsite P4C support for nearly four months, Teacher X demonstrated more competence in dialogic and inquiry teaching that was reflected in such good teaching skills as providing good thinking time for students, encouraging them to build collaboratively on and yet be more critical of each other's ideas, and helping them to recognise and reflect on the key concepts by listing them on the board on 20 May 2016. Similar improvement in teaching skills, in particular facilitation skills, was demonstrated by Teacher Z, who followed the advice given to him earlier by the researcher not to overlead students with his own questions and ideas, and required students to clarify the questions proposed by themselves and others as well as to direct their ideas to the whole community of inquiry rather than him only on 11 April 2016. Moreover, the comments and suggestions made by the researcher during post-lesson observation discussions helped the participating teachers to reflect on the curricular materials and discussion plans they developed based on the requirements of the academic curricula and P4C programme, and thus to sharpen their skills in curriculum development and design. Indeed, during the project, the teachers in School A and School B developed six sets of P4C teaching materials – including philosophical stimuli, lesson plans and discussion questions – for their IH and English lessons respectively. While these teaching materials were relevant, engaging and well designed, the discussion questions were often organised around issues rather than concepts at the beginning of the project, rendering the inquiry and dialogue not philosophical. In order to help the teachers initiate and facilitate a <emph>philosophical</emph> discussion in the classroom, the researcher tried and succeeded to refocus their attention from issue-based to concept-based inquiry by suggesting concentrating on conceptual questions in the discussion. An example of such suggestions was as follows: during the discussion on 'Scam in Rome', the teachers in School B could concentrate on the questions concerning the concept of scam (e.g. Is scam the same as stealing? Would it be wrong to scam people to make money that might save the life of someone who was dying? Is it more wrong to scam a poor person than to scam a rich person? Have you ever been tempted to scam people?)</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-20">Field notes of semi-structured interviews (FNSI)</hd> <p>The FNSI were made during and after the pre-study and post-study interviews with the participating teachers in two focus groups, one from School A and another from School B. During the pre-study interviews, the researcher found that it was necessary to balance the needs of the study with the concerns of the teachers and thus to offer school-based and subject-based suggestions on how they could better prepare their P4C lessons. For example, during the interview with Teacher P and Teacher Q on 19 September 2016, the researcher suggested that, among other things, the teachers should assign philosophical stimuli so that their students could construct questions by thinking about them before coming to P4C lessons to spare sufficient time for discussions in the classroom, given the relatively short lesson time of 35 and 45 minutes in School B; and should integrate P4C into English by identifying and problematising the key concepts of the English curriculum and then selecting and developing them into philosophical questions in their discussion plans. As for the post-study interviews, which were conducted on 24 June 2016 and 23 May 2017 in School A and School B respectively, they revealed that P4C training and practice could enhance the professional development of the teachers in different contexts. Indeed, the teachers emphasised the benefits of implementing P4C in their contexts in terms of offering new insights and encouraging critical reflection about teaching, giving confidence in students' ability to construct knowledge through collaborative discussion, enabling the application and transfer of relevant teaching strategies to other non-P4C lessons, and raising awareness of how to identify and analyse philosophical concepts in the school curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-21">Video recordings (VR)</hd> <p>The VR of 17 P4C lessons (three from each teacher in School A and four from each teacher in School B) were employed to assess the impacts of P4C on the participating teachers in terms of the amount of teacher talk time (TTT; quantity of time the teacher spent talking in the lesson divided by total lesson time), the level of student participation (SP; number of students participating in the discussion divided by total number of students in the group/class), and the frequency of open-ended questions (OEQ; number of open-ended questions asked by the teacher divided by total number of questions asked during the lesson). As shown in Table 3, the mean percentage of TTT was lowest for Teacher Z (40%), while that of SP and OEQ was highest for Teacher X (56%) and Teacher Z (82%) respectively. Although the teachers revealed, to a certain extent, different amounts of TTT, different levels of SP and different frequencies of OEQ, an overall mean percentage of 42% for TTT, 44% for SP and 60% for OEQ indicated that they had more or less engaged in dialogic teaching and collaborative inquiry with students, which are characterised by a relatively small amount of TTT, a high level of SP, and a high frequency of OEQ. In particular, the importance of OEQ to dialogic and inquiry teaching lies in the fact that they, though not necessarily better than close-ended questions, can extend students' thinking and help to add rigour to the discussion by inviting further inquiry.</p> <p>Table 3. Mean percentages of teacher talk time, student participation, and open-ended questions for teachers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Teacher</td><td>TTT</td><td>SP</td><td>OEQ</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>X</td><td>44</td><td>56</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Y</td><td>41</td><td>55</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Z</td><td>40</td><td>38</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>43</td><td>32</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Q</td><td>44</td><td>37</td><td>53</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0161688012-22">Teachers' attitude towards P4C</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-23">Teacher questionnaire's Section A (TQA) and Section B (TQB)</hd> <p>The participating teachers were asked to respond to 20 statements and two free-response questions in the TQA and TQB, respectively, that examined teachers' attitude towards teaching P4C. In the TQA, for each statement on a five-point Likert scale from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5 ('strongly agree'), a mean score of 3 was interpreted as representing a neutral attitude, while a mean score of more than 3 and less than 3 a positive and negative attitude respectively, towards a certain aspect of teaching P4C. The results showed that the teachers had a positive attitude towards 13 statements in School A and 17 statements in School B, among which they showed the most positive attitude towards statements 4 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) and 6 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58), i.e. their role as a facilitator of learning in philosophy lessons and the role of philosophy in enabling students to handle questions that do not necessarily have one right answer, respectively, in School A; and the statements 6 (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00) and 7 (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00), the latter of which emphasises the role of philosophy in helping develop critical thinking in students, in School B. Although the teachers were negative or neutral about certain aspects of teaching P4C, an overall mean score of 3.43 in School A and 3.93 in School B indicated that they had, in general, a mildly positive to positive attitude towards doing so.</p> <p>In the TQB, for question 1, the results demonstrated that 67% and 100% of the teachers from School A and School B respectively thought that there <emph>should</emph> be philosophy in schools, indicating an overall distinctly positive attitude towards teaching philosophy in the classroom. The reasons cited by these teachers include that philosophy allows students to explore and reflect on their standpoints on different issues, as well as helps them to develop their value system (in School A); and that philosophy encourages students to become critical thinkers in all aspects of learning (in School B). The reason cited by the teacher in School A who thought there <emph>should not</emph> be philosophy in schools is that the teaching time is so limited that it would be difficult for students to gain knowledge if philosophy is incorporated into a subject in which they need to be examined. As for question 2 concerning the things teachers liked and disliked most in teaching philosophy, the results demonstrated that, for example, the teachers liked most guiding students to think from different perspectives and allowing them to express their views freely (in School B), while they disliked most not having enough time for teaching (in School A).</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-24">Transcripts of semi-structured interviews (TSI)</hd> <p>The participating teachers were asked to respond to nine interview questions during the individual teacher interviews. The videotaped teacher responses were transcribed as TSI and summarised under the interview questions. The results showed that on the whole, the teachers gave a positive response to the interview questions, indicating a positive attitude towards teaching P4C. Specifically, the teachers responded favourably to the philosophy lessons, found the training and support useful, gained benefits from the P4C programme, and planned on applying what they learned from this programme to future teaching. Despite various difficulties and constraints experienced during the programme, the teachers were willing and eager to offer suggestions on how to improve it.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-25">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161688012-26">Conclusions</hd> <p>The results of this study adequately answered the two research questions posed at the beginning of the article. P4C was found to play an important role in promoting the professional development of teachers for three reasons. First, the theory and practice of P4C introduced in the well-received training workshop were considered by the participants to be useful and applicable in their teaching contexts. Second, sustained P4C training in the form of onsite support could help increase the teachers' effectiveness in the classroom in terms of their ability to engage in dialogic and inquiry teaching, to develop relevant curricular materials for such teaching, to reflect on their own teaching, to recognise their students' capacity for constructing knowledge through dialogic inquiry, to transfer the teaching strategies learned in P4C to other non-P4C lessons, and to identify and analyse philosophical concepts in the school curriculum. Third, the implementation of P4C in their schools enabled the teachers to engage in dialogic teaching and collaborative inquiry with students, as reflected in the relatively small amount of teacher talk time, high level of student participation and high frequency of open-ended questions (question 1). In addition, the teachers were found to have a generally positive attitude towards teaching philosophy in the classroom (question 2). The results were consistent with research on P4C in general, and in particular with the findings of Prescott ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]), Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]), Haynes ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref40">14</reflink>]), Demissie ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]), Topping and Trickey ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]) and Scholl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]) concerning the promotion of professional development of teachers. Indeed, the significance of the present study lies mainly in the implications of these results for three things: the capacity of Hong Kong teachers to teach philosophy across the curriculum; the effectiveness of the P4C programme in promoting the professional development of teachers within a Chinese context; and the attitude of Hong Kong teachers towards teaching philosophy in the classroom.</p> <p>Yet, the success of P4C depends on the facilitation of discussions: teachers need to understand how to perform their role effectively as facilitators in philosophical discussions. This includes doing two things. First, teachers need to focus on developing students' critical thinking, which involves having an awareness of the distinctions between conversation and dialogue, between non-critical and critical dialogue, and between thinking and critical thinking, lest the discussion becomes a non-critical and non-philosophical conversation rather than a critical philosophical dialogue (Daniel & Auriac, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]). In the context of teaching P4C to students who use English as a second language, as done in the present study, apart from allowing students to code-switch between their first and second language when necessary in order not to interrupt their train of thought (Shahini & Riazi, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]), the teacher should ignore linguistic errors but focus on knowledge co-construction, viewing language as a communication tool for enhancing student participation and critical thinking (Li, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]). Second, teachers need to grasp the essence of the P4C approach to teaching. It lies in the facts that P4C is an improvisational practice which 'can only be performed in dialogue and in the moment, and any attempt at understanding it individually and before it happens is unfruitful, and, even more so, damaging to its nature' (Kohan, Santi, & Wozniak, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>], p. 258), requiring teachers to unlearn what they have previously learnt and to teach in a different way from how they have been taught; and that P4C is a philosophical inquiry which seldom reaches any final settled endpoint, implying that the best way for teachers to judge its progress is not by whether they have achieved their goal at the end of the path of inquiry, but by the milestones they reach along this path, such as articulating a philosophical problem, hypothesising possible solutions to this problem with justification, elaborating each possible solution by conceptual analysis, evaluating the possible solutions through falsification and resolving the problem (Golding, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-27">Recommendations</hd> <p>However, this study has two main limitations. First, the results have limited generality because its sample was small and came from a girls-only religious secondary school. Second, there was insufficient time for the teachers to prepare, teach and evaluate the philosophy lessons as there were enormous demands on them to deliver the exam-oriented IH and English curriculum. In response to these limitations, two suggestions can be made for future research. On the one hand, in order to increase the generality of the results, further studies should be conducted to replicate the present study in other settings (e.g. primary schools, non-religious schools, co-educational schools and so on) and with other participants (e.g. teachers of different subjects, teachers of different class levels, teachers of different years of experience, and so on). On the other hand, in order to alleviate the constraints of time and curriculum, apart from implementing P4C through the existing curriculum rather than as a stand-alone programme unrelated to the curriculum content (O'Riordan, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]), future researchers should explore the possibility of running the P4C programme in classes with more lesson time and a more flexible curriculum.</p> <p>With regard to the suggestion that further research on P4C be conducted in different school settings and with different teacher groups, the rationale behind it is that the community of inquiry approach of P4C has the potential to be a theoretical framework for reconceptualising pedagogy in formal education and a potent force for enhancing the transformative professional learning of teachers in terms of their ability not only to understand but also change practice (Baumfield, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]). For one thing, P4C typically brings about what Wikeley ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]) calls a 'mirror effect' in the classroom, whereby teachers acquire the traits they strive to develop in their students. Indeed, teachers who use the community of inquiry to encourage their students to explore, question and develop their thinking become more experimental, curious and reflective themselves. For another, P4C can produce enduring change in the sense that it can change the routine behaviour of teachers and make collaborative inquiry part of their everyday practice in the classroom even after the initial project is complete. It is this collaborative inquiry that makes teachers frequently and suddenly experience a state of positive cognitive dissonance and change their perceptions of their students' capabilities as well as their understandings of their own subjects, which in turn stimulates them to inquire more deeply into their students' thinking, their subjects' meaning and their own pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-28">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>I thank my co-investigators Bob Adamson and Laurance Splitter.</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-29">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0161688012-30">Ethical approval</hd> <p>Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the author's university on 10 January 2014.</p> <ref id="AN0161688012-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baumfield, V. M. (2017). Changing minds: The professional learning of teachers in a classroom community of inquiry. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 119 – 126). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cam, P. (2006). Twenty thinking tools: Collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Camberwell, VIC : Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref44" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Daniel, M.-F., & Auriac, E. (2011). Philosophy, critical thinking and philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (5), 415 – 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref23" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Demissie, F. (2017). The praxis of P4C in teacher education, and B. Anderson (Ed.), Philosophy for children: Theories and praxis in teacher education (pp. 115 – 121). Abingdon : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Education Bureau. (n.d.a). Inspection annual report 2009/10. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from <ulink href="http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/reports/insp-annual-reports/index.html">http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/reports/insp-annual-reports/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Education Bureau. (n.d.b). Inspection annual report 2017/18. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from <ulink href="http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/reports/insp-annual-reports/index.html">http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/reports/insp-annual-reports/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher, R. (1998). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom. London : Cassell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher, R. (2001). Philosophy in primary schools: Fostering thinking skills and literacy. Reading, 35 (2), 67 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golding, C. (2013). The teacher as guide: A conception of the inquiry teacher. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45 (1), 91 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golding, C. (2017). Getting better ideas: A framework for understanding epistemic philosophical progress in philosophy for children. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 65 – 73). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, L., Condy, J., & Chigona, A. (2012). Developing the language of thinking within a classroom community of inquiry: Pre-service teachers' experiences. South African Journal of Education, 32 (3), 319 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hand, M., & Winstanley, C. (2008). Introduction. In M. Hand & C. Winstanley (Eds.), Philosophy in schools (pp. x – xviii). London : Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, J. (2008). Children as philosophers: Learning through enquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom (2nd ed.). London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, J., & Murris, K. (2011). The provocation of an epistemological shift in teacher education through philosophy with children. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45 (2), 285 – 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, P., & Lyle, S. (2010). Enacting dialogue: The impact of promoting philosophy for children on the literate thinking of identified poor readers, aged 10. Language and Education, 24 (6), 459 – 472.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kathard, H., Pillay, D., & Pillay, M. (2015). A study of teacher-learner interactions: A continuum between monologic and dialogic interactions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46 (3), 222 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54 (6), 764 – 789.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohan, W. O., Santi, M., Wozniak, J. T. (2017). Philosophy for teachers: Between ignorance, invention and improvisation. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 253 – 259). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, C. M. (2013). Childhood, philosophy and open society: Implications for education in Confucian heritage cultures. Singapore : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, C. M. (2019). Integrating philosophy into English curriculum: The development of thinking and language competence. Journal of Educational Research, 112 (6), 700 – 709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, L., Sutcliffe, R. (2017). Teaching philosophy and philosophical teaching. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 200 – 207). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6 (3), 146 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mak, B. (2010). The professional development needs of Hong Kong ESL teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (3), 397 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mok, J. (2009). From policies to realities: Developing students' critical thinking in Hong Kong secondary school English writing classes. RELC Journal, 40 (3), 262 – 279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murris, K. (2016). The philosophy for children curriculum: Resisting 'teacher proof' texts and the formation of the ideal philosopher child. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 35 (1), 63 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Riordan, N. (2013). Swimming against the tide: The implementation of philosophy for children in the primary classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hull.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prescott, G. (2017). Challenging assumptions and making progress, and B. Anderson (Ed.), Philosophy for children: Theories and praxis in teacher education (pp. 122 – 130). Abingdon : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. Reading Teacher, 65 (7), 446 – 456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, A. F. (2006). The effects of a teacher development programme based on philosophy for children. Unpublished master's thesis, University of the Western Cape.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scholl, R., Nichols, K., & Burgh, G. (2016). Connecting learning to the world beyond the classroom through collaborative philosophical inquiry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (5), 436 – 454.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of learning 2: What kind of learning for the 21st century? Paris : UNESCO Education Research and Foresight.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahini, G., & Riazi, A. M. (2011). A PBLT approach to teaching ESL speaking, writing, and thinking skills. ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal, 65 (2), 170 – 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education. (2015). SAPERE handbook to accompany the Level 1 P4C Foundation Course. (4th ed.). Abingdon : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Splitter, L. J. (2011). Agency, thought, and language: Analytic philosophy goes to school. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 30 (4), 343 – 362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 271 – 288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Välitalo, R. (2017). Internal goods of teaching in philosophy for children: The role of the teacher and the nature of teaching in philosophy for children. Childhood & Philosophy, 13 (27), 271 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikeley, F. (2000). Learning from research. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 97 – 109). London : Routledge/Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, X. (2010). Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context and beyond. ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal, 64 (1), 10 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Chi-Ming Lam</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref51"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1376831
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Philosophy for Children Approach to Professional Development of Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lam%2C+Chi-Ming%22">Lam, Chi-Ming</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5902-2891">0000-0002-5902-2891</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Cambridge+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>Cambridge Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 53(1):1-17.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dialogs+%28Language%29%22">Dialogs (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inservice+Teacher+Education%22">Inservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophy%22">Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Activities%22">Integrated Activities</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/0305764X.2022.2056143
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-764X<br />1469-3577
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Dialogic teaching has been demonstrated to be conducive to the development of important competencies and skills such as creativity, communication skills and critical thinking skills. Yet, the literature confirms that teacher--student interactions in the classroom are predominantly monologic rather than dialogic across subjects, grades and countries. This article reports the results of a study that evaluates the effectiveness of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme in facilitating the development of dialogic and inquiry teaching in teachers in Hong Kong. In the study, training and support were provided for teachers to enable them to teach P4C to their students during Integrated Humanities and English lessons. P4C was found to help enhance the teachers' effectiveness in the classroom in terms of their ability to engage in dialogic and inquiry teaching. The findings of this study suggest that P4C plays a significant role in promoting the professional development of teachers.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1376831
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1376831
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/0305764X.2022.2056143
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Dialogs (Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Philosophy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Philosophy for Children Approach to Professional Development of Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lam, Chi-Ming
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-764X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3577
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cambridge Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1