Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years

8/11/2019 Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years

1/22

Modeling the Development Process ofDialogical Critical Thinking in PupilsAged 10 to 12 Years

Marie-France Daniel, Louise Lafortune,Richard Pallascio, Laurance Splitter, Christina Slade, &Teresa de la Garza

This research project investigated manifestations of critical thinking in pupils 10 to 12

years of age during their group discussions held in the context of Philosophy for Children

Adapted to Mathematics. The objective of the research project was to examine, through

the pupils discussions, the development of dialogical critical thinking processes. The

research was conducted during an entire school year. The research method was based on

the Grounded Theory approach; the material used consisted of transcripts of verbal

exchanges among the pupils (at the beginning, middle and end of the school year).Analysis of the transcripts revealed that: (1) critical thinking appears to the extent that a

dia-logue is established among pupils; (2) on the cognitive level, dialogical critical

thinking is comprised of four thinking modes: logical, creative, responsible and meta-

cognitive; and (3) on the epistemological level, dialogical critical thinking is only

manifested in a context where egocentricity of perspective and relativism of beliefs are

transcended.

Keywords: Critical Thinking; Philosophical Dialogue; Philosophy for Children;

Discussion

Marie-France Daniel (PhD, 1992, University of Quebec at Montreal) is Professor, Department of Kinesiology,

University of Montreal; Louise Lafortune (PhD, 1992, University of Quebec at Montreal) is Professor,

Department of Education, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivie res; Richard Pallascio (PhD, 1970, University of

Montreal) is Professor, Department of Education, University of Quebec at Montreal; Laurance Splitter (PhD,

1983, University of Oxford) is Professor, Department of Education, Hunter College; Christina Slade (PhD, 1982,

Australian National University), is Professor, Department of Communication, Macquarie University; Teresa de la

Garza (PhD, 1992, Universidad Iberoamericana) is Professor, Department of Philosophy, Universidad

Iberoamericana. This research project was partially supported by a grant (410-98-1228) from the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Marie-France Daniel can be contacted at

[email protected]

Communication Education

Vol. 54, No. 4, October 2005, pp. 334/354


2/22

Education is becoming increasingly complex world-wide, largely due to the

expansion of knowledge combined with the accelerated development of technologies,

which further complicate life in our society. In future, schools must provide younger

generations with a form of education that allows them to successfully face these new

challenges. In this regard, the development of critical thinking in pupils is necessaryto favour pupils true comprehension of events rather than developing and

maintaining a simplifying vision of the information related to these events (Delors,

1996, p. 47).

In order to develop this true comprehension of events among children, and to

stimulate their critical judgment, several specialists in the field of education are

turning to socioconstructivist teaching approaches, in particular discussion among

peers. Discussion, as a way of teaching, was valued by Socrates to elicit or give birth

to young peoples knowledge (Plato, Theetete, 150b/151c). It was then taken up

again by John Dewey (1929/1960), with a view to democratization of the classroom.These days, many researchers affirm the positive impact of class discussions, either by

placing emphasis on the discussion techniques themselves (e.g., Brookfield & Preskill,

1999) or by emphasizing the interrelations between social interaction and language

abilities (e.g., Cazden, 1988; Garnier, Bednavz, & Ulanovskaya, 1991; Wells, 1999).

Philosophy for Children (P4C) is among these approaches that cultivate learning

through discussion. Numerous researchers have shown that this approach constitutes

a significant tool for development of logical reasoning among young people

(e.g., Lane & Lane, 1986; Camhy & Iberer, 1988; Gazzard, 1988; Lago-Bernstein,

1990). The philosopher Matthew Lipman and his colleagues at Montclair State

University (New Jersey) devised P4C in the 1970s (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980).The approach is now used in nearly 50 countries, and the accompanying material

(philosophical novels for the pupils and pedagogical guides for the teacher) has been

translated into 20 languages. The essence of this approach is found in what Lipman

calls the community of philosophical inquiry, which has its roots in the Deweyan

concept of community (see Daniel, 1997). P4C is a so-called Socratic approach, since

it aims to stimulate the thinking of young people by means of philosophical questions.

The P4C teaching method is composed of three steps: (1) reading, (2) formulating

questions, and (3) philosophical dialogue within a community of inquiry. The first

step involves reading by the pupils of a chapter from a philosophical novel. Thereading is done aloud, with every pupil taking a turn. These two aspects are

important to ensure peer co-operation. The second step implies that the pupils

invest themselves in understanding the meanings of the chapter they have read, and

that they question the concepts or the situations described in the novel. Questioning

is the core of critical reflection, in that it incites the pupils to enter into a research

process (Dewey, 1929/1960). Moreover, this step assigns responsibility to the pupils,

placing them at the forefront of their own education, since through their questions

the pupils (and not the teacher) develop the agenda for the coming weeks (see

Cazden, 1988). The objective of the third step is to lead the pupils to hold a dialogue,

so that together, within a community of inquiry, they can find elements of answersrelevant to the questions formulated in the preceding step. Dialogue is therefore

Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years 335


3/22

situated within a perspective of cooperation, as each individual intervention

contributes to enriching the groups perspective.

A true community of inquiry is manifested when dialogue among peers is

characterized by pluralism, reciprocity and tolerance (Lipman et al., 1980). Within

the community of inquiry, pupils develop higher-order thinking skills and social-moral attitudes (Daniel, Lafortune, Pallascio, & Schleifer, 2000).

P4C adapted to Mathematics (P4CM) is a philosophical approach that parallels the

Lipmanian model, but which concentrates essentially on philosophical/mathematical

ideas and concepts. P4CM was proposed by Daniel, Lafortune, Pallascio, & Sykes,

(1996a,b) in order to foster more significant learning of mathematics among pupils

10 to 12 years of age, and to stimulate their dialogical critical thinking, notably by

assisting them in taming, together with their peers, prejudices (e.g., Is there such a

thing as a mathematics wizard?), concepts (e.g., the value of zero, infinite vs.

indefinite, probability vs. chance) and notions (e.g., the four mathematicaloperations) inherent in mathematics. The philosophical/mathematical material

stimulates the young people to ask questions like, Does a perfect cube exist on

Earth? If we had the chance to count all the stars in the sky, would we be able to say

that they were infinite or indefinite in number? Does truth exist? Were mathematics

invented or discovered? P4CM is a complementary tool (one hour per week) to be

used in conjunction with the regular mathematics teaching program.

This paper presents the results of a research project analyzing processes by which

critical thinking develops in pupils aged 10 to 12 years when they use the P4CM

material. The objective is not to test Lipmans teaching model, but rather to describe

the cognitive development in pupils when they are significantly stimulated in thisdirection. We started off with the postulate that P4CM could fulfill this role.

This article first presents definitions of critical thinking and presents a typology of

exchanges among pupils. It then focuses on presenting a model of the development of

the critical thinking process in pupils aged 10 to 12 years. An illustration of this

developmental process is presented using transcripts of verbal exchanges among a

group of Quebec pupils. Finally, a model of the process of learning to think critically

is proposed, a model that brings together the types of exchanges among the pupils

with the elements that constitute critical thinking.

Critical Thinking

Currently, critical thinking remains much discussed but ill-defined (see Kennedy,

Fisher, & Ennis, 1990), with various conceptions coexisting. Psychology and

philosophy have both contributed in their own way to our comprehension of critical

thinking. Psychologists are mostly concerned with the thinking process and how this

process can help people bring meaning to their experience. Psychologists emphasize

problem solving (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Needham & Begg, 1991).

Philosophys contribution finds its roots in the writings of Socrates, Plato and

Aristotle. Ever since these beginnings, philosophers have been interested in usinglogical reasoning as a moral force to promote good.

336 M. Daniel et al.


4/22

Critical Thinking as Concept

A priori, we share Lipmans (1988) conception of critical thinking. From the

perspective of pragmatist philosophy (Daniel, 1997), it clearly surpasses abstract

logical analysis. Its starting point is situated in the interactions among peers, and itsintention is to improve individual and social experience. In other words, we share

the Lipmanian definition of critical thinking because it is in keeping with the

socioconstructivist triangle to which we subscribe: social interactions*/global

development of the pupil*/social development (Daniel, 2005).

Lipman (1988) regarded critical thinking as a useful tool for countering uncritical

thinking and thoughtless action. Individuals need critical thinking to help them

distinguish the most relevant information they receive (in relation to the objectives

they pursue). Lipmans (1988, 1991, 1995) definition of critical thinking includes four

criteria: (1) using particular criteria, (2) forming judgments, (3) self-correcting, and

(4) sensitivity to context. The Lipmanian definition of critical thinking is well

respected in North America (Johnson, 1992). Yet it should be noted that it is not the

sole authority on the subject. Ennis (1993), Paul (1992), and Siegel (1988) have all

promulgated alternatives to Lipmans approach to critical thinking, each of which

places a greater emphasis on rationality.

Teaching/Learning Critical Thinking

The teaching of critical thinking can be conducted using three types of objectives

that are not mutually exclusive, but are rather positioned on a continuum:(1) information-acquisition objectives; (2) self-development; and (3) personal and

social development and higher-order thinking objectives. The information-acquisi-

tion objective focuses on the transmission of knowledge and the evaluation of

knowledge comprehension. This objective would be the equivalent of what Maier

(1933) called reproductive thinking or learned behaviour, in contrast to

reasoning or productive behaviour. Because of the sort of thinking skills required

during repetition or repetitive exercises associated with information-acquisition goals

(Newman, 1990), pedagogical activities oriented toward this goal primarily develop

lower-order thinking skills.

Teaching objectives centered on self-development highlight values such as respect

and personal experience, as well as reflection concerning self-development according

to these values. The development of critical thinking in this context occurs through

comprehension of the environment, and lies within the scope of an intra-subjective

perspective where each justification, each meaning, each interpretation, is accepted

without question.

Teaching objectives aimed at personal and social development and higher-order

thinking consider the individual as part of society, and assume that the education of

the former must serve to improve the latter. This strategy of development is heuristic

in that it presupposes that the ultimate goal of teaching is to stimulate young peopleto question. Within this perspective, the development of critical thinking takes place



5/22

via a praxis and lies within the scope of inter-subjectivity. Social interactions, and

particularly discussions among peers, are fundamental here. Indeed, discussion

among peers contributes to showing pupils their own limits and the importance of

cooperation. Furthermore, discussion among peers stimulates higher-order thinking

skills (Cazden, 1988).The preponderance of research projects dealing with learning critical thinking takes

for granted that such a capacity cannot be developed in young subjects, particularly

those of elementary school age. Literature reviews (e.g., Jones & Idol, 1990) do bring

to light the development of logical reasoning, of creativity, and of meta-cognition in

young adolescents, however. Although each of these thinking modes is a component

of critical thought, when considered separately, they do not constitute critical

thinking. Critical thinking is more complex, because it encompasses at least two

cognitive modes (logical and creative) if not three (some add meta-cognitive or

caring-thinking). The first objective of our project is thus to study whether youngpeople attending elementary school can demonstrate critical thought when

adequately stimulated in this direction through a discussion-based curriculum.

Our second objective is to discover the components of critical thinking as it is

manifested in pupils aged 10 to 12 years. Our third objective is to introduce a model

of the development process of critical thinking in these pupils.

A Typology of Exchanges Among Pupils

In order to fulfill these research objectives, we had to build our study on a concreteand observable basis that is, on the discourses of pupils (Van der Zee & Nikanne,

2000). Another question was thus addressed: Are young people attending elementary

school capable of holding a dialogical and critical exchange with their peers? Our first

task thus consisted of studying the nature of the exchanges among pupils. This task

was accomplished in a precursor study to the current one (Daniel et al., 2002). Five

types of exchanges emerged from that discourse analysis: anecdotal, monological,

non-critical dialogical, semi-critical dialogical and critical dialogical.

Anecdotal Exchanges

An anecdotal exchange refers to an exchange in which pupils are unconcerned by peer

points of view. Also, the pupils do not justify their viewpoints, which they typically

address only to the teacher. Another characteristic is that the anecdotal exchange

takes place using the word I, the pupils having difficulty in turning their focus from

their own experiences (Mexico, Group 1, first transcript):

Facilitator: In the story, why didnt Ramon like mathematics exams?

P1: I get nervous during exams.

P2: Because sometimes I, because I worry.

P3: Because I get nervous.



6/22

Monological Exchanges

In a monological exchange, the discussion is focused on the question selected by the

group. Furthermore, pupils interventions are brief; they resemble simple answers

addressed to the teacher much more than well-thought-out statements aimed atgroup improvement. Also, in a monological exchange, pupils have difficulty in

justifying their viewpoints (Quebec, Group 1, first transcript):

P1 (showing the facilitator the cube he has just drawn): My cube is perfect.

Facilitator: Tell us why its a perfect cube.

P1: Im not sure.

Facilitator: Its certainly a cube isnt it?

P1: It looks like one.

Facilitator: Is it a perfect cube?

P1: Yes.

Dialogical Exchanges

A dialogical exchange, which presupposes listening skills, is one in which the

participants listen to divergent perspectives and integrate them in order to enrich

their viewpoints. Dialogical exchange is characterized by interdependence of view-

points and respect for diversity. At this point, analysis of the transcripts showed that

all dialogical exchanges are not necessarily critical, and can in fact be subdivided into

non-critical, semi-critical, and critical. A non-critical dialogical exchange is a

dialogue, but it remains simple, without evaluation of viewpoints (Mexico, Group2, second exchange):

Facilitator: Why do you say that geometry is interesting?

P1: Because its part of our everyday life.

P2: Thats true because in school for example were now learning figures

and when were older and want to buy some land we can figure out

how much land area we own.

P4: I agree with P2. And also because with geometry for example

architects can build schools, buildings and everything, stores and

everything we need in everyday life as P1 said.

Semi-Critical Dialogues

Other transcripts showed that the dialogue is sometimes verges on the critical, but

not yet fully critical. In this type of exchange, the pupils dialogue and formulate

criticisms in the form of oppositions, doubts, etc. Furthermore, these criticisms are,

on one hand, more or less well-justified and, one the other hand, they do not succeed

in influencing the pupils concerned. Consequently, the initial perspective remains

unchanged at the end of the exchange we named this semi-critical dialogue (Mexico,

Group 2, third transcript):



7/22

P1: First you have to learn because if you dont learn how can you understand?P2: But I dont agree with P1 when he says first you have to learn. . .First you

have to understand and figure out what youre going to do then you learn itso you can see if its right or not.

P1: How can we understand mathematics if we dont learn it?P4: I think you have to learn things properly to be able to understand. Because

first you learn the numbers and then you can understand how to use themhow to apply them.

P5: I think that right now in the sixth grade what were doing is understanding.There are things that we have already learned. . .but maybe we understoodmore or less and maybe we have to learn them all over again to understandthem more clearly.

P1: I think first we learn because how could I understand numbers if no-one evertaught them to me? To understand a formula like the base times the heightfirst you have to have learned it.

Critical Dialogical Exchanges

A critical dialogical exchange often takes on the appearance of a negotiation of

viewpoints, a transaction among pupils, an open process in which the conclusions,

when they are spoken, are open and temporary, serving as a hypothesis for future

reflection. In this type of exchange, the initial idea that prevails at the beginning of a

discussion is modified or nuanced at the end (Australia, Group 1, third transcript):

Facilitator: Last week, we worked on the notion of order; the order of numbers

and digits, and the hierarchy between humans and animals. Wouldsomeone like to summarize or pursue last weeks discussion?P1: It depends on the context. It depends if were talking about humans

from the point of view of their inventiveness or of their instinct. And Ithink that humans are more intelligent than other animals in theirinventiveness. But then again, it might not be true. In other animalseyes, we may not be more intelligent, because other animals actaccording to their needs, not their desires, like us.

P2: I think humans are the only ones that can do mathematics. Humansinvented English and mathematics. Math is like another language weinvented. We use it to understand things, to do the things we have todo well, to understand the reasons behind things. Like why the sky isblue and why cant we float or fly. So we invented mathematics toexplain these things. But animals, they just think sky and they dontreally think, they dont really think about the sky. Because they have, iffor us eating and mating are an instinct, for them, its their principalinstinct. . .If its about intelligence, I think humans are at the top ofthe list.

Facilitator: Why? On what criteria do you base yourself?P2: On how complex they are. And also on the fact that we have other

kinds of intelligence, like we said last week, empathy, sympathy andthings like that.

P1: Well, for me, my theory is that we were a couple of different speciesplaced on Earth as a test, to see if we could evolve.

Facilitator: Who placed them on Earth?



8/22

P1: The universe. The universe is like. . .were a cell inside billions of cells. Itslike a gigantic cell that will always keep on multiplying. And were just anordinary cell. Like a cell inside our body that is made of cells that are made ofcells. And it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with whether wewill evolve or not.

P3: Then there would be like two different paradigms.P4: Yes, theres the intelligence to think about how to make things and theres the

intelligence about how youre going to use those things. Were both the moststupid and the most intelligent.

(For the full text of this last extract, see Daniel et al., 2002.)

The preceding typology of student exchanges, developed in earlier data analyses

(Daniel et al., 2002), provided a comprehensive portrait of possible types of pupils

exchanges in discussion. The typology permitted us to proceed to examine the central

questions that concerned us: Can young people attending elementary school achieve

critical thinking when adequately stimulated in this direction? If so, how does criticalthinking manifest itself and develop in these young people?

Methods

In accordance with the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which

inspires our process of analysis, we did not intend to deductively verify existing

theoretical foundations regarding critical thinking. Neither did we aim to measure the

impact of P4CM on the development of critical thinking (we did not use control

groups). Instead, from the transcripts of exchanges among pupils, we intended to

describe the manifestations of critical thinking in pupils*/using P4CM as apedagogical support*/in order to extract the elements likely to lead to a model of

the process of development in critical thinking. Indeed, the purpose of the Grounded

Theory is a construction of theories empirically based on social phenomena, about

which few analyses have been articulated (Laperriere, 1997, p. 310). And to theorize,

is to extract the meaning of an event, it is to link various elements of a situation in

an explanatory schema, it is to renew the comprehension of a phenomenon by

shedding a different light upon it (Paille, 1994, p. 149).

Since diverse sources and data are crucial for qualitative research aimed at theory

development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the research project was conducted in threegeographical contexts: Australia, Mexico and Canada (Quebec). These countries

offered diversity in culture (see Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez, 1972; Tsuneyoshi,

2004) and in language (English, Spanish and French). In addition, the research sites

offered diversity in curricula regarding teaching mathematics: Australias public

school system has for a number of years placed particular emphasis on the

development of logical reasoning in the learning of mathematics (Australian

Educational Council, 1994). Mexicos public school curriculum has placed an

emphasis on democratization and technological development (Ramirez, 1997).

Quebec has oriented its mathematics programs toward the development of judgment

and problem solving (Ministere de lEducation du Quebec, 2001). Diversity withregard to socio-economic status was likewise present. Four milieus were privileged,



9/22

three were underprivileged, and one was poor (see Barraza & Walford, 2002; Chance,

1986; Kennedy et al., 1990). Finally, diversity also extended to the childrens

experience with the P4C approach. One group was composed of pupils, some of

whom had practiced the P4C philosophical approach since preschool; another group

was in its second year of practicing P4C; while the other six groups were novices tothe approach.

Eight groups of pupils were studied, two in Australia, three in Mexico and three in

Quebec. Each group was composed of an average of 30 pupils aged 10 to 12 years, for

a total of 240 pupils. The classes were mixed, with approximately 50% girls and 50%

boys. The analysis did not focus on specific individuals, but attempted to bring to

light manifestations of critical thinking in the groups of pupils as a whole.

The experimental protocol consisted of conducting philosophical discussions

among peers as recommended by the P4CM approach (Daniel et al., 1996b). The

program took place during one full school year, at a frequency of one hour per week.For each of the groups, three video recordings were prepared of the philosophical

exchanges among the pupils. Each recording was 60 minutes, the length of the pupils

weekly philosophical exchanges. The first recording was conducted at the beginning

of October in Quebec and Mexico, and at the beginning of February in Australia. The

second recording was completed at the beginning of February in Quebec and Mexico,

and at the end of May in Australia. The third and final recording was conducted at

the end of May in Quebec and Mexico, and at the end of September in Australia. In

total, we obtained 24 video recordings, each representing 30 to 32 pages of transcript

(approximately 8,500 words). A professional transcribed the video recordings in full.

The transcripts were then returned to the teachers for verification of discussioncontent. Although the head of research, responsible for transcript analysis, spoke all

three languages, to ensure greater rigor in the analysis, the 24 transcripts were

translated into her mother tongue.

To establish data reliability within a qualitative framework, the 24 transcripts of

exchanges among pupils were first blind coded by the principal researcher, that is, all

data that could allow the pupils or the groups or the time period to be identified were

removed. Then, six weeks later, the same person again subjected the transcripts to a

second blind coding. Finally, excerpts from each transcript were submitted to the co-

researchers in their original languages for analysis and subsequent coordination.Where a divergence arose, the researchers exchanged views until a consensus was

reached. Below are the coding stages we followed:

(1) We coded each discussion to determine the inherent cognitive skills displayed

(statement, justification, example, etc.). Subsequently, we grouped these emergent

codes (and skills) into categories. Four temporary categories related to thinking

modes (logical, creative, responsible, and meta-cognitive) emerged. We were familiar

with certain traditional definitions associated with each thinking mode (e.g., Jones &

Idol, 1990). However, in accordance with the Grounded Theory approach, we

attempted to de-emphasize these, and to focus as much as possible on the pupils

contextualized manifestations of critical thought, our objective being to analyze dataarising from the elementary school pupils group discussions.



10/22

At the conclusion of this stage of coding, a general definition was attributed to each

of these thinking modes. Thus, logical thinking referred to informal logic that

presupposes convergence and coherence in language. Creative thinking referred to a

quest for meaning. It was manifest in the production of items or relations that were

more or less original or divergent, and likely to orient the groups perspectivedifferently. Thinking was defined as responsible to the extent that pupils invested

themselves in reflection with regard to human behavior and to moral rules. Meta-

cognitive thinkingreferred to a capacity to evaluate thinking and viewpoints in order

to improve them (for more details of this coding see Daniel et al., 2004).

(2) We analyzed the transcripts of the exchanges once more, this time paying

particular attention to the manner in which these four modes of thinking increased in

complexity as the exchanges progressed, moving from anecdotal or monological

toward critical dialogical. This analysis led us to identify three epistemological

perspectives, which we named egocentricity, relativism and inter-subjectivity. Withregard to egocentricity, within this perspective the pupils viewpoints were mere

statements grounded in their own experience; they were not justified. In relativism,

tolerance and open-mindedness toward plurality characterized the exchanges, but

reflection did not include doubt nor evaluation of the points of view. As for inter-

subjectivity, this perspective was only manifested at the end of the school year, and

not in all the groups of pupils. The inter-subjectivity perspective presupposed that

pupils were motivated to construct meanings with the help of their peers; their

privileged instrument was critical evaluation; their statements were justified and

regularly characterized by uncertainty (for more details see Daniel et al., 2004).

(3) We cross-tabulated the cognitive modes (logical, creative, responsible, and

metacognitive) and the epistemological perspectives (egocentricity, relativism, and

inter-subjectivity) inherent in the development of critical thinking processes. In this

process it proved helpful to characterize a distinction between content and form. The

resulting matrix appears in Table 1.

(4) In the final phase of the analysis, reported in the present paper, we applied

the constituent elements of the dialogical critical thinking process (Table 1) to

the transcripts of pupils exchanges. That is, we used the 4 (cognitive mode)/3

(epistemological perspective) matrix devised in Phase 3 as an instrument for

analyzing each groups transcripts. The objective was to better comprehend and tomodel the development of critical thinking processes among groups of pupils. The

following section of the paper is based on this fourth phase of the analysis.

Results

Illustration of the Development of the Dialogical Critical Thinking Process

To present an illustration of the childrens development of the dialogical critical

thinking process as shown in Table 1, we used excerpts from the exchanges of a group

of Quebec pupils. In the first transcript (October), the pupils discussed the followingquestion:Does a perfect cube exist?In the second transcript (February), they turned



11/22

Table 1 Development of the Dialogical Critical Thinking Process */C

Types of thought

Epistemologicalperspectives Logical Creative Responsib

1. EgocentricityContent Statement based on sensory

observation of a personalor of a particular fact

Statement that givesmeaning to the personalpoint of view

Response related own behavior

Form No justification Statement of units Simple response

2. RelativismContent Statement based on

generalizations stemming fromthe senses and reason

Statement that givesmeaning to anothersviewpoint

Response relatedpeers particular b

Form Incomplete or concretejustification

Contextual relations Attempt to undepeers responses

3. Inter-subjectivityContent Statement based on

simple reasoning(conceptualization)

Statement that conveys adivergent meaning(transformation)

Response relatedrules (categorizat

Form Spontaneous and elaboratedjustification

Evaluation of meanings Manifestations of


12/22

their attention to the question:When you draw shapes, are you doing geometry? And

in the third transcript (May), they discussed the game of chess and strategies for

success. The sequence showed the increasing complexity of thought on the

epistemological level as the group became anchored in philosophical praxis.

Epistemological Complexity of Four Thinking Modes

Logical thinking.At the level of content, logical thinking tends toward conceptualiza-

tion, and at the level of form, toward the ability to justify ones viewpoints. In the

transcripts for the entire school year from one of the groups of Quebec pupils, logical

thinking developed in the following manner.

At the time of the first recorded small group interaction in October, the group of

pupils exchanged using mostly the logical thinking mode, neglecting other thinking

modes. At the level of content, the pupils contributions were based either on a

concrete referent or on a generalization that combined observation by the senses withreasoning, whereas with regard to form, the majority of pupils did not justify their

statements:

Facilitator: Does a perfect cube exist?P1: A die could be a perfect cube.Facilitator: P2, does a perfect cube exist?P2: I dont want to say there is no such thing, but I havent really seen

one.

In this excerpt, the pupils needed to base their comments on concrete observation.

They drew little upon abstraction, stemming from reasoning alone. Also, the pupils

simply stated their viewpoints, they did not justify them using reasons or criteria.With reference to Table 1, and regarding the logical thinking mode, the group was

therefore situated within perspective 1, egocentricity, for both content and form.

By February the pupils thinking had become more complex, and generally

displayed more than one cognitive mode in its expression. Regarding logical thinking,

which still dominated the discourse, the transcript was characterized by thinking that

was slightly more abstract than in the first transcript (see Klausmeier, 1990). Pupils

did question one another without the facilitators intervention, and reasoning was

more explicit in their answers, although pupil interventions were still based on a

system of reference rooted in observation:P1: When you draw, you make shapes, but then are you doing geometry at the

same time?P2: Before grade 6, before we started talking about this [P4CM], I drew like this.

But ever since we started talking about it, when I draw, I always questionmyself.

P3: Before, I drew like this and I didnt think it was geometry, but now since westarted talking about it, I tell myself it always has to be well done.

The answers were no longer short sentences comprised of simple words, but rather

consisted of one or two complete sentences with logical relations of time, of cause to

effect, etc. At the level of form, in February the pupils generally supported theirstatements with justifications (. . .because . . .), but only to the extent that an adult



13/22

prompted them to do so. With reference to Table 1, we estimated that the group was

situated within perspective 2, relativism, for both content and form.

At the time of the final recorded interaction in May, the pupils had progressed in

the logical mode; their reasoning was more elaborate in the sense that the basis of

their argumentation rested on concepts. For example, while the pupils discussed thequalities necessary for success in chess, P1 mentioned self-confidence, and others

added, in a critical manner:

P2: [Among] the qualities to play chess, there is self-confidence, yes, but you also

have to pay attention. If you dont pay attention, if you listen to someone

talking and you dont pay attention to his move, you wont know whats

happening and then. . .

P3: You also need logic. Lets say you place your queen on a diagonal to a bishop,

it isnt logical because the bishop is going to take your queen. And this is one

of the main rules. Which means you have to have a lot of logic.

P4: You have to know how to think, its good for logic. Also to be able to keep

quiet during the game, to concentrate. If just as you are ready, you have to

speak with someone who tells you Youre no good, youre no good you

wont see whats going on in the game. This is why keeping quiet during a

game of chess is good.

In this excerpt, we noted that pupil contributions were based on abstract concepts

(self-esteem, paying attention, being logical, knowing how to think), which led pupils

to specify, to infer, and to make significant judgments. At the level of form, we also

noted that pupils spontaneously supported their points of view by justifications.

According to Table 1, the group was situated within perspective 3 regarding contentand form, which we refer to as inter-subjectivity.

Creative thinking. At the level of content, creative thinking strives toward the

transformation of ideas and meanings, and at the level of form, toward their

evaluation. In the transcripts from the same group of Quebec pupils, creative

thinking developed during the year in the following manner.

In the October transcripts we very rarely noted manifestations of creative thinking.

The pupils discussions remained relatively convergent. That is, they reproduced

rather than transformed meanings.By February, expressions of creative thinking were more frequent. Such thinking

was mostly centered on comprehension (as opposed to active transformation) of

meanings, and was often manifested as a question:

P1: Before, you said that when you were drawing and that you thought about it,

you were doing geometry, but when you didnt think about it, you were doing

some. I dont understand what youre saying. . .When youre drawing, even if

you arent thinking about it, you still think its geometry?

Here, P1 was not trying to evaluate his peers point of view. Rather, he wanted to

understand the meaning of his peers intervention, and to do so, he contextualized hiscomments. Indeed, the theme discussed created a problem in P1s mind, and he



14/22

searched for meaningful relations. With reference to Table 1, we assigned the group to

perspective 2, relativism, at the content and form levels.

At the final recorded discussion (May), creative thinking appeared in a great many

conversational turns. Creation of meaning through the use of an example to illustrate

a personal point of view (egocentrism) or a peer point of view (relativism) was veryevident. At the level of content, we also observed several contributions that we

considered to be more complex, because of the divergence of perspective they

included (inter-subjectivity). By virtue of this divergence, the pupil remarks enriched

the exchanges. On the other hand, the pupils contributions did not succeed in

modifying the exchange because, at the level of form, the divergent viewpoints were

merely juxtaposed (relativism), and were not used as criteria in order to evaluate, to

place in a hierarchy, to prioritize, or to choose the most relevant definition (as would

be required to demonstrate inter-subjectivity).

P1: The strategy is the plan to reach a solution.P2: Yes, but sometimes the strategy can be the solution.P3: Yes, but you have to create a strategy to find the solution you want.

This group was at least occasionally characterized by creative thinking, which

establishes critical relations between the various meanings given, and which

contributes to modifying either the context or the initial idea. The following

example illustrates high-level creative thinking.

P1: Its about the reasons why your strategy might not work. Sometimes, itswhen your strategy isnt strong enough for your opponent, or maybe its that

hes better than you are, or that he moved a game piece that, according toyou*/in your mind, he wasnt supposed to move for your strategy to work.So thats one thing that can make your strategy fail. Then theres alsoconcentration that can keep your strategy from working. You tell yourselfIm not sure this is going to work. Those that get here do this, but Im notsure. Youre not giving yourself any self-confidence.

In the preceding excerpt, the pupil not only presented points of view that were

different from those previously stated in the community of inquiry, but she also

presented them as hypotheses (or. . .or. . .or. . .) that she related to a perspective of

critical evaluation of peer points of view. Here, complexity of creative thinking was

therefore manifested in the transition from the search for a convergent meaning to

the divergent evaluation of meanings. This situated the discourse within perspective

3, inter-subjectivity.

Responsible thinking.At the level of content, responsible thinking appears when pupils

invest themselves in reflection*/first, with regard to human behavior, and then to

moral rules (categorization of specific actions). At the level of form, responsible

thinking appears when pupils question and evaluate behaviors, rules, or principles.

Below is the progression in which responsible thinking was manifested in the group.

In October and February, responsible thinking did not constitute a cognitivemodality that was characteristic of the group.



15/22

In May, however, responsible thinking was manifested when some pupils reflected

upon the causes of defeat in the game of chess.

Facilitator: In this instance, what would be the causes of defeat?P1: It depends on what the other one did.

P2: Maybe its because. . .

Lets say that you were looking at what theother one just did and you told yourself: on my next turn I willcertainly play this move, to be sure to get it. And the opponentdoesnt play it (as expected). Then its your fault too, you know. Youtold yourself he could do that but he didnt.

In this example P2, unlike P1, tried to understand the causes of this defeat by

examining both parties at issue. To do so, at the level of content, what she attempted

to explain was related to the behavior of a peer. Furthermore, she was concerned with

making P1 understand her point of view. The intervention was thus in all respects

situated within relativism.

Meta-cognitive thinking. At the level of content, meta-cognitive thinking signifies

thinking about thinking (ones own and that of peers) and exercising a certain control

over it instead of simply being pulled along by it. At the level of form, meta-cognitive

thinking presupposes evaluation and correction of ones thinking. Below is the manner

in which meta-cognitive thinking developed in the group as the months passed.

In October, meta-cognitive thinking was rarely observed. In February, however, at

the level of content meta-cognitive thinking was manifested when pupils agreed or

disagreed with the points of view stated by their peers (relativism). Participants

typically began their comments by explicitly repeating a preceding remark on which

they based their comments, and sometimes by naming the pupil who voiced it and

describing the point of view at issue (Before, you said that . . . or, I dont agree

with her because. . .). At the level of form, the pupils began their intervention by

reformulating, as exactly as possible, the comments of their peers (relativism). In

other words, they were situated more within description than within evaluation. Thus

in February, the pupils discourse was not random; on the contrary, they controlled it

quite well. With reference to Table 1, we considered meta-cognitive thinking to be

expressed primarily within perspective 2 of relativism.

In the final set of transcripts recorded in May, since the exchange was of adialogical nature, that is to say, each successive student remark rested on the

preceding one, we could say that meta-cognitive thinking was an integral part of the

pupils discourse. At the level of content, meta-cognitive thinking was manifested

when making references to strategies or mental processes, and to their construction.

P1: Its about the reasons why your strategy might not work. Sometimes, its whenyour strategy isnt strong enough for your opponent, or that he moved agame piece that, according to you*/in your mind, he wasnt supposed tomove for your strategy to work. So thats one thing that can make yourstrategy fail. Then theres also concentration that can keep your strategy fromworking. You tell yourself Im not sure this is going to work. Youre notgiving yourself any self-confidence.



16/22

In this instance, at the level of form, it was not only the statement of mental processes

that was at stake, but also the evaluation of their relation. A high degree of conceptual

complexity was evident. The group was therefore ascribed to perspective 3, inter-

subjectivity, for both content and form.

In this group of Quebec pupils, the preceding series of discussion extracts revealsthe increasing complexity of dialogical critical thinking during their philosophical

praxis. On one hand, thinking modes were increasingly varied; at the beginning of the

school year, pupil interventions mostly reflected one mode of thinking (logical), while

at the end of the year, all four modes of thinking were displayed. On the other hand,

the groups epistemological perspective increased in complexity between the

beginning and the end of the year, shifting from egocentricity to relativism and

even, in some cases, to inter-subjectivity.

The preceding section, because it was meant to illustrate the development of the

dialogical critical thinking process, was based on transcripts of the exchanges within asingle group of pupils. In the following section, we introduce elements of a full model

of dialogical critical thinking. To do so, all 24 of the transcripts of exchanges between

pupils in the eight groups were considered.

Modeling of Dialogical Critical Thinking

In response to our objective of modeling the learning process of critical thinking in

pupils, analysis of the transcripts revealed two fundamental criteria: multi-modality

of thought and epistemological complexity.

Multi-modality. Unlike the works of authors such as Lipman (1988, 1991, 1995),

Ennis (1993), Paul (1992), and Siegel (1988), in our study, multi-modality refers to

four thinking modes (logical, creative, responsible, and meta-cognitive). Analyses of

the transcripts of exchanges, as illustrated above, revealed the prevalence of multi-

modal thinking. For example, logical thinking was present in all of the exchanges,

whether of the anecdotal, the monological or the dialogical type of exchange. On the

other hand, we observed meta-cognitive thinking only when the exchanges between

pupils were of the dialogical type. This is because dialogue is a discursive co-

construction that presupposes not only listening, but also recognizing the soundnessof others points of view and perspectives (Buchler, 1978).

And we observed that the dialogical type of exchange became critical when the

young people, aware of the distinctions between various verbalized perspectives,

adjusted or modified their viewpoints accordingly (meta-cognitive thinking). These

two elements (taking into account the comments of others and correcting) are

inherent in meta-cognitive thinking as it emerged from our analyses. This finding

brings us to posit that, without skills related to meta-cognitive thinking in the

discourse, there cannot be a critical dialogical type of exchange. However, the

converse also applies. That is, along with Roubtsov (1991), Lipman et al. (1980),

Cazden (1988), Wells (1999) and other socio-constructivists who follow Vygotsky, weconsider that communication among peers is what ensures complexity of reflection.



17/22

Furthermore, we observed in the student discussions that creative thinking was

instrumental in transforming the level of exchange and in enabling a transition from

monological to dialogical exchange. Conversely, the more the dialogue reflected the

criteria for critical status, the more creative thinking became manifest in the pupils

discourse. The explanation for this finding is that skills related to creative thinking arepresent when providing divergent meanings, unexpected points of view, and critical

evaluations of meanings. Critical evaluation often produces cognitive conflict in

peers, which in turn triggers a more elaborate process of reflection, that is, creative

thinking.

Finally, we observed among the pupils who had experience with P4C that in their

most critical exchanges, responsible thinking was present (e.g., the extract presented

in the section Critical Dialogical Exchange). We explain this presence by the fact that

truly dialogical critical thinking does not aim for personal victory over others points

of view, but rather improvement of the groups, or of societys perspective (see Paul,1992; Daniel et al., 2000). In other words, development of the responsible mode

among the pupils tempers the exchanges and orients the discussion toward a vision of

mutual understanding and of active participation in the construction of the moral

rules inherent in every group and in every society.

Epistemological complexity.Along with multi-modality, the discussion data revealed

another concomitant of the development of critical thinking: epistemological

complexity. For dialogical critical thinking to develop, the simple presence of the

four thinking modes in the pupils discourses may be necessary, but it is not

sufficient. In our transcripts, dialogical critical thinking was observable only when wedetected also the capabilities associated with inter-subjectivity, that is, conceptualiza-

tion, transformation, categorization and correction. It is within inter-subjectivity

that statements are argued and justified, relations are seen as divergent and meanings

are evaluated, judgments are inclusive and social-moral rules are questioned, and

perspectives are evaluated and corrected. From the perspective of dialogical critical

thinking, multi-modality and epistemological complexity are two inseparable

indicia.

The sequence of learning dialogical critical thinking. In all eight groups participating in

the experiment, the development of critical thinking followed the same sequenceregardless of culture or language. The only difference noted concerned groups

which had previous experience with P4C, as these began with a head start and

finished one step ahead. Following is a description of the general sequence we

observed.

At the beginning of the school year, the pupils communication demonstrated two

types of exchange: anecdotal (rarely) and monological (mostly). Analysis of the

transcripts that reflect these types of exchanges indicated that the pupils discourses

reflected a preponderance of concrete logical thinking.

At mid-year, the pupils exchanges were dialogical. However, the dialogue was non-

critical. Analysis of the transcripts that reflected this type of exchange indicated thatthe pupils discourses reflected the use of three thinking modes: semi-abstract logical



18/22

thinking, contextualized creative thinking, and meta-cognitive thinking. Overall, the

non-critical dialogical type of exchange reflected a relativism of perspective in which

the pupils enjoyed accumulating as many points of view as possible.

At the end of the school year, the transcripts revealed exchanges that were largely of the

semi-critical dialogical type. Discourse analysis reflected all four thinking modes: logicalthinking, metacognitive thinking, creative thinking, and responsible thinking. In this

phase, the groups wavered between relativism and inter-subjectivity, between unreflective

acceptance of peers points of view and conscious evaluation of those points of view.

Those groups with prior experience in P4C ended the year more solidly grounded

in critical dialogue and in inter-subjectivity.

Conclusions

The starting point for this study was exchanges among peers, since discourse is

considered to be the concrete manifestation of thought. In contrast to numerous

existing studies on social interactions, and specifically on classroom communication

between peers, we emphasized the critical aspect of these exchanges. A first important

contribution of this study is that it succeeded in inducing the emergence of a process

of learning critical dialogue among young people aged 10 to 12 years when they

employed a philosophical approach centered on mathematical concepts.

Although assessing the impact of P4CM was not among our research objectives, it is

nonetheless interesting to note the role of these classroom discussions in the pupils

cognitive development. In this research project, the steps in the development process

were achieved with the help of a philosophicalpraxis(rather than a rigid technique),which was regular (one hour per week) and continuous (extending over at least one

school year). Moreover, it appealed to teachers Socratic abilities, which consist of

stimulating thought in their pupils with questions such as: What is your justification

when you say. . .? What criteria are you basing this on? Do you have a counter-

example? What could you add to improve this point of view? Do you agree with

what was just said? How would you organize the criteria that were just voiced? How

has the groups perspective evolved between the beginning and the end of the

exchange? It would be opportune to verify, in a future research project, the impact

of other non-philosophical pedagogical approaches centered on class discussions on thedevelopment of young people critical thinking. A priori, two conditions seem

necessary: (1) that these approaches lie within the scope ofpraxis, and (2) that their

objectives encompass scaffolding young people in the development of multimodal and

complex thought. This scaffolding is necessary, as these dimensions of thought not

infrequently plunge early adolescent pupils into ambiguity and uncertainty, which can

at times render the exchangeuncomfortable. Indeed, multimodal and complex thinking

presuppose not only a cognitive investment, but also an affective and social investment.

With Dewey (1929/1960), Lipman (1995), Wells (1999) and others, we consider that

classroom discussions must be situated within the cooperative context of a community

of inquiry in order to better stimulate pupils toward a common reflection that favorsaccess to inter-subjectivity.



19/22

A second major contribution of our study resides in the modeling of the process of

learning dialogical critical thinking among young adolescents 10 to 12 years of age. In

most studies, critical thinking is thought to emerge within the context of the cognitive

development of young adults attending college and university. In contrast, our study

focused on preadolescents attending elementary school. The results showed that withdiscussion-based praxis, such pupils can develop higher-order thinking skills and

attitudes related to critical. While a number of other studies have examined the

development of various thinking modes (in particular logical reasoning, conceptualiza-

tion, meta-cognition, creativity and problem solving) in young people, these thinking

modes have been generally examined separately (e.g., Jones & Idol, 1990). Our model is

more global, in that it integrates four thinking modes and shows them operating

concurrently. In addition, the model explicated here has the merit of combining these

four modes with a second theoretical axis related to epistemology, in order to better

capture the complexity of the development of critical thinking. Following is ourdefinition of dialogical critical thinking that summarizes the constituent elements:

Dialogical critical thinking is a process of (e)valuating the object of thought, incooperation with peers, in an attempt to eliminate irrelevant criteria in order tocontribute to improvement of experience. Dialogical critical thinking is a process thatensues from a common quest, which manifests itself in cognitive skills and attitudesrelated to conceptualization, transformation, categorization and correction. It there-fore requires the contribution of four cognitive modalities, namely logical, creative,responsible and meta-cognitive thinking, which are conjoined with a complexepistemological perspective, inter-subjectivity oriented toward meaning. As a result, anew understanding of the object of thought is generated, and a modification of the

initial idea occurs.

Learning to dialogue in a critical manner and learning to reflect critically is a complex

task for young people, and takes time. Nevertheless, the ensuing learning acquired

(that is, learning to manage diversity of opinions for collective enrichment;

understanding that uncertainty and ambiguity are a necessary transition toward

attaining a significant solution; perceiving the evaluation of acquired knowledge as a

fundamental activity; grasping that criticism is a privileged instrument in the

evolution of viewpoints and perspectives, etc.) is in keeping with a form of education

that will allow young people to successfully face the challenges that are inherent in the

expansion of knowledge and in the increasing complexity of life in society.

References

Australian Education Council. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools.

Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.

Barraza, L., & Walford, R. (2002). Environmental education: A comparison between English and

Mexican school children. Environmental Education Research, 8, 171/186.

Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. Tools and techniques for

democratic classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Buchler, J. (1978). What is a discussion? Thinking, 1 (1), 49/54.

Camhy, D., & Iberer, G. (1988). Philosophy for children: A research project for further mental and

personality development of primary and secondary school pupils. Thinking, 7(4), 18/26.



20/22

Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving

transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition,15, 1147/1156.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Chance, P. (1986). Introduction: The thinking movement. In P. Chance & R. S. Brandt (Eds.),

Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs(pp. 1/9). New York: Teachers College Press.

Daniel, M.-F. (1997). La philosophie et les enfants [Philosophy and children]. Montreal: Logiques.

Daniel, M.-F. (2005). Pour lapprentissage dune pensee critique au primaire[For the apprenticeship

of critical thinking in elementary school]. Quebec City: Presses de lUniversitedu Quebec.

Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Sykes, P. (1996a). Les aventures mathematiques de

Mathilde et David [The mathematical adventures of Mathilde and David]. Quebec City: Le

Loup de Gouttiere.

Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Sykes, P. (1996b). Philosopher sur les mathematiques et

les sciences[Philosophize on mathematics and science], Accompanying Guide. Quebec City:

Le Loup de Gouttiere.

Daniel, M.-F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Schleifer, M. (2000). Developmental dynamics of a

community of philosophical inquiry in an elementary school mathematics classroom.

Thinking, 15(1), 2/10.

Daniel, M.-F., Splitter, L., Slade, C., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Mongeau, P. (2002). Are the

philosophical exchanges of pupils aged 10 to 12 relativistic or intersubjective? Creative and

Critical Thinking, 10(2), 1/19.

Daniel, M.-F., Splitter, L., Slade, C., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Mongeau, P. (2004). Dialogical

critical thinking: Elements of definitions emerging in the analysis of transcripts from pupils

aged 10 to 12 years. Australian Journal of Education, 48(3), 295/313.

Delors, J. (Ed.). (1996). lEducation, un tresor est cache dedans. Rapport a lUNESCO de la

Commission Internationale sur lEducation pour le Vingt et Unieme Siecle[Education, in it a

treasure is hidden. Report to UNESCO from the International Commission on Education for

the 21st Century]. Paris: Odile Jacob.

Dewey, J. (1960).The quest for certainty: A study of the relation between knowledge and action. New

York: Capricorn Books. (Originally published 1929)

Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179/186.

Garnier, C., Bednarz, N., & Ulanovskaya, I. (Eds). (1991). Apres Vygotski et Piaget. Perspectives

sociale et constructiviste. Ecoles Russe et Occidentale[After Vygotsky and Piaget. Social and

constructivist perspectives. Russian School and Occidental School]. Brussels: De Boeck

University.

Gazzard, A. (1988). Evidence of effectiveness of the Philosophy for Children program: Quantitative

studies. Thinking, 7(4), 13/15.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gumperz, J., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1972). Bilingualism, bidialectalism, and classroom

interaction. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the

classroom (pp. 84 /108). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jones, B. F., & Idol, L. (Eds). (1990).Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kennedy, M., Fisher, M., & Ennis, R. (1990). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed

research. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp.

11/41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Klausmeier, H. J. (1990). Conceptualizing. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and

cognitive instruction (pp. 93/138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lago-Bernstein, J. C. (1990). The community of inquiry and the development of self-esteem.

Thinking, 9(1), 12/17.



21/22

Lane, N. R., & Lane, S. A. (1986). Rationality, self-esteem and autonomy through collaborative

enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 12, 263/275.

Laperriere, A. (1997). La theorisation ancree: Demarche analytique et comparaison avec dautres

approches apparentees [Grounded theory: Analytical process and comparison with similar

methods]. In J. Poupart, J.-P. Delauriers, L. H. Groulx, A. Laperriere, & A. Pires (Eds.), La

recherche qualitative: Enjeux epistemologiques et methodologiques [Qualitative research:Epistemological and methodological stakes] (pp. 309/346). Boucherville: Gaetan Morin.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38/43.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. (1995). Good thinking. Inquiry. Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, 15, 37/41.

Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom . Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

Maier, N. (1933). An aspect of human reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 24, 144/155.

Ministere de lEducation du Quebec. (2001). Programme de formation de lecole Quebecoise:

education prescolaire, enseignement primaire[Program of education in Quebec: Kindergarten

and elementary school]. Quebec City: Les publications du Quebec.

Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. R. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogicaltransfer. Memory & Cognition, 19, 543/557.

Newman, F. M. (1990). Higher-order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the

assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 41/46.

Paille, P. (1994). Lanalyse par theorisation ancree [Analysis with grounded theory]. Cahiers de

Recherche Sociologique[Journal of Research in Sociology], 23 , 147/181.

Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why and how. New Directions for Community College,77,

3/25.

Platon. (1950). Theetete. In Platon (Trans. Leon Robin), uvres Completes [Complete Works]

(pp. 83/193). Paris: Gallimard.

Ramirez, G. (1997). Leducation aux droits de lhomme et a la democratie: Defis de la societe

mexicaine [Education to human rights and to democracy: Challenges of the Mexicansociety],Revue des Sciences de lEducation[Journal of Educational Sciences], XXIII(1), 113/

123.

Roubtsov, V. (1991). Lactivitedapprentissage et les problemes de formation de la pensee theorique

des ecoliers [Learning activity and the problems related to the development of theoretical

thinking in students]. In C. Garnier, N. Bednarz, & I. Ulanovskaya (Eds.), Apres Vygotski et

Piaget. Perspectives sociale et constructiviste. Ecoles Russe et Occidentale [After Vygotsky

and Piaget. Social and constructivist perspectives. Russian School and Occidental School]

(pp. 151/162). Brussels: De Boeck University.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York:

Routledge.

Tsuneyoshi, R. (2004). The new foreigners and the social reconstruction of differences: Thecultural diversification of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 40, 55/81.

Van der Zee, E., & Nikanne, U. (2000). Cognitive interfaces: Constraints on linking cognitive

information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Received November 5, 2003

Accepted February 18, 2005



22/22

Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years

Documents

Transcript of Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils Aged 10 to 12 Years