Productive thinking	161

thinking, claiming that even in the preschool years children are potentially young philosophers.

He considers Philosophy for Children to be an approach that goes beyond critical thinking in its emphasis on the purpose as well as the process of thinking:

When I first became interested in this field, I thought that children could do no better than ‘Critical Thinking’ – that is, having their thinking trained to make it more rigorous, consistent and coherent. But critical thinking contains no concept formation, no formal logic, and no study of the works of traditional philosophy, all of which I have endeavoured to supply in Philosophy for Children. Critical Thinking does not lead children back into philosophy, and yet it is my contention that children will not settle for anything less. Nor should they have to. Critical Thinking seeks to make the child’s mind more precise; philosophy deepens it and makes it grow. (Lipman, 2004)

The programme consists of a series of sequential narratives designed to introduce children and young people to key philosophical ideas and concepts. The narratives provide the stimulus for children’s questions, which then form the agenda for the lesson as they are discussed. As his work has developed, Lipman has become more interested in the affective as well as the cognitive aspects of thinking and he stresses the role of relationships in fostering dispositions that sustain enquiry.

[in the community of inquiry] the teacher’s main role is that of a cultivator of judgment who transcends rather than rejects right–wrong answers in the sense of caring more for the process of inquiry itself than the answer that might be right or wrong at a given time. It is the behaviour of such a teacher

. . . that is especially cherished . . . it has an integrity they are quick to appreciate. (Lipman, 1991, p. 219)

Evaluation

The model of critical, creative and caring thinking has an intuitive appeal, since it does not separate the emotional from the rational. In this way it resonates with Gardner’s ideas of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence and with the ‘emotional intelligence’ of Salovey and Mayer (1990). Lipman’s ‘caring thinking’ also encompasses a wide range of dispositions which resemble those proposed by other critical thinking theorists.

162 Frameworks for Thinking

Critical thinking and creative thinking are for Lipman both forms of enquiry, while caring thinking facilitates it. Reasoning, concept formation and translation are clearly involved in all three kinds of thinking, but Lipman does not explore these relationships in any detail, either conceptually or pedagogically.

For Lipman the goal and product of thinking is good judgment, and judgments are of meanings. He values thinking and learning as the active search for meaning, but goes further, arguing that identifying relationships and forming judgments (Lipman, 1991, p. 62) is an essential aspect of schooling in order to develop meaning and understanding. Education, he argues, is a mode of enquiry, so philosophy as a mode of enquiry into that enquiry should form an essential component in the intellectual growth of young people. The aim of education for Lipman is to foster reasonableness in personal character and democracy in social character. For Lipman reasonableness encompasses the search for meaning, intellectual rigour, the disposition to be open to argument and a concern to form judgments that sustain democracy.

Lipman refers to a number of philosophers and psychologists who emphasise the role of language and social interaction in the formation of an individual’s intellect and character as influences on his thinking (Lipman, 2004). Dewey and Vygotsky were key figures in the formation of Lipman’s approach. From Dewey he takes the emphasis on the need for experience to be mediated effectively if learning is to take place; the importance of working in a community of enquiry; and the idea of teaching and learning as a democratic process.

Educators who see learning as a socially interactive process will accept Lipman’s claim that reasoning based on logic only becomes alive when through dialogue people interpret ideas in different ways on the basis of different assumptions and beliefs. A case can also be made, however, that understanding and reasoning can be enhanced by access to existing bodies of knowledge and by personal reflection as well as through interpersonal dialogue.

Sternberg and Bhana (1986) expressed concern about the methodological quality of 20 evaluation studies of Philosophy for Children, but Trickey and Topping (2004) were able to locate 10 controlled studies which yielded eight effect sizes. The mean effect size of 0.43 reflects

Productive thinking	163

moderate gains (close to the average for any educational intervention) on (in most cases) reading or reasoning tests. Other qualitative evaluations (Andrews et al., 1993; Baumfield, 2004) indicate that the community of enquiry approach appears to be successful in securing wider participation and sustained interaction in classroom dialogue, with a shift in focus from teacher-led to learner-centred education.

If Lipman is correct that effective pedagogy for all learners depends on experiential learning through participation in enquiry as well as from the philosophical study of reasoning, concept-formation and judgment, there are profound implications for education.

Summary: Lipman

				Relevance for
Purpose and structure		Some key features		teachers and learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:		Intended audience:
•	to make learning	•	clear	• teachers of school
	meaningful	•	simple	children from K-12,
•	to encourage active			but his methods are
	enquiry			also used with adults

•to promote democracy

•to encourage good judgment

Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	enthusiastic, personally-	•	education
•	conative		committed writing	•	citizenship
•	affective	•	use of narrative to convey
			philosophical ideas
Broad categories		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
covered:		•	Dewey	•	learner-centred
•	self-engagement	•	Vygotsky		enquiry-based learning
	and self-regulation	•	Bloom		using dialogue
•	reflective thinking				and discussion
•	productive thinking			•	democratic teaching,
•	building understanding				with the teacher as
					facilitator not
					instructor