Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry as Peace Pedagogy

Somayeh Khatibi Mogahdam

MA Sociology (Tehran University, Iran) BA Library Science (Ferdowsi University, Iran)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2018 School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry

i

Abstract

While there is an expansion of global communication, it has not led to greater mutual understanding of social and political issues, as illustrated by the ongoing eruption of violence at global, national and local levels, such as “Indigenous struggles for recognition, gender inequality, increasingly vocal opposition over asylum seekers, discrimination against ethnic minorities, and marriage inequality” (Thornton & Burgh, 2017, p. 58), as well as the growing rise of domestic and family violence in Australia and elsewhere.

Since there is an emphasis on the importance of education as a principle means of building a culture of peace (e.g. United Nations, 1999), it is necessary to evaluate peace education programs. Therefore, the thesis aimed to examine the potential and limitations of Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry (CPI) as a candidate pedagogy for peace. The researcher argued that existing peace education models lack a rich and integrated foundation for peace pedagogy. The researcher also criticized peace education models for generally appealing to a negative notion of peace (i.e., the absence of conflict) rather than a positive one (i.e., the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of promoting growth). To address these criticisms, the researcher first took a critical look at pragmatist epistemology to provide a framework that underpins her proposal for peace pedagogy. Next, she investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory and explored its contribution to peace education. Then, the researcher built on Lipman’s educational theory to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education, drawing on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom. She drew attention to the fact that many peace education models fail since they cultivate only a superficial understanding of the concepts related to peace and violence instead of helping children to understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace education (Lipman, 2003, pp. 105–106). CPI, on the other hand, has the potential to provide a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which students can practice social inquiry and learn to make better judgments in their lives.

However, the researcher exposed some limitations of CPI and showed that although CPI is considered a safe and peaceful environment that allows students to freely explore and inquire into conflicts, there is a problematic gap between an ideal CPI and what happens in the classroom. The researcher pointed out some major problems of actual CPI, including the potential for inequality and epistemic violence in the classroom. She outlined some different solutions for these drawbacks offered by scholars and proposed her model of ii

‘Peaceful CPI’ that provided pedagogical strategies to address potential inequality and epistemic violence. The researcher’s main argument was that CPI needs to more carefully consider the role of emotions in the process of learning.

To argue the efficiency of CPI and to answer the main research question that whether or not CPI provides an effective model for Peace Pedagogy, the researcher carried out a case study research in an Australian capital city state school in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy over the past six years1. The study was grounded on interpretivist assumptions and was framed within a qualitative paradigm of inquiry that utilized case study research design. The study can throw light on whether, when CPI is established effectively, teachers and students perceive it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). The researcher collected data from different perspectives (teachers, students and the researcher) and deploying different methods (individual interviews, focus group interview and observations). In this research, thematic analysis was used for the description and interpretation of the data set. Bernstein’s (1971) theory of classification and framing was also used to analyze how power and control were distributed in CPI classrooms.

The findings corroborate the capacity of CPI as peace pedagogy and its contributions to violence reduction and peace promotion in the school environment. Findings showed the teachers and students perceived CPI to reduce violent conflict and develop peaceful attributes, such as the ability to explore and resolve conflicts, to make reasonable judgments, and to peacefully disagree with others. On the other hand, findings suggested CPI might have some limitations regarding the distribution of power among community members and disengaged students from philosophical discussion.

It is hoped that the findings of the research will assist peace education and CPI scholars and practitioners by embracing and enacting a more emotionally deliberative and effective education for children. The researcher also anticipates that the outcomes and recommendations of the study will open new horizons in the study of education for peace, democracy and citizenship.

1 The research was conducted in the school in 2015 iii

Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that the copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

iv

Publications included in this thesis

No publications included.

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication

Other publications during candidature

No other publications

Contributions by others to the thesis

No contributions by others

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Approval number: 2015000207 Approving committee: Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee

v

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Peter Ellerton for his patience, insightful comments and encouragements.

My sincere thanks also go to Prof. Peter Renshaw for his precious support and very valuable comments on this thesis.

Besides my advisors, I would like to thank Prof. Stephan Riek and his amazing team in the University of Queensland Graduate School and Dr. David Pritchard for their patience and support in overcoming numerous obstacles I have been facing through my candidature.

I also express my appreciation to Dr. Gilbert Burgh and Dr. Kim Nichols for their advice at the earlier stage of this research.

My special thanks go to the School principal, teachers and students who graciously gave their time and resources to contribute to this study. Thank you for allowing me to share your story in this research.

I want to especially honor my wonderful parents, my brother Jalil and my sister-in-law Fattane for their unfailing love, support, inspiration, and encouragement throughout my research journey.

Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my amazing friends, Bahram, Sameema, Hora, David, Michael and Fereshteh for their precious support, encouragement and accompanying me during this meaningful journey.

vi

Financial support

This research was supported by International Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

This research was also supported by University of Queensland Centennial Scholarship.

Keywords collaborative philosophical inquiry, peace education, peace pedagogy, philosophy for children, Matthew Lipman, pragmatism, community of inquiry, epistemic injustice

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 220202, History and Philosophy of Education, 50%

ANZSRC code: 130202, Curriculum and Pedagogy Theory and Development, 30%

ANZSRC code: 130299, Curriculum and Pedagogy not elsewhere classified, 20%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 2202, History and Philosophy of Specific Fields, 50%

FoR code: 1302, Curriculum and Pedagogy, 50%

vii

To:

The Little Girl Inside of Me and All Children Who Experience the Pain of Being Outsiders

viii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 7

1.1 Introduction ...... 7

1.2 The Research Problem and Central Research Questions ...... 7

1.3 Research Design ...... 11

1.4 Purpose and significance of the research ...... 13

1.5 Thesis Outline ...... 15

2 Exploring Peace and Peace Education ...... 18

2.1 Introduction ...... 18

2.2 Exploring Peace and Violence ...... 18

2.3 Exploring Conflict ...... 26

2.4 Different Approaches to Peace ...... 34

2.5 Education for Peace ...... 38

2.5.1 Rich Diversity in Peace Education ...... 42

2.5.2 Components of Peace Education ...... 47

2.5.3 Limitations of Existing Peace Education Models ...... 51

2.6 Summary ...... 53

3 Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry in Classroom ...... 55

3.1 Introduction ...... 55

3.2 An Introduction to Philosophy for Children ...... 55

3.3 Communal Inquiry, the Core of Philosophy for Children Pedagogy ...... 59

3.4 Reasonableness, Thinking as a Community ...... 63

3.5 Power and Control in the CPI classroom ...... 67

3.6 Summary ...... 69

4 Exploring the Potential of CPI as Peace Pedagogy ...... 70

4.1 Introduction ...... 70

4.2 Pragmatism, a Framework for Peace Pedagogy ...... 70 1

4.3 CPI as an Educational Theory for Peace Education ...... 75

4.4 The Role of CPI in Exploring Conflict ...... 78

4.5 The Role of CPI in Promoting Peace ...... 81

4.6 Summary ...... 87

5 Peaceful CPI ...... 88

5.1 Introduction ...... 88

5.2 Problems with Existing CPI Models ...... 88

5.3 Peaceful CPI as Peace Pedagogy ...... 95

5.3.1 Reflection on the Model of Facilitator-Inquirer Relation: Listening to Students’ Emotions ...... 96

5.3.2 Reflection on the Model of Facilitator; Stepping into the discomfort zone .... 101

5.4 Summary ...... 104

6 Research Design and Methodology ...... 107

6.1 Introduction ...... 107

6.2 Paradigmatic Pathways Leading to a Research Design ...... 107

6.3 Case Study as Research Design ...... 108

6.4 Conceptual Framework ...... 114

6.4.1 Bernstein’ Theory of Power and Control in an Educational Context ...... 114

6.5 Participants ...... 116

6.6 Ethical considerations ...... 117

6.7 Data Gathering Strategies ...... 118

6.7.1 Semi-Structured Interviews with teachers ...... 118

6.7.2 Focus Group Interview with students ...... 119

6.7.3 Observation of CPI Classroom ...... 120

6.8 Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Data ...... 122

6.9 Validating the accuracy of Findings ...... 123

6.10 Summary ...... 123

7 Findings and Discussion ...... 125

2

7.1 Introduction ...... 125

7.2 What Teachers Say about CPI ...... 125

7.2.1 Teachers’ Perception of CPI ...... 126

7.2.2 Teachers’ Beliefs about Students’ Perception of CPI ...... 129

7.2.3 Relationship between Teachers and Students ...... 133

7.2.4 The Effects of CPI on Teachers ...... 139

7.2.5 The Effect of CPI on Students ...... 143

7.2.6 Issues and Challenges Facing CPI ...... 152

7.2.7 Contribution CPI to More Harmonious Life for Students ...... 155

7.3 What Students Say about CPI ...... 158

7.3.1 Students’ Perceptions of CPI ...... 159

7.3.2 Difference between CPI and Other Classes ...... 162

7.3.3 Effects of CPI on Students ...... 163

7.3.4 Contribution of CPI to a More Harmonious Life ...... 166

7.4 What a CPI Classroom Looks Like? ...... 167

7.4.1 Discussion Plan ...... 168

7.4.2 Describing the Setting ...... 168

7.4.3 Conducting the Discussion ...... 170

7.4.4 Ball Strategy ...... 176

7.4.5 Ending the Discussion; Reflecting and Evaluating ...... 177

7.5 Power and control in CPI classroom ...... 178

7.6 Summary ...... 183

8 Conclusion ...... 184

8.1 Introduction ...... 184

8.2 Key Findings ...... 190

8.2.1 Teachers’ Perception of CPI and its Contribution to Peace ...... 190

8.2.2 Students’ Perceptions of CPI and its Contribution to Peace ...... 192

8.2.3 The Effects of CPI on Students ...... 194

3

8.2.4 The Effects of CPI on Teachers ...... 197

8.2.5 Power and Control in CPI Classroom ...... 198

8.2.6 Limitations and challenges of CPI ...... 201

8.3 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research ...... 202

8.4 Limitations of the Study ...... 204

8.5 Final Summary ...... 204

References ...... 206

Appendices ...... 219

Appendix A: University Ethical Approval for the Current Study ...... 219

Appendix B: Amendment of University Ethical Approval for the Current Study ...... 220

4

List of Figures

Figure 1: Typology of violence ...... 22 Figure 2: Extended concept of violence and peace ...... 23 Figure 3: Dealing with conflict (1) ...... 29 Figure 4: Dealing with conflict (2) ...... 30 Figure 5: The stages to violent conflict ...... 34 Figure 6: Peacebuilding dimensions...... 36 Figure 7: Approaches to peacebuilding ...... 38 Figure 8: Caring thinking ...... 66 Figure 9. Designing research process ...... 109 Figure 10. Mapping out the design for the current case study ...... 113 Figure 11. A visual model of the coding process ...... 122 Figure 12. What teachers say about CPI ...... 125 Figure 13. Teachers’ perception of CPI ...... 126 Figure 14. Teachers’ beliefs about students’ perception of CPI ...... 129 Figure 15. Relationship between teachers and students ...... 134 Figure 16. The effects of CPI on teachers ...... 140 Figure 17. The effects of CPI on students...... 144 Figure 18. Issues and challenges facing CPI ...... 153 Figure 19. CPI contribution to a more harmonious life ...... 156 Figure 20. What students say about CPI ...... 159 Figure 21. CPI classroom arrangement...... 169

List of Tables

Table 1. Human right education example ...... 44 Table 2. Development education example ...... 45 Table 3. Democracy education example ...... 46 Table 4. Questions, purposes and design frames ...... 109 Table 5. Power and control relations within a pedagogic social context ...... 114 Table 6. Research participants (group 1) ...... 116 Table 7. Research participant (group 2)...... 116 Table 8. Research participant (group 3)...... 117 Table 9. Teachers' interview questions ...... 118 5

Table 10. Students' interview questions ...... 120 Table 11. Discussion plan ...... 121 Table 12. The ways CPI valuable for students ...... 159 Table 13. What students like and enjoy about CPI ...... 161 Table 14. What students do not like about CPI or find challenging ...... 162 Table 15. Difference between CPI and other classes ...... 163 Table 16. Students’ feeling about themselves in CPI classroom ...... 164 Table 17. Dealing with conflicts ...... 165 Table 18. Contribution of CPI to a more harmonious life ...... 166 Table 19. Sample discussion in CPI classroom ...... 172 Table 20. Reflection part ...... 177 Table 21. Framing scale in a classroom ...... 180 Table 22. Pacing adjustment in CPI classroom ...... 181

6

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The chapter will outline the research problem that framed the inquiry and the central research questions that arose in seeking to investigate whether and how collaborative philosophical inquiry (CPI) could be effective as peace pedagogy. Subsequently, a brief overview of the research design used within the study will be articulated and the purpose and significance of the study will be described. Finally, in the thesis outline, a short review of each chapter will be presented.

1.2 The Research Problem and Central Research Questions

Ironically, while the world is heading toward the expansion of global communication, this has not led to greater mutual understanding of social and political issues, yet there remains an ongoing eruption of violence at global, national and local levels, such as “Indigenous struggles for recognition, gender inequality, increasingly vocal opposition over asylum seekers, discrimination against ethnic minorities, and marriage inequality” (Thornton & Burgh, 2017, p. 58), as well as a growing rise of domestic and family violence and bullying in schools. According to the National Center Against Bullying (NCAB) in Australia, one out of every five Australian children reported being bullied. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicate students who are bullied can experience negative physical, school, and mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, health complains and decreased academic achievement and school participation. The World Health Organization (WHO) (2017) reported one in three (35%) women worldwide has experienced either physical or sexual intimate partner violence or non- partner sexual violence in their lifetime.

In their book Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry, Splitter and Sharp (1995) observed that “we live in difficult times; conflict and discontent are widespread, ethnic and racial hatreds flourish, the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have- nots’ is wider than ever” (p. 1). As human beings, we are subject to personal and structural conflict and violence in the forms of, for example, war, injustice and oppression, poverty, and widespread exploitation. Each year, many people die or are traumatized as a

7 result of conflict, and children, as one of the most vulnerable groups, are affected by the violence in many ways. According to UNESCO (2001), “this state of disorder and confusion in society is affecting children’s innocent minds. Children naturally absorb the spirit of violence in the atmosphere and will soon grow to be the next generation of perpetuators of violence” (p. 1). So, the need for education to “nurture peace in the hearts of children has arisen as urgent issues to be addressed” (p. 1). Hence, there is a growing consensus of the need to educate around peace, to children, especially as part of the school curriculum in many countries (p. 2).

According to peace scholars, ‘peace’ does not only refer to the absence of overt or direct violence such as war or physical violence, a view known as ‘negative’ peace. It also refers to ‘positive’ peace, i.e., eliminating all forms of injustices, discrimination and unequal access to opportunities that are considered ‘structural violence’ (Berghof, 2012; Fountain, 1999; United Nations, 1999; Hicks, 1987; Galtung, 1969). Positive peace is founded on universal common values of respect for human rights and dignity, democracy, justice, non- violence, tolerance, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue and understanding at all levels of society and among nations (United Nations, 1999).

Fountain (1999), the member of Peace Education Working Group in the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) defines peace education as:

the process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to bring about behavior changes that will enable children, youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, national or international level. (p. 1)

There is a considerable variety between pedagogical approaches in mainstream peace education around the world. However, there are two main criticism of peace education (Danesh, 2006; Clarke-Habibi, 2005; Salomon, 2002; Swee-Hin, 1997). Firstly, peace education suffers from a general lack of clarity and coherence in its theory and practice. As a result, extremely diverse activities applied in very different contexts all go under the single label of peace education as if they can be categorised together without further consideration. Also, the lack of clarity about what peace education is and how the different approaches relate to each other makes it hard to use the outcomes of one peace education approach in one area to other areas (Salomon, 2002; Swee-Hin, 1997). Clarke- Habibi (2005) argues that the root of this issue is that our understanding of peace “is still

8 undergoing elaboration and refinement” (p. 37). She argues that peace education needs a theory that integrates all different dimensions of peace building including the social-political as well as psychological and spiritual (p. 37).

The second criticism regarding existing peace education models is that they generally focus on a negative concept of peace as the absence of conflict rather than a positive one as the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of personal and social transformation (see: Salomon, 2002; Danesh, 2006; Clarke-Habibi, 2005; Swee-Hin, 1997). The educational models based on the negative approach to peace generally tend to appeal to values education or character education, both of which instil values of “fraternity and non- violence” (Gregory, 2004, p. 277). These kinds of education have a propensity to admire concepts associated with peace, such as justice and freedom, and condemn the qualities related to violence (Lipman, 2003, pp. 127–128). Lipman (1995), in his article Educating for Violence Reduction and Peace Development, claims that so many attempts to educate for peace have failed since they start with the prescription “Seek peace, Avoid violence” and, thus, cultivate superficial understandings about these concepts (p. 121). He adds:

To be sure, the face of peace is most attractive and that of violence is most unattractive. However, when it comes to education with regards to these values, it is not enough to cultivate immediate emotional responses, or to reiterate how good peace is and how bad violence is. Instead, we have to help children both understand and practise what is involved in violence- reduction and peace-development. They have to learn to think for themselves about these matters, not just provide knee-jerk responses when we present the proper stimuli. (p. 121)

Lipman (2003) posits it seems many moral education programs settle for stereotypical thinking and generalizations in favor of peace and against violence without considering the different context and circumstances (p. 128). For example, “she is passive, she must be good” or “he is dashing, he can’t be a violator of other people’s rights” (p. 107) are some irrational general judgments that should not be applied uncritically in every instance. Such programs may not explore such questions as:

 Can a person be cruel and still be kind?  Are there circumstances under which it would not be right to be generous?  Can we love someone we don’t like?  Is veracity sometimes inappropriate? 9

 Can someone be both violent and benevolent? (p. 113)

Acquiring superficial knowledge of moral frameworks associated with peace and violence is arguably not sufficient to change the state of mind and state of being of students towards a peace-oriented worldview. However, programs with a positive and transformative approach to peace can go beyond direct and uncritical value education. They help students engage in a deeper level of understanding about peace and violence and both understand and practise what is involved in violence-reduction and peace- development in a dialogical cooperative environment. The positive approach to peace education, therefore, is a potentially more effective approach for bringing change, growth and transformation.

The researcher suggested CPI as a candidate pedagogy for peace and argued that it could overcome the main criticisms regarding existing peace education models namely, the lack of clarity, integrity and theortical foundation for peace pedagogy and appealing to a negative notion of peace rather than a positive one. To do this, the researcher first took a critical look at pragmatist epistemology and argued that it could provide a rich theoretical framework for peace pedagogy. Then, the researcher investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which is built on pragmatist theory and explored its contribution to peace education. The researcher also built on Lipman’s educational theory to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education, drawing on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom. She drew attention to the fact that CPI inspite of many peace education models help children to understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace education. CPI, also, has the potential to provide a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which students can practice social inquiry and learn to make better judgments in their lives (Lipman, 2003, pp. 105–106).

To examine the efficiency of CPI and to answer the main research question that whether or not CPI provides an effective model for Peace Pedagogy, the researcher carried out a case study research in a state school in an Australian capital city, in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy since 2009. Teachers’ interviews, students’ focus group interviews, and the researcher’s classroom observations were analyzed to investigate when CPI is established effectively:

10

 Do teachers and students perceive that CPI reduces violent or aggressive behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions?  student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

 Do teachers and students perceive CPI to promote peaceful behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions?  student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

1.3 Research Design

Research designs provide a blueprint for specific procedures involved in data collection, data analysis, and report writing associated with quantitative and qualitative research approaches. In the current study, the case study research design was applied in order to explore the research questions. Case study research design is an empirical, holistic and contextually integrated method (Stake, 1995) which investigates “a contemporary phenomenon (the case) in depth and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16). It is mainly concerned with answering how and why questions to reveal relationships and processes. Case study research design can provide “a rich picture with many kinds of insights coming from different angles from different kinds of information” using different methods to collect and analyze data such as observation, interviews, statistics and questionnaires (Thomas, 2011, p. 21). 11

The current research aimed to understand how teachers and students perceive CPI as a pedagogy to reduce violent interactions and promote peaceful interactions in the school environment. The questions focused on the how of the process and were therefore appropriate for conducting case study research design. The case was an Australian capital city state school in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy over the past six years2. Thus, the case was a specific site where CPI has been established effectively and where teachers and students have adopted CPI as part of their weekly practice at the school. It appeared the school was competent in deploying CPI and therefore provided a “key case” or “exemplary” site for research. The study can throw light on whether, when CPI is established effectively, teachers and students perceive it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). The researcher collected data about CPI from different perspectives (teachers, students and the researcher) and deploying different methods (individual interviews, focus group interview and observations) in six major categories to answer the research questions:

 Teachers’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  Students’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  The effects of CPI on teachers’ social and thinking skills  The effects of CPI on students’ social and thinking skills  How power and control were distributed in CPI classroom (teachers and students interactions in CPI classroom)  Limitations and challenges of CPI with regard to peace education

The researcher interviewed five teachers employed at the school. Teachers were selected by consultation based on their experience, training and expertise in collaborative philosophical inquiry. Each interview took about 1 hour. The researcher also observed and audio recorded a one-hour CPI session. The session included a group of 12 students consisting of four girls and eight boys. They were chosen to participate in an optional short-term CPI course which was run by one of the teachers. The course was for students from a range of year levels who had already experienced CPI and were interested in attending the extra optional course. For the focus group interview, the researcher chose a

2 The research was conducted in the school in 2015 12 sample of students from the extra optional CPI class. The group included two girls and three boys and the interview took approximately one hour.

In this research, thematic analysis was used for the description and interpretation of the data set. Thematic analysis is a flexible data analysis method that can be applied for different methodological backgrounds (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researcher analyzed and coded the raw data and developed several themes. The themes represented meaning and ideas from the data set that were related to the research questions. The researcher then used the deductive, or theory-driven approach to interpret the themes based on the past research and related literature around CPI and peace education.

1.4 Purpose and significance of the research

Arguably, building a culture of peace is one of the main global agenda items. The 1999 resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed a Declaration on a Culture of Peace, the detail listed in Articles 1–9 for governments, international organizations and civil society so that they “may be guided in their activity by its provisions to promote and strengthen a culture of peace in the new millennium” (United Nations, 1999, The General Assembly). They include the core tenets that “[a] culture of peace is a set of values, attitudes, traditions and modes of behavior and ways of life” (Article 1) and “[p]rogress in the fuller development of a culture of peace comes about through values, attitudes, modes of behavior and ways of life conducive to the promotion of peace among individuals, groups and nations” (Article 2).

Strategically, the promotion of peace, in large part, requires an educational strategy that is underpinned by a desire for a culture of peace. Such a strategy is embedded in the UNESCO (2007) study, Philosophy: A School of Freedom – teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize: status and prospects, which promotes an educational relationship between philosophy and peace. In the words of Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences, “[t]he framework for this [UNESCO] study draws upon an essential assumption: that UNESCO does not presume to set forth any method or philosophical orientation of any kind apart from that of the culture of peace” (p. xi,)(emphasis added). The UNESCO strategy is built on three principles of action:

1. Philosophy facing world problems: dialogue, analysis and questioning of contemporary society,

13

2. Teaching philosophy in the world: fostering critical reflection and independent thinking, and 3. Promotion of philosophical thought and research. (p. xi)

Since education is one of the principle ways to build a culture of peace, it is necessary to evaluate current education programs and to, likewise, investigate successful educational approaches to expand our understanding to achieve a competent peace education model. Therefore, the research will make a significant contribution to the extensive literature in philosophy for children (P4C) and the broader scholarly areas of educational philosophy and philosophy education. Many of the studies in classroom philosophy concentrate on intellectual skills and capacities (Millett & Tapper, 2012), rather than on behavior and social capacities, which the researcher contends are necessary for peace education. Also, peace education tends to be located within moral education, focusing on human rights, equality, or political education as citizenship education. Her research focused on peace education pedagogy and the development of classroom communities of inquiry.

In recent years, well-designed studies have been conducted on CPI methodology inherent in P4C. Mostly, they have focused on cognitive and social benefits (Millett & Tapper, 2012). Garcia-Moriyon, Robello and Colom (2005) concluded that ‘the implementation of P4C led to an improvement in students’ reasoning skills (p. 19). Studies by Topping and Trickey found that the practice of CPI produced increased IQ, sustained cognitive benefits, and gains in performance in other school studies (Topping & Trickey, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Trickey & Topping, 2004, 2006, 2007). Australian studies have shown the potential for CPI to foster pedagogical transformation (Scholl, Nichols & Burgh, 2009, 2014, 2016), increase effective learning in the science classroom (Burgh & Nichols, 2012; Nichols, Burgh & Kennedy, 2017), and cultivate collective doubt and reflective evaluation (Burgh, Thornton & Fynes-Clinton, 2018).

The research aimed to show whether and how CPI can provide an appropriate environment for peace promotion and violence reduction through theoretical arguments and an empirical case study of a school in which CPI has been employed effectively for many years. It is necessary to remind the reader that the researcher did not aim to analyze CPI based on the existing peace education models. It is because, as mentioned earlier, there is a general lack of clarity and coherence in peace education theory and practice and extremely diverse activities applied in very different contexts all go under the single label of

14 peace education. Thus, the focus of the research is to find the connections between Peace and CPI and how CPI works as pedagogy for peace. Moreover, the study did not aim to explore peace education curriculum rather it focused on the methodology of peace education.

1.5 Thesis Outline

The thesis is developed in eight chapters. The researcher has already outlined the research problem and the significance of the study. The remainder of the chapter provided a brief outline of each chapter.

Chapter 2 explored the concepts of positive and negative peace as well as personal and structural violence as identified by scholars. Following this, the researcher examined the concept of conflict as destructive or constructive and various approaches for dealing with conflict situations. After that, the researcher identified different approaches to build, develop, and maintain peaceful co-existence in different levels of society, ranging from the individual to international level, and explore education as one of the mainstays to building a culture of peace. Then, the researcher looked at the definition, diversity and major components of existing peace education models as well as the limitations of these existing models namely, the absence of clarity and coherence in peace education theory and practice and their appealing to a negative notion of peace instead of a positive one as the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of personal and social transformation.

Chapter 3 introduced P4C and the associated pedagogy of CPI for the readers who are not familiar with the program and its methodology. The researcher looked at P4C as an significant educational and philosophical movement established by Matthew Lipman in the 1960s. Then, the researcher investigated the two dimension of P4C programs: Curriculum and Pedagogy. The curriculum dimension emphasises philosophy as the method and subject matter of the classroom. The pedagogy dimension introduces the pragmatist idea of the Community of Inquiry into the classroom. Following this, the researcher reviewed Dewey’s theory of education, especially the concept of reflective thinking as the major theoretical foundation for Lipman’s CPI. The researcher then investigated the concept of reasonableness in CPI as one of the main objectives for CPI. According to Lipman, a reasonable person makes reasonable judgments through the process of inquiry. In the process of inquiry, reasonableness is cultivated through multidimensional thinking, namely,

15 critical, creative and caring thinking. Finally, in the last section, the researcher analyzed the distribution of power and control in the CPI classroom.

Chapter 4 addressed the major criticism regarding existing peace education models discussed in Chapter 2, namely the lack of clarity and a rich foundation for peace pedagogy and appealing to a negative notion of peace rather than a positive one. To address these criticisms, first, the researcher reviewed the theory and underlying epistemology of pragmatism to provide a framework that underpinned her proposal for peace pedagogy. Next, the researcher investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which is built on the pragmatist theory, and explored its contribution to peace education. Then, the researcher built on Lipman’s educational theory to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education, drawing on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom.

In Chapter 5, the researcher argued that although CPI is considered a safe and peaceful environment that allows all students to freely explore and inquire conflicts, there is a big gap between an ideal CPI and what happens in the classroom. The researcher pointed out some major problems of CPI in practice that occur resulting from unquestioned prejudices and privileging of western values, logic, and rationality, such as reluctance and hostility of students towards CPI, power imbalance and epistemic violence in CPI classrooms. After that, she investigated different solutions for these drawbacks offered by different scholars and proposed a modification of CPI that the researcher called Peaceful CPI. Her main ideas in Peaceful CPI are: (1) epistemic biases that students and teachers bring to the classroom are cultural and institutional and are not questioned until a novel situation questions them; (2) to achieve Peaceful CPI, more emphasis is needed on students’ emotions in the process of philosophical inquiry; and (3) peaceful inquiry requires teachers who are conscious of fallibility of narratives and their own prejudices.

Chapter 6 outlined the methodological approach and the research design of the study. The study was grounded on interpretivist assumptions and was framed within a qualitative paradigm of inquiry that utilized case study research design. The case was an Australian capital city state school in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy over the past six years3. The study can throw light on whether, when CPI is established effectively, teachers and students perceive it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). The researcher collected data

3 The research was conducted in the school in 2015 16 from different perspectives (teachers, students and the researcher) and deploying different methods (individual interviews, focus group interview and observations). In this research, thematic analysis was used for the description and interpretation of the data set. The researcher used the deductive, or theory-driven approach to interpret the themes based on the past research and related literature around CPI and peace education. Bernstein’s (1971) theory of classification and framing was also used to analyze the power and control relations in the CPI classroom context. Finally, to validate the findings of the study, triangulation strategy was applied.

Chapter 7 presented the findings of the case study in four major parts: ‘what teachers say about CPI?’, ‘what students say about CPI?’, ‘what a CPI classroom looks like?’ and ‘power and control in CPI classroom’. The chapter aimed at answering the research questions and examined the potential and limitations of CPI as a peace pedagogy in the classroom. The findings corroborate the capacity of CPI as peace pedagogy and its contributions to violence reduction and peace promotion in the school environment. Findings showed the teachers and students perceived CPI to reduce violent conflict and develop peaceful attributes, such as the ability to explore and resolve conflicts, to make reasonable judgments, and to peacefully disagree with others. On the other hand, findings suggested CPI might have some limitations regarding the distribution of power among community members and disengaged students from philosophical discussion.

Chapter 8 reflected on the main research questions and examined the potential and limitations of CPI as peace pedagogy according to the teachers’ and students’ perception. Using data derived from the study, CPI can be regarded as a candidate peace pedagogy that tackles the current limitations of peace education pedagogy. The findings of the study have provided a range of implications that will impact educational theory and practice within the fields of peace education.

17

2 Exploring Peace and Peace Education

2.1 Introduction

It is not unusual to find people who are not inclined to listen to opposing or different ideas or prepared to question their own biases and prejudices or to put themselves in the position of others to look at the world through the eyes of the other party. Thornton and Burgh (2017) argued that to address the problem; there is a need for education which “actively engages with cultural diversity to mitigate the problem of identity prejudices that contribute to the process of ‘othering’” (p. 58). They concurred with Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith (2008) that there is no separation between education, politics, and morality. Indeed, they pointed out that “[s]chools engage in epistemic practices through curriculum and pedagogy which rely on the interpretation or acceptance of knowledge, and are, therefore, an integral part of epistemic cultures; cultures of ‘knowledge setting’ that contribute to and shape society” (p. 58), and, hence, there is an urgency for a revision of educational practices in democratic societies.

The researcher argued that urgency requires rethinking peace education. Therefore, in the first part of the chapter, the researcher explored the concepts of peace and violence as identified by scholars. Then, she identified different approaches proposed to build, develop and maintain peaceful co-existence in different levels of society ranging from the individual to international level, and explore education as one of the mainstays to building a culture of peace. The second part of the chapter explored the definition, diversity, and major components of existing peace education models as well as the limitations of the existing models. The limitations provide the impetus on which the researcher proposed her model of Peaceful CPI as a viable alternative.

2.2 Exploring Peace and Violence

The concept of peace has many different meanings and, therefore, remains a contentious term (Galtung, 2005, p. 167; Harris, 2004; UNESCO, 2001). According to Harris (2004):

[W]ithin the international sphere it can be construed as a peace treaty, a ceasefire or a balance of power. Sociologists study cultural norms that legitimize non-violence and condemn violence. Intercultural peace implies

18

interfaith dialogue, multicultural communication and so forth. Peace within civic society depends upon full employment, affordable housing, ready access to health care, quality educational opportunities and fair legal proceedings. Psychologists concerned with interpersonal conflict provide awareness of positive interpersonal communication skills used to resolve differences. Environmentalists point to sustainable practices used by native cultures for thousands of years. (p. 7)

As Harris pointed out, peace is a multi-layered process and is not only a matter for governments, but is an essential facet incorporated into all levels of society. Indeed, the definition of peace may, for some cultures, have negative connotations. As Berghof (2012) states, “in some societies the word ‘peace’ might even cause resentment due to experiences of oppression inflicted in the name of peace” (p. 60). Working on peace, therefore, requires developing a common vision of peace to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity.

As the researcher mentioned earlier, peace does not only refer to negative peace, i.e., the absence of overt or direct violence such as war or physical violence. It can also mean positive peace which focusses on eliminating structural violence, i.e., all forms of injustices, discrimination and unequal access to opportunities (Berghof, 2012; Fountain, 1999; United Nations, 1999; Hicks, 1987; Galtung, 1969). According to UNESCO (2001), positive peace could also be described as “presence of happiness, health, content and good economy, social justice, and freedom for expression, creativity and support for personal growth” (p. 10). Within the depiction, all shades of the meaning of peace can be recognized as fitting under three categories of sources of peace:

 Inner Peace: “includes harmony and peace with oneself, good health, absence of inner conflicts, joy, sense of freedom, insight, spiritual peace, feelings of kindness, compassion, and content, appreciation of art”.

 Social Peace: “looks at peace between human beings, harmony arising from human relationships at all levels, conflict reconciliation and resolution, love, friendship, unity, mutual understanding, acceptance, co-operation, brotherhood, tolerance of differences, democracy, community-building, human rights, morality”.

 Peace with Nature: “entails harmony with the natural environment and mother earth”. (p. 11)

19

Recognizing the importance of each of these categories is crucial as total peace arises from utilizing these different sources accordingly (p. 11).

Galtung is considered a key pioneer of peace studies who put forward the popular distinction between negative and positive peace (Berghof, 2012, p. 59). Gultung (1969) argued that it is valid to regard peace as the absence of violence and then shift everything to the definition of violence.

The statement is simple and in agreement with common usage, and defines a peaceful social order not as a point but as region - as the vast region of social orders from which violence is absent. Within this region a tremendous amount of variation is still possible. (p. 168)

In an extension of the semantic excursion, Galtung defined violence as “when human beings are being influenced so that their ‘actual’ somatic and mental realizations are below their ‘potential’ realizations” (p. 168). Here, violence is defined as the “cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is (p. 168). Thus, according to Galtung, the level of potential realization is the level of existence of insight and resources. If the insight or resources are monopolized by a group or social class, then the actual level falls below the potential level. Galtung provided examples in support of his definition:

[I]f a person died from tuberculosis in the eighteenth century it would be hard to conceive of this as violence since it might have been quite unavoidable, but if he dies from it today, despite all the medical resources in the world, then violence is present according to our definition. Correspondingly, the case of people dying from earthquakes today would not warrant an analysis in terms of violence, but the day after tomorrow, when earthquakes may become avoidable, such deaths may be seen as the result of violence. (pp .168–169)

Another comprehensive definition of violence is proposed by Berghof (2012), who argued, “violence consists of actions, words, attitudes, structures or systems that cause physical, psychological, social or environmental damage and/or prevent people from reaching their full human potential” (pp. 116–117). This complements the definition found in the world report on violence and health, compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2002). Violence is defined as:

20

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. (p. 4)

In the report, a typology of violence is presented. As shown in the chart below (see Figure 1), the typology includes three broad categories according to who the violent act is committed by and categorised as self-directed violence, interpersonal violence, and collective violence. These three categories are each divided into more specific types of violence. Self-directed violence is categorized as either suicidal behavior or self-abuse. Interpersonal violence is divided into two subcategories: family and intimate partner violence and domestic violence and community violence – violence committed by individuals who are not related or strangers and generally taking place outside the home. The former group includes forms of violence such as child abuse, violence by an intimate partner, and abuse of the elderly. The latter includes youth violence, random acts of violence, rape or sexual assault by strangers, and violence in institutional settings such as schools, workplaces, prisons, and nursing homes. Within the framework collective violence is the “instrumental use of violence by people who identify themselves as members of a group against another group or set of individuals to achieve political, economic or social objectives” (p. 5). It takes a variety of forms: armed conflicts within or between states; genocide, repression, and other human rights abuses; terrorism; and organized violent crime. The typology also captures the nature of violent acts, which can be physical, sexual, or psychological or involve deprivation or neglect. It “also considers the relevance of the setting, the relationship between the perpetrator and victim, and – in the case of collective violence – the possible motives for the violence” (p. 5).

21

Figure 1: Typology of violence. From WHO, Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/

Galtung (1969) distinguished between two main types of violence: personal or direct and structural violence. In personal or direct violence, there is an actor or group of actors who commit the violence, but in structural violence, this is not the case. In both cases, individuals may be killed, hurt, or manipulated, and these consequences can be traced back to the perpetrator or perpetrators. However, in the latter case, violence is embedded in hidden social structures or behavioral and relational patterns and represented by imbalances of power, inequality of living conditions, and opportunities for social progression and unequal distribution of resources, including incomes, education and medical services (pp. 170–171). Galtung’s distinction between personal and structural violence are shown in the chart below (see Figure 2).

22

Figure 2: Extended concept of violence and peace. From Galtung (1969, p. 183)

Galtung further draws on an example from Carmichael (in Marcuse & Cooper, 1968) regarding the distinction between personal (or individual) racism and structural (or institutional) racism:

The first type consists of overt acts by individuals, with usually immediate results of the death of victims, or the traumatic and violent destruction of property. This type can be recorded on TV cameras and can frequently be observed in the process of commission. [However] the second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts, but is no less destructive of human life. The second type is more the overall operation of established and respected forces in the society and thus does not receive the condemnation that the first type receives. (pp. 187–188)

According to Galtung (1969) and Lee (2016), structural violence harms people by preventing them from having basic needs met. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence in that these social structures place a variety of limitations (e.g., political, economic, religious, cultural, legal) on the individual based on age, sex, race, ethnicity or social class. These limitations, as Lee (2016) argued, invariably serve to “constrain them from achieving the quality of life that would have otherwise been possible” (p. 110).

23

Lee further argued that structural violence is “a product of human decisions and not natural occurrences” (p. 110). She referred to Winter and Leighton (2001), who argued that because structural violence is correctable and preventable through human agency, it should be called violence. Lee (2016) went on to state that it is the power system in these social structures that causes harm to people in a way that results in mal-development or deprivation (p. 110). She explained that,

There are situations in which the agents are not detectable, mainly because structures have been set in motion long ago and the players are no longer present—or in the case of corporations, the perpetrators are not visible from the start—but the effects continue through the structures they have set up. The earnings of a minority are growing exponentially through an economy of exclusion and inequality, while so is also the gap separating such prosperity from the vast majority. Structural violence is thus more than just exploitation or oppression but a systematic way for the powerful to feed upon the powerless. (p. 113)

Gilligan (1996), a scholar on violence, emphasized the ties between structural violence and its effects on individual health and violent behaviors. He attributed structural violence as the main reason for increased rates of disabilities and deaths in the world.

Every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. (p. 195)

Gilligan argued that the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the “bottom rungs” of society, is contrasted by relatively lower death rates experienced by “those who are above them" (p. 192). He further identified what he termed "excess deaths" as having distinct properties. Not only do they fall outside the realm of death by natural causes, but they often are ascribed to situations of stress, shame, discrimination, and denigration that result from having lower status.

Lee (2016) pointed out that according to a report compiled by UNICEF in 2012, “[s]tructural violence causes morbidity and mortality due to health disparities. Preventable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia kill two million children per year because they are too poor to afford treatment” (p. 111). Lee drew on UNICEF and WHO (2014) statistics 24 that as of 2013, “almost twenty-two million children worldwide under the age of one year had not received proper vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis” and that according to WHO, UNICEF, the United Nations Population Fund (UNIFPA) and the World Bank (2012) “[a]lmost 300,000 maternal deaths occurred worldwide in 2010, most of which were in low-and middle-income countries and were avoidable” (p. 111). Moreover, over the past five decades in the U.S.A, “the maternal mortality rate of black women has been four times as great as for white women” (Tucker, Berg, Callaghan & Hsia, 2007, in Lee, 2016, p. 111).

Gilligan (1996) investigated the relationship between structural violence and the divisions in society that denoted superior and inferior status along with the prevalence of violent behaviors such as suicide, homicide, or warfare that are committed by those recognised as belonging to the ‘inferior group.’ In his work, Gilligan traced the role of negative emotions such as shame, stress, guilt, anger and frustration, and the prevalence of these negative emotions within those relegated to a lower status in society. He documented the choice made by individuals to kill others and themselves rather than suffer from humiliation or loss of self-respect. Further, according to UNESCO (2001), structural violence naturally leads people to behave violently: “For instance, an unfair system of resource distribution in a society leads to frustration of those who get less and this frustration leads people to violence” (p. 10)

Apart from increasing health issues and violent behaviors, structural violence is maintained by structural prejudices, which result in what Fricker (2007) called epistemic injustice. Fricker argued that this is illustrated in many stereotypes and prejudices.

[H]istorically powerless groups such as women, black people, or working‐ class people variously involve an association with some attribute inversely related to competence or sincerity or both: over‐emotionality, illogicality, inferior intelligence, evolutionary inferiority, incontinence, lack of ‘breeding’, lack of moral fibre, being on the make, etc. (p. 32)

She added that prejudices stem from a basis of pre‐judgments and can be interpreted as internalizing judgments made without proper regard to the evidence or knowledge, thus rendering them epistemically culpable (p. 33). These prejudices serve to discredit and reinforce denigration of what is considered an inferior group. Fricker identifies two forms of epistemic injustices: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice.

25

Testimonial injustice occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word; hermeneutical injustice occurs at a prior stage, when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their social experiences. An example of the first might be that the police do not believe you because you are black; an example of the second might be that you suffer sexual harassment in a culture that still lacks that critical concept. We might say that testimonial injustice is caused by prejudice in the economy of credibility and that hermeneutical injustice is caused by structural prejudice in the economy of collective hermeneutical resources. (pp. 1–2)

Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice gives a deeper understanding of peace and violence as have epistemic roots that play out in the personal, social and political realms, which includes the classroom as a microcosm of society. This will have a bearing on the researcher's thesis in later chapters. In the next section, the researcher explored the concept of conflict that is crucial to her arguments discussed later in Chapter 4.

2.3 Exploring Conflict

In the section, the researcher looked at the concept of conflict as destructive or constructive and various approaches for dealing with conflict situations. Shellenberg (1996) pointed out that “[c]onflict has been studied over centuries by many great minds. But a more systematic study has been possible only since the twentieth century” (Schellenberg, in Thakore, 2013, p. 7). Some classic scholars, including Hobbes (1968) and Hume (1739) defined conflict as an uncomfortable state of being that comes from:

 our vulnerability to one another,

 our limited capacity for sympathy, and

 a limited supply of needs and wanted resources.

According to Thakore (2013), the traditional school of thought regarding the topic of conflict views conflict as a negative trait within an organization that is “disruptive, unnatural and represents a form of deviant behavior which should be controlled and changed” (p. 8). Durkheim (in Osipova, 1989) considered conflict as an abnormal phenomenon and used 26 terms such as anomie or pathology to describe it. However, recent perspectives considered conflict as something natural and sometimes necessary for progress. Deutsch (1973), for instance, purported that conflict can potentially derive from a sense of individual and social value, and his basic question was how to prevent conflict from being destructive. Galtung (1969) characterized conflict as two or more individuals or groups pursuing mutually competing goals with opposing interests and needs. Galtung went on to focus on the connection between structural, behavioral, and attitudinal aspects of conflict. Glasl (1999) further defined social conflict as an

interaction involving at least two parties (individuals, groups, states) with at least one party experiencing differences (distinctions, contradictions, incompatibilities, etc.) in perception, thinking, imagination, interpretation, feeling (sympathy – aversion, trust – mistrust) and desires (needs, objectives, purposes, goals) to the other party in such a way as to make them feel that the potential for the realization of their ideas is affected. (p. 11)

In work presented by Berghof (2012) in his glossary of conflict transformation, conflict is defined as “a clash between antithetical ideas or interests – within a person or involving two or more persons, groups or states pursuing mutually incompatible goals” (p. 11). According to Berghof, conflict may be a necessary, indeed, a formative part, of human existence, yet violent conflict is not inevitable. The question for Berghof is, therefore, how and when it is possible to prevent a conflict from becoming violent (p. 17). The question is at the forefront of studies by conflict resolution scholars, whose interests are identified as originating in the Cold War era.

Conflict resolution studies started in the 1950s and 1960s. This was during of the Cold War, when the development of nuclear weapons and the conflict between the superpowers seemed to threaten human survival. A group of scholars from different disciplines who understood the importance and value of studying conflict started to research conflict as a general phenomenon at present at different levels including international relations, domestic politics, industrial relations, communities or families or between individuals. (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall, 2011, p. 4)

Conflict resolution emphasizes the deep-rooted causes of conflict including, structural, behavioral, and importantly, attitudinal aspects. The aim of conflict resolution can be defined in general terms as to facilitate a way for the parties in conflict to “explore, analyze,

27 question and reframe their positions and interests as a way of transcending conflict” (Berghof, 2012, p. 18). Many consider that the learning process that occurs in resolving conflict is as important as the final agreement. Inevitably, the future will never be without conflict. However, the key lies in directing parties in conflict with each other to utilize models to identify effective conflict resolution instead of turning to violence. The following presents a review of studies carried by scholars in the area of conflict resolution.

Adams (2017), president of human relations training organization Gordon Training International (GTI)4, an organization founded by three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Gordon, argued that conflicts between people are normal, natural and an inevitable part of a person’s life – at work, in the home and all human relationships with others. Unfortunately, most people do not accept this fact, and when faced with conflict, they feel threatened, anxious, and angry. Adams attributed this to negative connotations embedded in the idea of conflict. She claimed that “[w]e have a negative attitude toward conflict primarily because we haven’t learned constructive ways to deal with it–in fact, the converse is true: we have learned destructive ways of handling conflict” (n.d). She argued that as “children, as students and as employees (and too often as spouses) we have experienced losing in a conflict because parents, teachers and bosses use/d their power to win at our expense”. Adams further stated that although we know the emotions of resentment, anger, dislike and even hostility are associated with losing, the win-lose attitude is deeply rooted and when we find ourselves in positions in which we have power over people, we often choose to win at the expense of others. Thus, we perpetuate the cycle of negative emotions of resentment, anger, dislike and hostility, which is then adopted by the other party with whom we are interacting. Studies in conflict resolution, therefore, aim to prevent the reproduction of the behavior to break the cycle.

The dual concern model is a conceptual perspective proposed by conflict resolution studies that identifies five different styles or strategies in handling conflict amongst people. These strategies are avoidance, accommodation, competing, collaboration, and compromise. The model assumes that all conflict resolution strategies are based on two underlying dimensions: assertiveness (the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns) and empathy or cooperating (the extent to which the individual

4 Gordon Training International (GTI) is a world-renowned human relations training organization located in California. GTI was founded in 1962 by Dr Thomas Gordon, a three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who is best-known for his Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) and Leader Effectiveness Training (L.E.T.) programs. 28 attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns). These two dimensions of behavior can be used to illustrate dimensions of the five methods of dealing with conflict of avoiding, competing, collaborating, compromising and accommodating as shown in the diagrams below (Gupta, 2013; Thakore, 2013; Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Thomas, 1976) (see Figures 3–4):

Figure 3: Dealing with conflict (1). From Thomas (1976, p. 900)

29

Figure 4: Dealing with conflict (2). From Gupta (2013, p. 64)

The researcher discussed these five different strategies more fully below.

Competition (Forcing or Fighting)

The strategy (see Figure 3–4) is based on high concern for self and low concern for others. A person or group attempts to have domination over the other party and does not hesitate to use aggressive behavior to resolve the conflict. The assumption is that

conflict is settled by one person winning and one person losing” and consequently, the idea of a win-lose situation prevails as they focus their efforts on emerging as the winner. In this case, winning is associated with a sense of pride and achievement, and losing, conversely, implies a sense of weakness, inadequacy or failure. (Thakore, 2013, p. 13)

However, Gupta (2013) argued that the philosophy behind the strategy lies in the belief that the goal is considered of great value, and that one is legitimate in their use of power to win. The strategy would be employed in the following situations:

 When time is short, and a quick decision is needed

 When a strong personality is trying to steamroller you, and you do not want to be taken advantage of 30

 When you need to stand up for your rights

Gupta conceded that there are some drawbacks in applying the strategy, such as the risk of escalating the conflict and retaliation by the opposing party at a time in the future. (p. 64).

Avoidance

The strategy (see Figure 3–4) is based on low concern for both self and others. According to Thakore (2013), it is a passive strategy that aims to hide and ignore conflict instead of resolving it. This is a lose-lose strategy, characterized by interaction that is unassertive, and at the same time, uncooperative. However, Gupta (2013) argued that the avoidance strategy has no winners and no losers with the fundamental premise that “this isn't the right time or place to address this issue” (p. 64). According to Gupta, the strategy would be utilized in the following situations:

 When the conflict is small, and relationships are at stake.

 When you are counting to ten to cool off.

 When more important issues are pressing, and you feel you do not have time to deal with this particular one.

 When you have no power, and you see no chance of having your concerns met.

 When you are too emotionally involved, and others around, you can solve the conflict more successfully.

 Drawbacks to the strategy are identified as being that important decisions may be made by default and postponing a resolution may make matters worse. (p. 65)

Compromise (Conciliation)

Compromise as a strategy (see Figure 3–4) is based on a high concern for both self and others. Thomas (1976) argued that compromising is

intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, an individual has the objective of finding an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties.

31

Compromising is considered a type of a middle ground between competing and accommodating; giving up more than in the competition strategy yet at the same time maintaining a sense of power to some degree. Similarly, the strategy of compromise addresses an issue more directly than that of avoidance, yet explores the issue in less depth than collaboration. (Thomas in Jain Trainer and ACME, Inc., 2010, p. 3)

Gupta (2013) believed that in compromise both sides bend and attempt to serve the “common good” and can be effectively utilized with people of equal status who are equally committed to goals, when goals are of moderate importance, and as a time-saving exercise to reach intermediate settlements of points when dealing with complex issues. He conceded that, conversely, using the strategy may see the derailment of long-term objectives and the loss of important values (p. 64).

Accommodation (Yielding, Smoothing)

The strategy (see Figure 3–4) of accommodation (or yielding of smoothing) is based on low concern for self and disproportionately high concern for others. Individuals avoid conflicts and ignore their needs and goals out of fear of harming the relationship. They give priorities to the relationship rather than their goals because they are afraid that confronting differences may damage the relationship. The strategy is one that is unassertive yet cooperative and creates a win/lose situation. Gupta (2013) argued that the strategy could be considered an effective strategy in the following circumstances:

 When an issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person.

 When you are willing to let others learn by their mistakes.

 When it is not the right time for you to address the situation and you would prefer to simply build credit for the future.

 When harmony is extremely important.

 When commonalities shared by both parties is more important than their differences. (p. 64)

There are several drawbacks in applying the strategy as Gupta pointed out, namely, that in using the strategy the conceding party may find their ideas do not get attention or merit, or that credibility and influence are lost. 32

Collaboration (Confronting)

Collaboration as a strategy (see Figure 3–4) is based on reaching a middle ground acceptable to both parties and relies on strong cooperation and assertiveness. It is considered a win-win approach to resolving interpersonal conflict. According to Gupta (2013), it is based on the principles that “teamwork and cooperation help everyone achieve their goals while also maintaining relationships and the process of working through differences will lead to creative solutions that will satisfy both parties' concerns” (p. 64). The strategy can be successfully applied in the following situations:

 When there is a high level of trust.

 When you don't want to have full responsibility.

 When you want others also to have "ownership" of solutions.

 When the people involved are willing to change their thinking as more information is found and new options are suggested.

 When you need to work through animosity and hard feelings. (p. 64)

However, Gupta argued there are some drawbacks to the strategy, namely, that the process takes substantial time and energy. Also, some participants may take advantage of other people’s trust and openness. It would be assumed by many that the collaborative strategy, of promoting a win-win outcome, would be the most favorable approach to resolve conflicts. However, Gupta pointed out that it cannot be discounted that specific situations would be better accommodated by the application of one of the other strategies. Where a high level of mistrust exists between the conflicting parties, the strategy of collaboration could not be employed.

In this section, the researcher explored the concept of conflict as a social phenomenon and as an inevitable part of human interactions. Constructive approaches aim to create a social and political environment which allows non-violent alternatives to the use of force. Destructive approaches are characterized by conflicting parties’ efforts to resolve a conflict unilaterally and at the cost of others. In the next section, the researcher explored different approaches proposed to achieve peace.

33

2.4 Different Approaches to Peace

A wide range of strategies and methods are employed by key actors tasked with negotiating dialogue between parties in conflict. Scholars of peace studies identify three broad categories: peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding in the quest to achieve agreement between parties and avoid the onset of violence (Berghof, 2012; Lederach, 1997; Gultung, 1976).

Before the researcher defined these three broad categories, it is noteworthy at this stage to introduce what is recognized as the three major stages to violent conflict (see Figure 5):

 The latent conflict phase: tensions are building, but, no physical fighting is happening.

 The hurting or stalemate phase: tensions from the pre-conflict phase reach the point in which physical fighting breakouts.

 The post-conflict phase: the conflict has ended either with the surrender of one or more parties, a ceasefire between parties has been agreed (Brahm, 2003).

Figure 5: The stages to violent conflict. From Beyond Intractability, by E. Brahm, 2003, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/latent-conflict

Peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding are not mutually exclusive and can occur in a variety of ways. The most basic difference between the three stages is the point at which violent conflict occurs. Berghof (2012) posited that “sometimes economic sanctions or even military interventions to end the use of force in a conflict are considered as part of

34 peacemaking” although “civil peacemaking organizations rely on non-violent strategies such as negotiation and mediation” (p. 60). Also, peacemaking may occur as a form of stalemate and can refer to “diplomatic efforts to end violence between conflict parties and to achieve a peace agreement” (p. 60). According to the United Nations Charter, peacemaking strategies range from negotiation, mediation, and conciliation to arbitration and judicial settlement.

Peacekeeping occurs in the stage of the cessation of violence and is mostly carried out by an international body of military personnel under the auspice of the United Nations. Traditionally, a peacekeeping force refers to “the deployment of armed forces to intervene as a buffer zone between adversaries, to enforce a ceasefire agreement and monitor peace processes in post-war societies” (p. 61). The range of activities under the category of peacekeeping has been enlarged and these days “some civil society organizations practice unarmed ‘civilian peacekeeping’ as a counterpart to military peacekeeping by monitoring ceasefire agreements or carrying out protection activities” (p. 61).

Peacebuilding strategies are undertaken before violent conflict happens and for securing peace in post-war situations. Generally, peacebuilding covers all activities aimed at promoting peace and overcoming violence and can be applied in all stages of conflict as well as in relatively peaceful societies (p. 62). Peacebuilding is not seen as a rapid response tool, but rather a long-term process of ongoing work, which Bergoff described as having three dimensions (see also Figure 6). They are:

 Altering structural contradictions is widely regarded as essential for lasting peace. Important elements are state-building and democratization measures, the reform of structures to avoid reproducing the conflict such as reforms to the education system, economic and sustainable development, social justice and human rights, empowerment of civil society and constructive journalism.

 Improving relations of conflict parties is an integral part of peacebuilding to reduce the effects of war-related hostilities and disrupted communication between the conflict parties. Programs of reconciliation, trust-building and dealing with the past aim to transform damaged relationships.

Changing individual attitudes and behaviors provides a way of strengthening individual peace capacities, breaking stereotypes, empowering formerly disadvantaged groups, and

35 healing trauma and psychological wounds of war. One frequently used measure for strengthening individual peace capacities is training people in the aspects of non-violent action and conflict resolution. (pp. 62–64)

Figure 6: Peacebuilding dimensions. From Berghof Foundation (2012, p. 63)

Moreover, peacebuilding activities can occur at different levels and can be employed by various actors within the process. According to Lederach (1997), these actors can be grouped into three tracks or levels, as illustrated in his peacebuilding pyramid (see Figure 7):

 Level 1: The top leaders who comprise military, political and religious leaders with high visibility. The top-level elite leadership represents the fewest people, in some cases, a handful of key actors.

 Level 2: The middle-range leaders such as academics, intellectuals, mid-level non- government organizations- (NGOs), government organizations (GOs) or religious figures. Their close links to government officials allow them to influence political decisions. They are highly regarded within the community, albeit without holding an official title and therefore inclined to be respected amongst local citizens on the grass-roots level.

 Level 3: The grassroots level includes the local community, indigenous leaders, health officials, and refugee camp leaders who comprise the largest number of participants. People at the grassroots level are the ones most familiar with the

36

effects of violent conflicts and often experience a day-to-day struggle to find food, water, shelter, and safety in violence-torn areas.

The participants at each of these three levels assume a unique role in the peacebuilding process. The approach of top-level leaders to peacebuilding is to achieve a negotiated settlement between the principle high-level leaders of the parties in conflict. The first goal of these high-level negotiations is typically a cease-fire or cessation of hostilities (p. 44). Peacebuilding, at this level, often involves a step-by-step, issue-oriented, and short-term achievement process (p. 45).

However, any meaningful peacebuilding process must move beyond top-level negotiations and involves a much more comprehensive framework. In other words, peacebuilding efforts among the elite must be accompanied by efforts of middle-range and grassroots leaders. Three important mid-level approaches to building peace are problem-solving workshops, conflict-resolution training, and the development of peace commissions (pp. 46–47).

Problem-solving workshops are designed to deepen the conflicting parties' understanding of their shared problems and to provide a politically safe environment for effective interactions and testing of new ideas (p. 47). Conflict-resolution training aims to raise each party’s awareness of the concept of conflict and the skills to handle it. Middle-range leaders will often come together in training sessions to share their perceptions of the conflict and analyze their roles in promoting reconciliation (p. 49). The participation of middle range actors and their efforts are more effective in processes undertaken at the grassroots level. Leaders at this level may be involved in local peace conferences, peace programs, local seminars, public-health programs and different workshops that can help people to deal with conflict and the trauma associated with war and violence (p. 54)

The approaches at all three levels serve an important function (see Figure 7). Advancing political negotiations among elites, problem-solving workshops and peace commissions formed by mid-level leaders and grassroots-level peacebuilding efforts complement each other, to form a comprehensive framework for building peace.

37

Figure 7: Approaches to peacebuilding. From J. P. Lederach (1997, p. 39)

In this section, the researcher discussed the concepts of peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding, and looked at the relationship between key actors involved in the peacebuilding process. In the following section, the researcher explored peace education as one of the main means to build a culture of peace in societies.

2.5 Education for Peace

As discussed earlier, conflict is a trait inherent in personal interactions. UNESCO (2000) stated that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed” (p. viii). Strategically, the promotion of peace, to a large degree, requires an educational strategy that is underpinned by a desire for a culture of peace. The notion of a “culture of peace” has been outlined in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 53/243 of September 1999, under the title “Declaration and Program of Action on a culture of peace.” Promoting a culture of peace needs universal efforts for changing people’s attitudes, behaviors and ways of life, and education at all levels is one of the main means to build a culture of peace (United

38

Nations, 1999). As former UNESCO director, Mayor (1999), described the United Nations initiatives for a culture of peace points a new stage:

Instead of focusing exclusively on rebuilding societies after they have been torn apart by violence, the emphasis is placed on preventing violence by fostering a culture where conflicts are transformed into cooperation before they can degenerate into war and destruction. The key to the prevention of violence is education for nonviolence. This requires the mobilization of education in its broadest sense—education throughout life and involving the mass media as much as traditional educational institutions. (p. 23)

According to the United Nations (1999), a “culture of peace is a set of values, attitudes, traditions and modes of behavior and ways of life based on”:

 “Respect for life, ending of violence and promotion and practice of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation”;

 “Full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States and non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law”;

 “Full respect for and promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”;

 “Commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts”;

 “Efforts to meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”;

 “Respect for and promotion of the right to development”;

 “Respect for and promotion of equal rights and opportunities for women and men”;

 “Respect for and promotion of the rights of everyone to freedom of expression, opinion and information”;

 “Adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue and understanding at all levels of society and among nations; and fostered by an enabling national and international environment conducive to peace”. (Article 1)

39

Peace education refers to a variety of global educational programs that attempt to promote the culture of peace in different ways. Fountain (1999), a member of the Peace Education Working Group in UNICEF defined peace education as:

the process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to bring about behavior changes that will enable children, youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, national or international level. (p. 1)

Harris and Morrison (2003) also argued that peace education is a process, but they maintain that it is both a philosophy and a process that employs skills, including listening, reflection, problem-solving, cooperation and conflict resolution. Regarding the process, it “involves empowering people with the skills, attitudes and knowledge to create a safe world and build a sustainable environment” (p. 9), whereas the philosophy “teaches nonviolence, love, companion and reverence for all life” (p. 9).

Both these definitions are in accord with UNESCO’s views on peace education regarding the needs of children. According to UNESCO (2001), there are four levels of important needs in children which should be identified in designing a peace education program: the individual or self-development level, the school level, the national level, and the global level. The individual or self-development level is the first important level of needs in children related to their self-development that, unfortunately “are not sufficiently addressed in the process of schooling” (p. 15).

The mostly felt need is building an effective, integrated personality in the child with positive self-esteem. To live peacefully an individual needs to have many skills. For instance, skills related to affirmation, positive thinking, empathetic listening and communication, assertive behavior, decision- making and critical thinking are very important. Schools should help children to develop such skills so that they are empowered as individuals in the society. (p. 15)

What is crucial at the school level is to have a peaceful climate or a peaceful culture in the school.

When there is such culture, children will naturally absorb the spirit of peace from it. There is a popular saying that peace has to be caught rather than be

40

taught. Initiating a peaceful culture in school should start from within the staff, by developing attitudes and behavior of appreciation, co-operation, belonging, trust and spirit of learning. By way of developing a friendly and mutually respectful teacher-pupil relationship a peace culture will bloom naturally in the school. (p. 15)

To build such a culture in the school, a living system of peace values, norms, and practices need to be introduced into the daily life of the school.

In context it is necessary to change the teacher-centered classroom approach to child-centered learning. When there is active and participative learning in the classroom, using interesting teaching and learning methods a friendly and lively atmosphere marked by creative expressions of potentials and self-discipline will emerge naturally. Teachers have to identify many effective strategies and practices that could transform the school into a place of peace and harmony. (pp. 15–16)

To consider the national level, schools need to concentrate on the current citizenship education of a country.

This aspect of citizenship education is an integral part of peace education. Education is entrusted to produce good and productive citizens to the nation. In this regard learning and understanding the current socio-political and economic problems and issues is also important. Students as future citizens need to develop healthy and realistic perspectives to view their problems in the society. (p. 16)

According to UNESCO, at the global level, “the ultimate purpose of peace education is to produce a world citizen” (p. 16). Education should broaden the worldview and global awareness in children.

No country can live in isolation in the present. Children have to develop a sensible worldview. The need here in is to broaden the vision. With this objective in mind the school can select current world issues to raise the global awareness in the students. (p. 16)

These issues could be selected from themes like commonality and diversity of human cultures, destruction of the ecosystem/pollution, gender issue, racism, world poverty, problems of war/terrorism, and animal rights. What is important is that a peace education 41 program takes into account the different needs of children from the individual and school levels to the national and global levels. There are, however, different approaches to peace education, which the researcher discussed in the following section.

2.5.1 Rich Diversity in Peace Education

Different approaches to peace education have evolved or been developed due to different forms of violence that are being addressed. For instance, as Harris (2004) pointed out, in countries where “high levels of poverty cause violence, peace education is often referred to as ‘development education’, where students learn about different strategies to address problems of structural violence” (p. 7). Another example is ‘A-bomb education’ in Japan that was a campaign for peace education to address the devastating effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (p. 7). Moreover, some educators prefer the name ‘conflict resolution education’ instead of ‘peace education’. The reason is that teaching ways to dispute resolution that are alternatives to violence is more acceptable than “teaching strategies for peace that might threaten national policies and/or the privileges granted by unjust social institutions” (p. 8).

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, peace education programs around the world, in conjunction with different forms of violence they addressed, represent what Clarke-Habibi (2005) called, “a spectrum of focal themes, including anti-nuclearism, international understanding, environmental responsibility, communication skills, nonviolence, conflict resolution techniques, democracy, human rights awareness, tolerance of diversity, coexistence, and gender equality” (p. 34). Harris (2004) identified five major types of peace education: international education, human rights education, development education, environmental education and conflict resolution education. He argued that “each branch of this peace education family has different theoretical assumptions about the problems of violence it addresses, different peace strategies it recommends and different goals it hopes to achieve” (p. 8). Clarke-Habibi (2005) also proposed categorizations of major trends in peace education, which overlap with Harris’s categories, but also included democracy education (pp. 35–36). Below is a summary of these categories of peace education.

The horror of Second World War was a starting point for educators to understand the necessity of international peace education. In the 1980s, the threat of nuclear war stimulated educators to create peace studies courses in universities to teach students peaceful conflict resolutions skills. The main aim of this education according to Reardon 42

(1988) was “to provide the development of an authentic planetary consciousness that will enable us to function as global citizens and to transform the present human condition by changing the social structures and the patterns of thought that have created it” (in Harris, 2004, p.9).

This approach to peace was supported by the United Nations. According to the UNESCO Statement of Purposes for Worldwide Educational Policy, this international education includes:

understanding and respect for all peoples, their cultures, values, and ways of life; furthermore awareness of the interdependence between peoples and nations’ abilities to communicate across cultures; and last, but not least, to enable the individual to acquire a critical understanding of problems at the national and international level (Deutsch UNESCO Kommission, 1975 in Harris, 2004, p. 10).

International peace educators follow this guideline and try to increase student awareness about the devastation consequences of war and the problems around the planet. They hope to cultivate a global identity in students and help them to think as companionate global citizens. Peace educators also teach students about the worth of peace through strength where governments dedicate considerable funds to armed forces to protect their national interest. They teach students how organizations like the United Nations helps to avoid the threat of war, including using force to stop violence (Harris, 2004, p.10).

Peace education can also focus on human rights. Human right education is respect for the basic dignity of all people. This Education includes learning about documents such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights and encourages people to understand the impacts of violating human rights (Fountain, 1999, p. 8) including domestic, cultural and ethnic violence. This approach to peace education brings broader multicultural understanding and reduces stereotypes and hostilities between different groups. One of the important concerns of human rights educators is the identity based conflicts “where people hate others who belong to groups different than theirs” (Harris, 2004, p. 11) and have a tendency to label them as enemies. This kind of education is applied in places where there is ethnic, religious or racial hatred among people. For example in peace camps with Israeli and Palestinian children, human right educators try to transform ethnic, religious and racial hatred and “eliminate adversarial mindsets by challenging stereotypes to break down enemy images and by changing perceptions of and ways of relating to the other group”

43

(Salomon, 2002, in Harris, 2004, p.11). Table 1 shows an example of a human rights based peace education program in India.

Table 1. Human right education example

Gender Training An NGO exprience from India

In India, an NGO called ‘Sakshi’ is dedicated to working with youth to end gender violence. The experience of Sakshi demonstrates the importance of reaching girls and boys early, preferably in the 8-10 year old age group. Using interactive methods, children and youth are encouraged to express themselves and to discuss issues of gender roles and relations, sexuality, gender violence and abuse. A domestic violence awareness programme designed specifically for boys has been initiated, with male facilitators helping to create a climate in which boys can discuss these issues openly.

Sakshi has also developed training manuals for teachers, students and facilitators. Access on a regular basis to school and colleges is essential to the effectiveness of this type of work, and yet resistance by school authorities is common. Nonetheless, Sakshi continues to work to bring gender issues into the mainstream of the regular curriculum.

Note. Retrieved from Fountain (1999, p. 10).

Peace educators, as Harris (2004) pointed out, also use development education to provide “students with insights into the various aspects of structural violence, focusing on social institutions with their hierarchies and propensities for dominance and oppression” (p. 12). As discussed earlier, Gultung (1969) made an important distinction between negative peace and positive peace. As Gultung explained, positive peace refers to eliminating all forms of injustices, discrimination and unequal access to opportunities that are considered as structural violence. Students in development education are empowered by developmental strategies to address the problems of structural violence and struggle against injustice in order to make constructive change. This education aims to create peaceful societies “by promoting an active democratic citizenry interested in equitably sharing the world’s resources” (Harris, 2004, p. 12). An example of this approach to peace education is presented in Table 2.

44

Table 2. Development education example

Education for Development Participatory learning in Mauritius

In Mauritius, an Education for Development pilot project was initiated in 1995 in 8 primary and secondary schools. Teachers from the schools designed their own curriculum activities on education for development themes. In one activity, for example, students role play a mock ‘court’ in which plaintiffs have a conflict over a rights issue. Students play the roles of lawyers who present the rights issues on both sides of the case, and a ‘jury’ who must make a decision as to how the conflict can be resolved. Sample cases include: a child who is being marginalised and excluded at school by a minority group that will only speak in their mother tongue; and a child who feels it is more important to earn money than to go to school, despite the mother’s belief that the child’s education is important even if it means having less to eat.

The teachers created a newsletter so that they could share information about new methods and materials and promote research on their effectiveness. A training programme for teachers at the Mauritius Institute of Education has been established with the assistance of UNICEF. The programme uses an Education for Development framework to introduce participatory methods of teaching and learning, and classroom and administrative practices that model respect for children’s rights.

Note. Retrieved from Fountain (1999, p. 9).

Another form of peace education is Environmental Education, an interdisciplinary field which can focus on areas including environmental science, ecology and natural history. Environmental peace education involves training individuals to work towards a sustainable environment. Historically, peace educators were concerned about the threat of war rather than an environmental crisis. While environmental crises such as global warming, pollution, rapid species extinction and deforestation intensified, they started to understand that it is not enough to think about peace and protecting citizens’ lives and security without considering the concept of ecological security. The aim of environmental peace education is to teach “environmental understanding so that a peace literate person can became aware of the planet’s plight, its social and ecological problems, and has a commitment to do something about them” (p. 13). Indeed, students in environmental education do not just learn about environment but also they “develop feelings of care and concern for the well- being of the natural world” (p. 13).

Peace education approaches also center on conflict resolution training. Known as conflict resolution education, this approach treats conflict as a natural and normal phenomenon that people need to learn how to resolve peacefully. It focusses on what Clarke-Habibi (2005) described as social-behavioral symptoms of conflict, to train “individuals to resolve

45 interpersonal disputes through techniques of negotiation and (peer) mediation” (p. 35). In doing so, they learn how to manage their anger and improve their “communication through skills such as listening, turn taking, identifying needs, and separating facts from emotions” (p. 35).

The final approach uses education programs that center on democracy training. As Clarke- Habibi (2005) observed, these typically focus on “the political processes associated with conflict and postulate that with an increase in democratic participation, the likelihood of societies resolving conflict through violence and war decreases” (p. 35). The aim of this approach is to develop in students the skills and concepts necessary for resolving conflicts and disagreements peacefully, such as having a positive attitude towards conflict as a platform for creativity and growth, tolerance of diversity, individuality and critical thinking. They also need to practice the roles of a responsible citizen, including making decisions, taking positions, arguing positions and respects the opinions of others in the classroom (p. 35). An example of democracy education is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Democracy education example

Education for Democracy:

Peacebuilding dialogue pedagogies in Candaian classrooms

An education for democracy was implemented in 2014 in 11 public elementary, intermediate, and secondary classrooms in Ontario, Canada. A “range of conflictual and potentially conflictual subject matter brought into lessons, including everyday differences and power imbalanced justice challenges as well as disputes or controversies” (Bickmore, 2014, p. 558) and teachers from different school subjects like History, Biology, Literature, Drama, social science were asked to implement dialogic pedagogies on difficult controversial issues in their classrooms. In Biology class for instance, the teacher guided her students to discuss on controversial contemporary science-in society issues “such as genetically modified food, use and control of genomes, and genetically personalized medical treatment” (p. 565). In this program, students from diverse cultural backgrounds practiced constructive, critical and inclusive dialogue about confidential issues which is very crucial for democratic education.

The qualitative study about the program showed the program “make such dialogic classroom activities more (or less) feasible to implement and sustain, more (or less) inclusive of previously marginalized voices, and more (or less) constructive for democratic and peacebuilding education” (p. 553).

Note. Summary of Peacebuilding dialogue pedagogies in Canadian classrooms, Bickmore (2014)

46

The above classification is not a definitive one, and there are other types of educational initiatives that overlap with peace education such as life skills education, landmine awareness, and psychosocial rehabilitation (Fountain, 1999). Each approach focuses on specific goals and strategies to achieve peace, depending on what forms of violence it has to address (Harris, 2004) and can provide a different lens or perspective to “how peace can be ‘mainstreamed’ in basic education” (Fountain, 1999, p. 7). Moreover, these approaches

are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement each other, so that a teacher concerned about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest could teach about the rights of the indigenous people living there and the problems of structural poverty that require people to cut down trees in order to make a living. That teacher could also point to the role of INGOs in bringing awareness of these problems to the minds of political leaders and their constituents. (Harris, 2004, p.16)

The above discussion regarding diverse educational approaches to achieve peace has mostly focused on the content of peace education programs. However, peace education has other vital components that the researcher addressed in the next section.

2.5.2 Components of Peace Education

Haavelsrud (2008) claimed any educational program, including education for peace, has three major components: “the content, method of communication, and organizational structure of the educational program” (p.1). Haavelsrud and Stenberg (2012) argued that the different approaches to peace education focus on different components and prioritize discourse or practice in their models. They contribute to the field of theory and practice of peace education, while the interrelations between these three components are central for consideration.

According to Haavelsrud (2008), some peace educators ignore one or two of these three vital components. Therefore, their peace education projects are limited to changing the curriculum without questioning the pedagogy and organization. On the other hand, others concentrate only on reforming “the form of learning-teaching interactions” (p. 1) to achieve the ideal peace education model. Finally, there are some peace educators who have a more “system-oriented” approach to making changes in the educational structure. The

47 disagreement is due to the different priorities given to each of these three components by peace educators (p. 1). The researcher, therefore, looked at these three components.

According to Haavelsrud (2008), there is no absolute answer to the question of what content is to be learned in peace education. However, he argued that “the proposals for peace education content vary in relation to the macro-micro dimension” (p. 2). For example, some peace educators “define the content in terms of international and global problems whereas others define the content in relation to the everyday life and the context of the individual” (p. 2). Haavelsrud and Stenberg (2012) analyzed eleven articles on peace education published in the first volume of the Journal of Peace Education and noted three major categories in peace education content: issue-based content, form-dependent content and pre-determined content (pp. 65–68).

Issued-based content is concerned with the nature of contemporary local-global issues such as development, ecology, human rights and disarmament (p. 68). However, there are two major problems with this type of content. Firstly, the issues-based content generally has a focus on contemporary concern and is lacking future perspectives. Not providing the learner with opportunities for exploration of a range of possible solutions can lead them to a sense of despair and isolation. Second, as Hicks (2004) pointed out, by only emphasizing a specific issue in issues-based content, the risk of ignoring its relations to other issues decreases.

On the other hand, in the form-dependent development of content, the experiences of individuals and groups are not restricted to specific issues and are open for investigations about relations between issues and investigating possible solutions. This type of content is problem-oriented and includes programs such as experiential learning or democratic citizenship programs. Finally, pre-determined content generally includes moral education derived from religious contents such as Islam or Baha’I. For example, in Baha’I tradition, “the aim of peace education is first and foremost to develop competence in ‘unity-building skills’ such as integrity, sensitivity and compassion” (Haavelsrud and Stenberg, 2012, p. 69) and “develop abilities to identify what is common and build on what is common” (p. 69). Developing these skills in learners helps them “to set aside small disagreements in order to achieve ‘unity’ within ever larger contexts and an ability to transcend and correct relations of domination” (p. 69). In chapter 4, the researcher discussed the limitations of moral educations for an ideal peace education model.

48

Haavelsrud and Stenberg (2012) recognized two main categories in the form of education for peace, which are constructed according to the degree of participation, namely, strongly controlled participation and weakly controlled participation (p. 70). Haavelsrud (2008) explained that the form of weakly controlled participation is “grounded upon the principle that the educational interaction should be in harmony with the idea of peace” (p. 3). This means that the teacher and students should have equal participation in the educational process through dialogue about a problem, and the teacher is not an expert in resolving the problem. According to UNESCO (2001), the teacher-centered approach is ineffective, and child-centered is the most effective approach in peace education (p. 39). Haresveld (2008) argued that the strongly controlled participation approach or teacher-centered form is an “anti-dialogical method, resulting in the reproduction of prescribed ‘old’ knowledge and the lack of production of ‘new’ knowledge” (p. 4). The method could be an example of cultural violence if learners’ rights to participate in the process of developing the content are denied.

Haavelsrud and Stenberg (2012) further analyzed these two categories in relation to the three types of content orientations (issue-based, form-dependent, and pre-determined). They concluded that:

 issue-based content did not appear in combination with weakly controlled participation,

 form-dependent or problem-oriented content did not appear in combination with strongly controlled participation, and

 pre-determined content generally appeared in combination with strongly controlled participation. (pp. 70–72)

The issued-based content, which is concerned with providing learners with an understanding of the nature of local-global issues, combined with a strongly controlled or teacher-centered approach. However, the form-dependent development of content is quite participatory and is related to the experiences of individuals and groups and investigating the issues and possible solutions. Finally, pre-determined content generally includes moral education by educators in a strongly controlled participation form.

The third crucial component in peace education is the context or organizational structure of the educational program. Haavelsrud (2008) believed the contextual conditions “are 49 varied in terms of social, political, cultural and economic realities” (p. 4) in each society and significantly influence the pedagogic discourse and practices. Therefore, it is impossible to ignore the importance of contextual conditions in the analysis of peace pedagogy (p. 4).

Haavelsrud further explained that the education system in most of the countries identified with basic characteristics including distribution of knowledge in different subjects, specific criteria for the teachers of each subject, classification of students in different classes, and “division of the time into periods and breaks” (p. 4). “These structural crucial features”, he says, “allow for only certain types of initiatives for introducing peace education into the curriculum” (p. 4). What Haavelsrud claimed was that the basic characteristic of the educational organization could influence the content and structure of peace education programs and even contrast with them. “If, for instance, a peace education project is based on the principles of problem orientation and participatory decision-making, it could not, without problems, be introduced into a school system which rigidly practices the division into subjects, classes, and periods” (p. 4). It would be difficult to introduce participatory education to “a prescribed plan for a subject carried out by a teacher in a rigidly-structured classroom situation with thirty students, in periods of 45 minutes each” (p. 4).

In addition to these four components of knowledge of subjects, teacher competencies, class structure, and classroom teaching and break times, which could be barriers for peace education, the rules of evaluation of the students in the system could be in complete contrast with the idea of peace program. For instance, Haavelsrud pointed out that when students were sorted into categories according to their achievement in terms of grades, the inequality in society starts to reproduce in the classroom (p. 4).

According to the above discussion, the importance of an organizational structure in peace education should be clear. Peace education might be in harmony or disharmony with its organizational context, and it is possible to modify the disharmony in the specific context before peace education is introduced. Although Haavelsrud contended that “[t]he question then arises whether the organizational structure can be changed through changes in form and content, or whether this is impossible until changes are brought about in the society which has produced an educational structure antagonistic to problem orientation and dialogue” (pp. 4–5). This leads to the question of the limitations of peace education models.

50

2.5.3 Limitations of Existing Peace Education Models

There are many criticisms of peace education (see, e.g., Millhouse, 2009; Harber & Sakade, 2009; Danesh, 2006; Clarke-Habibi, 2005; Harris, 2003; Nevo & Brem, 2002; Bar- Tal, 2002; Salomon, 2002). One criticism, by Millhouse (2009), is that focusing “on schoolchildren’s intra- and inter-personal peacefulness without including the wider community” would place “an unfair burden on children who are living within violent societies” (p. 2). Another strong criticism is that, in spite of the increasing number of peace education programs around the world, there is a general lack of systematic and rigorous evaluation of peace education programs (Millhouse, 2009; Harber & Sakade, 2009; Harris, 2003, p.8; Nevo & Brem, 2002; Bar-Tal, 2002). The lack of evaluation makes it difficult to determine if the programs were successful in promoting the culture of peace.

Nevo & Brem (2002) reviewed the literature on peace education from 1981-2000 and found that only 79 of approximately 300 studies attempted to evaluate program effectiveness. These studies also had the following shortcomings in their evaluation; 1) not enough attention was given to behavior change; 2) the majority of studies appealed to rationality; 3) delayed post-test (evaluating the change after the completion of the peace program) was applied rarely in the studies; and 4) the “generalizability of the program onto related individuals was hardly studied” (pp. 274–275).

Harris (2003) believed evaluation is underutilized in peace education research because peace educators face various challenges in evaluating peace education programs. He identified a number of obstacles related to the evaluation of peace education programs in the schools including; 1) they need pre-tests and post-tests and, to access schools, they require permission from parents, teachers, and children; 2) it is hard to keep track of research subjects to gather follow-up data; 3) “comparison groups are hard to control” and although two sample groups seem similar, “their participation in peace education learning can be influenced by a wide variety of factors” such as “parent beliefs, religious upbringing” and “ previous experiences with conflict resolution education” which educators have no control over; and 4) such evaluations are expensive and there is little budget available for peace education research (pp. 10–11).

However, the most controversial criticisms regarding peace education are, first, the general lack of clarity and coherence in its theory and practice. Second, peace education models generally appeal to a negative notion of peace, that being the absence of conflict, and ignore the positive dynamism of peace as the capacity to respond to conflict as a way 51 of personal and social transformation (Danesh, 2006; Clarke-Habibi, 2005; Salomon, 2002; Swee-Hin, 1997). In the following paragraphs, the researcher discussed these criticisms in more details.

As mentioned earlier, there is a considerable variety of different pedagogical approaches in mainstream peace education. However, as Swee-Hin (1997) noted the different approaches “inevitably have their own dynamics and autonomy in terms of theory and practice” (p. 3). Salomon (2002) also described “how the challenges, goals, and methods of peace education differ substantially between areas characterized by intractable conflict, interethnic tension, or relative tranquility” (in Nelson, 2000, p. 8). Salomon (2002) explored the problem with an example:

Imagine that medical practitioners would not distinguish between invasive surgery to remove malignant tumors and surgery to correct one’s vision. Imagine also that while surgeries are practiced, no research and no evaluation of their differential effectiveness accompany them. The field would be considered neither very serious nor very trustworthy. … [I]t comes pretty close to describing the field of peace education. (p. 3)

Salomon noted further potential consequences of the ambiguity. First, many extremely different kinds of activities applied in vastly different contexts are all identified with the same category categorized as peace education as if they belong together. Second, the lack of clarity of what peace education is and how its different types relate to each other makes it hard to use the outcomes of one peace education in one area to other areas (p. 3). Indeed, Swee-Hin (1997) and Salomon (2002) criticized the absence of integrity in the diverse activities that go under a single label of peace education. Clarke-Habibi (2005) argued that the root of the issue is that individuals’ understanding of peace “is still undergoing elaboration and refinement” (p. 37). She argued that peace education needs a theory that integrates all different dimensions of peacebuilding including the social-political as well as psychological and spiritual (p. 37).

The second limitation of existing peace education models is that they generally focus on a negative concept of peace as the absence of conflict. The educational models based on the negative approach to peace generally tend to appeal to values education or character education, both of which instil values of “fraternity and non-violence” (Gregory, 2004, p. 277). These kinds of education have a propensity to admire concepts associated with peace, such as justice and freedom, and condemn the qualities related to violence 52

(Lipman, 2003, pp. 127–128). Lipman (2003) posits many peace education programs that settle for stereotypical thinking and generalizations in favor of peace and against violence have failed because they cultivate superficial understandings about moral concepts without considering the different context and circumstances (p. 128).

However, programs with a positive and transformative approach to peace can go beyond direct and uncritical value education. They help students engage in a deeper level of understanding about peace and violence and both understand and practise what is involved in violence-reduction and peace-development. For instance they engage students with the questions like “can a person be cruel and still be kind?” or “can someone be both violent and benevolent?” (p. 113). Programs with positive approach to peace, therefore, are potentially more effective for bringing change, growth and transformation toward a culture of peace (Lipman, 1995, 2003). Clarke-Habibi (2005) believed a positive integrated theory of peace must be “the recognition that a culture of peace can only result from an authentic process of transformation, both individual and collective” (p. 38). Swee-Hin (1997) considered the transformation as a change of minds, hearts and spirits of educators and concludes that “if peace education is not able or willing to try to move not just minds but also hearts and spirits into personal and social action for peacebuilding, it will remain emasculated” (p. 16). McWhinney and Markos (2003) argued that:

[a]n education that is transformative redirects and reenergizes those who pause to reflect on what their lives have been and take on new purposes and perspectives. The transformation begins when a person withdraws from the world of established goals to unlearn, reorient, and choose a fresh path. (p. 16)

In Chapter 4, the researcher suggested CPI as a candidate pedagogy for peace, and argued that CPI could overcome these major criticisms regarding existing peace education models, namely, the lack of clarity and the absence of a rich foundation to integrate all peace education diversities and the propensity to a negative notion of peace rather than positive one as the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of personal and social transformation.

2.6 Summary

In the chapter, the researcher explored the concepts of peace and violence as identified by different scholars. The researcher explained that peace does not only refer to the absence

53 of overt or direct violence such as war or physical violence, but also to eliminating all forms of structural violence. Then, the different approaches to build, promote and keep peace from the individual to the international level were investigated. In the second part of the chapter, the researcher explored education for peace as one of the mainstays to building a culture of peace. The researcher looked at the definition, diversity and major components of existing peace education models as well as the limitations of the existing models namely, the absence of clarity and coherence in peace education theory and practice and their appealing to a negative notion of peace instead of a positive one as the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of personal and social transformation. In Chapter 4, the researcher suggested CPI as a candidate pedagogy for peace and argued that it could overcome the main criticisms regarding existing peace education models. However, before jumping into the main arguments in the next chapter, the researcher introduced P4C and the associated pedagogy of CPI to readers who are not familiar with the program and its methodology.

54

3 Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry in Classroom

3.1 Introduction

According to Gregory, Haynes and Murris (2017), “[n]ow half a century old, the influence and reach of Philosophy for Children (P4C) has become a significant educational and philosophical movement. Today, P4C is practiced, interpreted, debated, researched and recreated in more than 60 countries around the world” (p. xxi). Since Lipman and Sharp established the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State University in 1974, P4C and the associated pedagogy of CPI have been practiced in different places such as kindergartens, secular and religious schools, children’s shelters, youth groups, teacher education departments, universities, and government education departments around the world (p. xxi). In chapter 3, the researcher introduced P4C and the associated pedagogy of CPI for the readers who are not familiar with the program and its methodology. The researcher then investigated the concept of reasonableness in CPI as the main objective for education. Finally, in the last section, she analyzed the distribution of power and control in the CPI classroom.

3.2 An Introduction to Philosophy for Children

Philosophy for Children (P4C) was introduced to schools by Mathew Lipman (1923–2010) and Ann Margaret Sharp (1942–2010), cofounders of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State University in the 1970s. Lipman conceived the idea of bringing Philosophy to children’s education when he was Professor of Philosophy at Colombia University in the late 1960s after being frustrated by his students’ underdeveloped thinking skills. He started to take philosophy into K-12 curriculum with the aims of improvement of thinking and social skills and democratic attitudes in young people.

P4C programs have two dimensions: Curriculum and Pedagogy. The curriculum dimension emphasises philosophy as the method and subject matter of the classroom. This rationale is founded on the assumption that “childhood is an appropriate stage of life to read and think and talk about philosophical issues like justice, friendship, what we mean by self, the nature of thinking, the body-mind relation, what it means to be ’good’, and so on” (Kenney, 2012, p. 37). The pedagogy dimension introduces the pragmatist idea of the 55

Community of Inquiry into the classroom. However, unlike pragmatists such as Peirce and Dewey who focused on the community of inquiry in science, Lipman integrated it with philosophy and introduced the community of philosophical inquiry or Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry. “The discipline of philosophy is, traditionally, a home for the teaching of thinking, for it is intimately connected, in terms of process and content, to thinking itself”. (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 89)

The original P4C curriculum consists of a series of story-as-text stimulus for children and accompanying teacher instruction manuals that are intended to provoke philosophical inquiry. In response to IAPC’s material, children raise perplexing questions and initiate inquiry around the questions that matter to them. For instance, Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery, the first novel published in early 1970, is a story of Harry and his fifth year classmates who “discover several basic concepts and rules of Aristotelean Logic; and puzzle over questions about the nature of thought, mind, causality, reality, knowledge and belief, right and wrong, and fairness and unfairness” (Pritchard, 2013, n.d). Lipman and his colleagues in IAPC designed the text to be challenging and interesting for readers (both pupils and teachers) to stimulate inquiry around the text and encourage different interpretations (Lipman, 2008, p. 118).

The P4C curriculum is not limited to IAPC’s novels. As interest in P4C curriculum and pedagogy arose around the world, many educators started to develop and experiment with materials apart from IAPC’s original narratives to stimulate students’ interest in philosophical inquiry. For instance, in the late 80s, Karin Murris in the UK and Tim Sprod in Australia designed materials that supported the use of picture books as stimuli. Also in Australia, a series of books called ‘Thinking Stories’ were edited by Philip Cam. These books included a collection of purpose-written materials from several countries. Moreover, in some countries, educators modified P4C materials according to their own cultures or educational systems.

In a typical CPI classroom, teachers and students sit in a circle facing each other so that everyone can see the face of each participant. Haynes (2008) summarized the nine steps that typically follow in the classroom. These steps are not very strict and teachers may not follow the exact procedures (pp. 36–38):

1. Getting started: Students agree the rules of dialogue or review the rules that they already agreed. A list of possible rules could be (Millett & Tapper, 2012, p. 552):

56

 Listen to other people  Build on what others say  Respect other people’s ideas  There may be no single right answer  Be prepared to think

2. Sharing a stimulus to prompt enquiry: The teacher presents a stimulus to interest children to inquiry. The stimulus could be a story, a poem, a picture or a piece of music. Children are encouraged to think about anything that puzzles them in response to the material. 3. Pause for thought: Students are encouraged to take some time to think about the ideas that come to their mind in response to the stimulus material. They may prefer to sit quietly and think alone or discuss their ideas in pairs or small groups. 4. Students’ questions are recorded on the board or on butcher paper to be seen by all. Teachers should be careful in recording the questions accurately and according to children’s original words. However, asking for clarification about the questions is acceptable. The questions are discussed in CPI are not necessarily philosophical, however they are supposed to include open-ended or speculative questions rather than only scientific or historical questions with definite answers. According to Cam (2006), questions that might be asked of any text are categorised in four groups: “closed textual (reading comprehension) questions; open textual (literary speculation) questions; closed intellectual (factual knowledge) questions; and open intellectual (inquiry) questions” (Cam in Millett & Tapper, 2012, p. 552). The first and third types of questions are considered as closed questions which have specific answers. On the other hand, the second and forth types are open questions with a variety of answers. However, the appropriate types of questions for CPI are Inquiry questions that are generally open and intellectual in nature (p. 552). 5. Connections: The connections and distinctions among questions are distinguished. Questions could also be categorized in different groups. 6. Choosing a question to begin enquiry: Selecting a question to initiate the inquiry could be done in a variety of ways such as voting or drawing. However, the teacher needs to be ensured that the process is fair and inclusive. Although in P4C class starts with children’s questions, interest and concern, it is not entirely students-centered. In P4C

57

teachers are responsible for choosing the appropriate stimulus, helping students to formulate appropriate questions and facilitating the inquiry (Bleazby, 2012, p. 4). 7. Building on each other’s ideas: The teacher needs to encourage students to listen to each other, to support their answers with reasons, to build on each other’s ideas and to explore possible answers. Furthermore, a balance should be made “between encouraging students to follow on one another’s ideas and allowing related lines of enquiry to open up” (Haynes, 2008, p. 37). The aim is to make new meaning and understanding around concepts contained in the question through a shared dialogue rather than “a simple ‘airing’ of different opinions and expressions” (p. 37). 8. Recording discussion: Graphical presentation of ideas through a web or concept map could be useful to develop the inquiry and deepen the understanding of the concepts being investigated. These recordings also assist to “keep track of different aspects of discussion” (p. 38) and save the discussion for future continuation. 9. Closure and review: The teachers and pupils summarize the discussion and “reflect on the process itself, or their own participation in it: How did we do? Did we listen to each other? What progress have we made? Have we changed our minds?” (p. 38).

The intended outcome of P4C is to make children realise themselves as a community with common interests and goals. Indeed, the community of inquiry provides students with a positive sense of belonging; as they begin to recognise their dependency on each other’s contribution and the community of inquiry procedures in order to construct knowledge and meaning. As Bleazby (2012) noted:

the fact that members of the classroom community of inquiry have a shared interest and goal, common procedures and a recognition of their interdependence is thought to foster the kind of democratic community that Dewey promoted—a community that values inquiry, diversity, inclusivity and the collaborative reconstruction of experience as a means to fostering human flourishing” (p. 5).

In the next section, the researcher discussed Dewey’s notion of communal of inquiry which is the basis of Lipman’s educational theory.

58

3.3 Communal Inquiry, the Core of Philosophy for Children Pedagogy

Dewey’s theory of education as a way of reconstruction of experience was the core of the communal inquiry which is central in P4C (Bleazby, 2012; Kennedy, 2012). In the following paragraphs, the researcher explored Dewey’s notion of reconstruction of experience and community of inquiry.

Dewey (2004) defined experience as an activity in which one learns through discovering consequences results from it. Dewey’s example was a child who burns his finger with a flame. The action was not an experience by itself. However, the act and the child’s realization that the action was painful was an experience (pp. 133–134). Thus, experience is “a matter of doing and undergoing the consequences of doing” (p. 274). According to Dewey, only this form of experience involves thinking or reflection. In other words, for an action to be meaningful and responded appropriately, a connection must be made between the act and its resulting consequences. To understand this connection, a degree of though is required. This is why Dewey stated, “No experience having a meaning is possible without some element of thought” (p. 139).

What makes this process meaningful & intelligent is the real understanding of the relationship between actions and resulting consequences. Dewey called such experience ‘reflective experience’ which is in contrast to the method of trial and error. In the method of trial and error, one takes an action and if that action fails another action is tried until such time that one finds something that works. This type of action does not involve the understanding of the relationship between action and the resulting consequences and is hence less meaningful and less purposeful (Dewey, 2004, p. 139).

Reflective experience is based on prediction and expectation of certain consequences following from a particular action. Cultivating the necessary conditions to bring about desired consequences and eliminating the undesired ones is achieved when we truly understand why certain consequences follow from particular actions. In summary, in reflective experience, we interact with our environment in a more meaningful, purposeful and intelligent manner (pp. 139–140). Dewey used the notion of reflective experience as the synonym of inquiry (p. 145). He believed each inquiry has five different steps including (Dewey, 1938, pp. 105–113):

59

Selecting a problematic situation for inquiry

According to Dewey, inquiry is started when we are confronted with situations that are confusing, obscure, in conflict with us or undetermined in some way. In the other words, inquiry starts with a problematic situation in which some of its components or connections between its parts are missing, unclear or confusing. In a problematic situation, our habitual interaction with the environment is interrupted and our established beliefs are disrupted (Dewey, 1938, pp. 105–107; Bleazby, 2012, p. 31). We are not able to automatically respond to them in an intelligent, purposeful manner as they may be initially meaningless to us. That is why we judge them as problematic. Moreover, we do not start inquiry in every problematic situation as we can easily ignore some of them. In order to initiate inquiry the situation should be very problematic, such that the situation stands in the way of achieving desires and needs (Dewey, 2004, p. 142).

Setting the agenda for inquiry

Once the problematic experience has been selected for investigation, a clear purpose and direction for the inquiry needs to be set. This requires careful articulation of the experience including clarification of desired consequences as well as the problematic situation stopping one from achieving the desired consequences. The problem can then be formulated as series of questions that will need to be answered in order to reach the desired consequences. This can help us to set the agenda and clear direction for the inquiry (p. 145).

Formulating a problem solution

To develop a problem-solution, we need to identify the “facts of the case” or the constituents of the problematic situation that are observable (Dewey, 1938, p. 109). Identifying the facts of the case “suggests possible solutions by indicating what constituents are missing or unsettled and need to be reorganised” (Bleazby, 2012, p. 33). However, possible solutions must go beyond the fact of the case through imagination, since the solutions are going to fill in what is missing in the problematic situation and create a desirable situation in which the problematic situation is reconstructed (Dewey, 1938, p. 109; Bleazby, 2012, p. 33).

Evaluating tentative solutions through reasoning

60

At this stage, the reflective thinker needs to “cultivate a variety of alternative suggestions” and critically examine and evaluate the alternative solutions instead of immediately accepting them (Dewey, 1997, p. 75). This requires the suspension of judgment and further exploration in order to confirm or eliminate the suggestions through reasoning (Dewey, 1938, p. 111). Indeed, different suggestions need to be assessed critically through considering what would be the outcomes of the suggestion if they were applied in real situations.

Testing ideas and making judgments

The evaluation of possible suggestions helps us to make a tentative judgment about the best suggestion or solution. Thus, we still need to test the chosen suggestions in the real situation. However, examining the ideas before this stage can reduce the possibility of failure and negative outcomes and help us to develop good ideas prior to applying them. According to Dewey, once ideas are evaluated through inquiry and applied successfully in the real situation, “knowledge” is produced (Dewey, 1938, pp. 112–118).

According to Dewey (1997) knowledge and meaning are the outcomes of the inquiry process. Through the inquiry process, ideas are created and then applied to reconstruct a problematic situation. “The meaning of an idea is its use or purpose in bringing about intended consequences” (Bleazby, 2012, p. 36). However, only through application of idea in a real situation we can confirm the meaning of the idea. According to Dewey (1997), the established meaning is synonymous with knowledge (p. 137).

Dewey (1938) believed communal inquiry is the ideal form of inquiry. Collaboration is the key here. In communal inquiry, a shared problem is investigated collaboratively; ideas are tested and the experience is reconstructed cooperatively. Through the process suggestions may or may not be supported by others, may be rejected, revised or developed further. This is an empathetic process in which we understand others’ point of view and perhaps adjust ours accordingly. During this process, ideas that are not accepted by others in the community are further developed, revised or replaced until some type of consensus is reached by the community. Knowledge reached through such communal inquiry is more reliable since it has been tested in a broader and more diverse field of experience. Therefore, the outcome will be potentially more meaningful for more diverse people and situations. In other words, communal inquiry reduces the possibility of

61 incorrectly generalising and imposing our own beliefs and ideas on others (Dewey, 1938, pp. 43–46; Bleazby, 2012, p. 39–40).

Communal inquiry is not only superior to private thinking but also a prerequisite of it. As Dewey (1938) states all thinking has its origins in social interaction, particularly dialogue. However, he doesn’t fully explain how dialogue gives rise to thinking. Dewey’s view on the social origins of thinking is very consistent with Vygotsky’s theory of self-development (Bleazby, 2012, p. 40).

According to Vygotsky (1978), higher-order mental function including reflective thinking is cultural as well as biological. While traditional psychologists focussed on intrapsychological functions, he emphasised “the importance of interpsychological function which occur when individuals engage in social interaction” (in Bleazby, 2012, p. 40). He also stated that the in intrapsychological and interpsychological functions are interrelated (Vygotsky, 1978, in Bleazby, 2012, p. 41). This is the main element of Vygostskian theory which Lipman applied in developing his CPI pedagogy. According to Vygotsky (1978), “‘every feature of a child’s cultural development appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological)’” (in Cam, 2006, p. 45). Therefore, through the internalization of the social practices, children learn to think for themselves in CPI (Cam, 2006, p. 45).

Indeed, internalization of collaborative processes and thinking gives rise to self-growth and a more autonomous self. Dewey’s theory of experience was based on “Darwin’s idea of an organism adapting itself and its environment in order to flourish and survive” (Bleazby, 2012, p. 42). According to Darwin, when an individual is confronted with a situation and cannot respond to it in a way to satisfy its needs or desires, it transforms its environment as well as its dispositions, beliefs and actions in order to produce desirable ends. Those dispositions, beliefs and actions that are useful for the reconstruction of the experience are internalized into the self. On the other hand, those traits that are not successful for achieving the desirable outcome are transformed or even eliminated from the self. Habits acquired by individuals through the process of internalization result in a more effective, meaningful and harmonious interaction with the world (pp. 42–43).

According to Dewey, growth is the constant and continuous development and transformation of habits (Dewey, 2004, p. 47). Growth is continuous because each experience brings about different environmental interactions resulting in the continual

62 transformation of the individual. “Consequently, the individual then encounters more unfamiliar situations needing reconstruction, leading to further experience and growth” (Bleazby, 2012, p. 43).

Capacity for thought is crucial to self-development as it requires constant reconstruction of experience. As discussed, it is the thought or inquiry that empowers us to meaningfully reconstruct our experience. Self-Control, as well as control over our environment, can be improved through reflective thinking. In this way, our habits and our environment are transformed more effectively and in a more purposeful way (Bleazby, 2012, p. 43).

The point taken up by Lipman is that children could be transformed through pedagogy. Indeed, the natural habits in children can be shaped as a reasonable attitude through philosophical processes. In the next section, the concept of reasonableness in Lipman’s theory has been investigated.

3.4 Reasonableness, Thinking as a Community

Reasonableness is one of the major concepts in CPI. In Thinking in Education, Lipman (2003) mentioned that education could be seen a context in which children learn to be reasonable and growing up to be reasonable citizens, reasonable partners, and reasonable parents in the future (p. 22). Lipman (1993) defined a reasonable person as one

who is cognitively responsible, and who therefore recognizes the need for reasoned justifications of his or her conduct as well as for reasoned explanations of the things that happen to them over which they have no control. The reasonable person will also propose reasonable hypotheses as to what might be done to correct unsatisfactory conditions that require restructuring or transformation. Such a person, in short, is likely to make reasonable judgments that follow from his or her reasonings, whether of a formal or an informal nature. (p. 21)

Moreover, Lipman argued that reasonableness is not only the ability to make intelligent judgments but to make such judgments to undetermined situations that cannot be dealt with the strict application of rational procedures (p. 21). A reasonable person, he stated, makes reasonable judgments through the process of inquiry. In the process of inquiry,

63 reasonableness is cultivated through multidimensional thinking, namely, critical, creative and caring thinking.

Lipman (2003) defined critical thinking as “skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates judgment because it relies upon criteria is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context” (pp. 38–39). Regarding criteria, Lipman pointed out that whenever individuals make a claim, they are vulnerable unless they support it by reasons. Criteria are one kind of reliable reason, which includes standards, regulations, conditions, requirements, principles, goals, and methods that may have a high level of public acceptance. Self-correction, another characteristic of critical thinking and inquiry, “aims to discover weaknesses and rectify what is at fault in inquiry procedures” (p. 218). Lipman believes students in a CPI “begin looking for and correcting each other’s methods and procedures” (pp. 218–219). However, critical thinking is also thinking that is sensitive to context, particularities, and uniformities. Critical thinking avoids making general rules upon individual cases without considering whether such general rules are appropriate or not—for example, differentiating between variations of meaning stemming from cultural differences and personal perspectives (pp. 220, 224).

Creative thinking, on the other hand, has another, albeit compatible, role to play in inquiry. According to Lipman, developing, exploring, and extending ideas are at the heart of creative thinking. The process of inquiry requires generating ideas by participants and following the argument where it leads. Moreover, the inquiry should be developed by the participants themselves and should not be predetermined. Creative thinking, therefore, is the ability to imagine and seek opinions, assumptions, solutions and new ideas for different questions to help children search for and find alternative, more creative solutions for their daily problems instead of ready-made answers (pp. 243–253).

Caring thinking is the third dimension of multi-dimensional thinking in CPI. Lipman defined caring thinking as a form of emotional thinking that has an important role in education. He argued that caring thinking is paradigmatic for all forms of emotional thinking. We cannot think emotionally about something without caring about it. Indeed, caring thinking is a concern for matters of importance (p. 262). Emotions focus our attention and control the judgments we make about the world and how we justify those judgments (pp. 127–128). Caring thinking, therefore, is value-laden. Lipman believed that to value is to pay attention to what matters and to appreciate it. Figure 8 represents the type of value principles that

64 can be detected in CPI. There are five types of value principles mentioned by Lipman that are the focus of caring thinking practices.

 Appreciative thinking, which is to pay attention to what is important and what matters, any type of prizing or respecting or admiring and so on is the outcome of comparing and contrasting things, and that emerges from paying attention to things.

 Active thinking, which refers to any actions that are related to ways of thinking.

 Normative thinking, which refers to reflecting upon the components of acting and caring; caring concerns all possibilities of caring conduct that can be reflected in the cognitive status of acting to become an ideal person.

 Affective thinking, which refers to the idea that emotions are not psychological reactions to disturb reasoning but rather, emotions form judgments. Putting this more holistically, the very ‘being’ of a person is emotional and thoughtful. Therefore, emotions and thinking cannot be reduced to each other, but any human action in a holistic manner is shaped by human’s emotions and reasoning.

 Empathic thinking, which for Lipman means to put ourselves in others’ positions to experience their emotions as if those emotions were our own. (pp. 264–270)

65

Figure 8: Caring thinking. From Lipman (2003, p. 271)

As aforementioned, reasonableness is cultivated through the improvement of critical, creative, and caring thinking in CPI. To use Lipman’s (1992) words: “it is not the reasoning alone that leads to reasonableness, but the experience of trying to reason together, as a community, that leads to the introjection of reasonableness in each participant” (p. 21). However, it is not possible, according to Lipman (1993), to educate for reasonableness without educating students to think for themselves through the community and dialogue with others.

Reasonableness … is built up, layer upon layer, out of one’s efforts to be thoughtful, to be considerate, to seek integrity-preserving compromises, to be open to other points of view and other arguments, to seek appropriate means for the ends one has in view as well as appropriate ends for the means one finds at one’s disposal, and to seek solutions that take all interests into account. (p. 21)

If Lipman is correct, this raises the issue of power and control, as obstacles to reasonableness, to which the researcher discussed in the next section.

66

3.5 Power and Control in the CPI classroom

Considering the classroom as a system and CPI as an interactive system, as Lushyn and Kennedy (2003) suggested, involves attention to relations of power. They contend that traditional pedagogic systems involve overtly unequal relations of power and control. CPI, as a conceptual and psychodynamic form of pedagogical methodology, can be understood in terms of system theory. In this view, a system is a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. According to Lushyn and Kennedy, CPI can be understood as an open, self-regulating system which continuously interacts with the environment and surroundings and models itself upon ‘nature.’ (p. 103). Also, it is assumed that CPI is a social system in which there is no intent to try to practice control over others through coercive or disciplinary power, which controls individuals through ranking, surveillance, and normalization. The organization of an open social system is dependent on the participation of each member of the system and also on the communication within its environment (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2010, p. 5). If we understand open systems as chaotic, self-correcting, and self-organizing, and CPI as an open system, how can we model the distribution of power in the system?

Lushyn and Kennedy (2003) attempted to explain the model of power in CPI by focusing on the transformative character of a dialectics of power. They started with a presupposition that the CPI as a methodology breaks up the impositional and manipulative power practices of the classroom. The CPI facilitator is not likely to accept the traditional perception of students’ judgment and analysis as insufficient and imperfect. Rather, they are likely to apply a pedagogical procedure that is designed to correct that traditional perception. The dynamics of the corrective process are designed to strengthen students’ judgment. In such cases, there is a different kind of teacher manipulation. The whole process begins with a philosopher facilitator who carries out a primary analysis of the nature of deficiency. Then they create a text – adapted in such a way that the philosophical concepts can be perceived easily – in the form of a narrative, designed for correcting that deficiency. Pedagogical manipulation begins not just by presenting the text to the whole group to read, but by obliging the students – categorised according to age and individual differences – to ask questions to help the facilitator pass the motivational boundaries and creating a safe atmosphere. This more serious manipulation should lead to (a) mastery of the already presented material, and (b) testing of the quality of assimilation of that material by asking the student to complete some exercises. By the

67 end, the CPI facilitator should be sure that the student has grasped certain types of thinking that have been modeled in the text for internalization by the student (pp. 103– 104).

By thoroughly considering the interactive dynamics of teaching, individuals can be assured that there can be no possible imposition on a child or any acquirer without more-or-less active participation of the inquirer. In other words, the acquirer is involved in the process of pedagogical manipulation. In the course of this, the more the facilitator is pedagogically resistant – inflexible and insensitive to the thoughts of the child – the student’s process of mastery of the material will be harder, and the student will need to be more creative and resourceful. The ideal pedagogic form involves a moment when both sides; teacher and student are “engaged in creative manipulation, in a context of equality, [and when] outward manipulation turns into deep communication on the level of basic meanings, dispositions and values” (p. 105). In other words, if the teacher is to enact their model of pedagogy successfully, they should not impose it but should assimilate the student’s model. The assimilation requires them to face and facilitate their resistance as much as the students’. This kind of resistance is a form of mutual identification, which refers to the difference between the students’ model of the content of the pedagogy and the teacher’s model. To better understand each model, the teacher and student need to share their models and try to know the counter positions (p. 105). Sharp (1993) described a well-functioning inquiry as an inquiry in which participants move from the position of just considering themselves and their accomplishments as an important to become people who are conscious of others’ contributions and self-transforming in a way that can consider themselves as a member of interdependent whole (in Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011, p. 445). The point of relevance to the study presented in the thesis is that CPI rejects the traditional relations of power and control in the classroom, enacting new configurations of power and control to transformative ends. Specifically, while it rejects the imposition of particular beliefs, CPI does entail the use of power and control to transmit philosophical ways of engaging in pedagogy. Any system – closed or open – represents a form of power. According to Lushyn and Kennedy (2003), power implies control and manipulation, which are the fundamental characteristics of human system dynamics. In the case of a CPI, the only thing that can assure us about these dynamics is the hope that power in an open system like CPI will not be abused. In an open system, every element is essential for the existence of the whole system. Power relations in a human ecosystem are continuously

68 shifting and fluid and the constant reconstruction is the distinctive characteristic of a human system (p. 110).

In the research, a new way of describing and understanding the power and control relations in CPI classroom has been examined. To systematically investigate the distribution of power and control in the CPI classroom, the research adopted Bernstein’s sociological models of classification and framing in educational context (Bernstein, 1971). The discussion has been presented in Chapter 6 and 7.

3.6 Summary

In the chapter, the researcher explored P4C and the associated pedagogy of CPI established by Lipman in the 1960s. First, the researcher investigated the two dimensions of P4C programs: Curriculum and Pedagogy. The curriculum dimension emphasises philosophy as the method and subject matter of the classroom. The pedagogy dimension introduces the pragmatist idea of the Community of Inquiry into the classroom. Following this, the researcher demonstrated a typical CPI classroom. Next, the researcher reviewed Dewey’s theory of education, particularly the concept of reflective thinking and the five stepts of inquiry process as the major theoretical foundation for Lipman’s CPI. The researcher then investigated the concept of reasonableness in CPI as one of the main objectives for CPI. According to Lipman, a reasonable person makes reasonable judgments through the process of inquiry. In the process of inquiry, reasonableness is cultivated through multidimensional thinking, namely, critical, creative, and caring thinking. Finally, in the last section, the researcher analyzed the distribution of power and control in the CPI classroom. In Chapter 4, the researcher investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which was built on pragmatist theory, and explored its contribution to peace education.

69

4 Exploring the Potential of CPI as Peace Pedagogy

4.1 Introduction

As the researcher explored in Chapter 2, the existing peace education models lack of clarity, integrity and theortical foundation for peace pedagogy. The researcher also criticized peace education modelsfor appealing to a negative notion of peace rather than a positive one. To address these criticisms, first, the researcher reviewed the theory and underlying epistemology of pragmatism to provide a framework that underpinned her proposal for peace pedagogy. Next, she investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which is built on pragmatist theory and explored its contribution to peace education. Then, the researcher built on Lipman’s educational theory to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education, drawing on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom. In particular, the researcher concerned with two main questions:

1. Does CPI reduce violent or aggressive behaviors and interactions?

2. Does CPI promote peaceful behaviors and interactions?

The researcher investigated these questions in sections 4.3 and 4.4.

4.2 Pragmatism, a Framework for Peace Pedagogy

In the section, the researcher investigated the basic concepts in pragmatist theory, attending to the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of pragmatism, to provide a theoretical framework for her peace education model. The researcher examined pragmatist epistemology and how human beings can learn through conflict and problematic situations via self-correcting communal inquiry.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that originated around 1870 in the United States of America. Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey (1859– 1952) were the most significant classical pragmatists. The pragmatist ideas were not the center of debates in much of the 20th Century, but since 1970 the classical works of pragmatist philosophers have drawn considerable academic attention and have made a major contribution to philosophy. Particularly, there has been a Deweyan revival. This revival owes much to Rorty’s (1979) controversial neo-pragmatist views offered in

70

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, provoking pragmatists, such as Haack (1993), to challenge his account of pragmatism, especially his interpretation of Peirce and Dewey (see also: Brodsky, 1982; Campbell, 1984; Edel, 1985; Gouinlock, 1995). Over a decade before Rorty released his book, Lipman had gone back to Dewey’s educational theory in Democracy and Education and by 1978, he and Sharp had coined the term community of inquiry—the pedagogy at the heart of P4C—founded on Peirce’s notion of a community of inquirers (Burgh & Thornton, 2016b; Lipman & Sharp, 1978).

The epistemology of pragmatist theory asserted that our knowledge and cognition are constructed based on our attempts to survive in the world by dealing with problematic experiences. The primary model in the characterization of knowing—an account pragmatists challenge—is a passive, beholding relation between the knower and the object known. According to the idea that observation is pure reception—what Dewey (1916) dubbed “the spectator theory of knowledge”, which included a range of epistemological views from Plato to modern empiricists—knowing is somewhat akin to seeing or beholding. However, as McDermid (2018) pointed out, according to Dewey, Peirce, and other pragmatists:

[K]nowledge is the product of inquiry, a problem-solving process by means of which we move from doubt to belief. Inquiry, however, cannot proceed effectively unless we experiment—that is, manipulate or change reality in certain ways. Since knowledge thus grows through our attempts to push the world around (and see what happens as a result), it follows that knowers as such must be agents; as a result, the ancient dualism between theory and practice must go by the board. This insight is central to the ‘experimental theory of knowledge’, which is Dewey’s alternative to the discredited spectatorial conception. (n.d.)

Humans can only learn when they encounter a problematic experience leading to a specific kind of persistent, rigorous and self-correcting inquiry, which is characterized by the interactions of the inquirers moving between states of genuine doubt (or disequilibrium) and fixed belief (or equilibrium), resulting in action, confidence and eventually to belief- habits (Peirce, 1877). Although Peirce argued that inquiry starts with genuine doubt, he criticized Cartesian scepticism, which claims philosophy must begin with universal doubt, but which Peirce contends is feigned or paper doubt (Hookway, 1949, p. 25). Peirce (1868) declared:

71

We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts. (pp. 140–141)

Peirce claimed that philosophy could not begin by trying to doubt everything (that is, the Cartesian maxim) and all inquiry begins with background prejudices or what Hookway (1985) called “the bedrock truth” that we do not question. Peirce argued that the Cartesian philosophy failed because it attempted to doubt what is impossible to doubt and to do so would be mere self-deception. Cartesian doubts are unconnected to human action, whereas genuine doubt—which aligns with an epistemology of fallibilism rather than scepticism—is connected to human action and psychology. As Agler (2013) put it, according to Peirce, “doubting is not something under our direct control, i.e., something that interferes with our action, something we feel, and something whose conclusion we care about” (n.d.). This links to Peirce’s concern about prejudices; doubt can foster inquiry to uncover those prejudices of which we are unaware and, indeed, may underpin our belief-habits. As Bernstein (2010) pointed out: “Sorting out which prejudices are to be criticized or rejected is not the beginning point of inquiry, but at the end product. An achievement of inquiry” (p. 33).

In his famous paper, “Fixation of Belief,” Peirce (1877) argued that beliefs guide our desires and shape our actions, and we start to reflect on our belief when we confront a genuine doubt about our belief which does not seem to get the expected results. To use Peirce’s words:

The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be such as may truly guide our actions so as to satisfy our desires; and this reflection will make us reject any belief which does not seem to have been so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion. We may fancy

72

that this is not enough for us, and that we seek, not merely an opinion, but a true opinion. (p. 5)

Peirce believed that there are four different ways people move from doubt to belief and fixate their beliefs. They are tenacity, authority, a priori (or method of taste or natural preference), and scientific (or inquiry) methods. In the case of tenacity, individuals hold on to a belief, even in the face of doubt, to preserve a self-identity or a world view to which they are committed (see Hildebrand 1996; Legg, 2014). An appeal to authority occurs when individuals accept the beliefs of authority figures, such as parents, experts or members of a community with whom we identify or want to identify. The third method of belief fixation, a priori, is based on the idea that the human mind has direct access to the knowledge before experience. Thus, if you want to know the truth, all you need to do is mediate rationally and eventually, you will ascertain the truth. The last method is the method of science, which, according to Peirce (1877), requires logic and reason and, thus, is the most reliable method to fix our beliefs. Although he claims, “few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already” (p. 1).

As Fitzgerald (1968) observed, Peirce noted two major advantages for the scientific method. First, the method of science “is well suited to make us appeal systematically to the external and public” (p. 141). Second, it will lead to the correction of opinions by constantly checking them against experience if it is persistently followed (p. 141). Peirce (1877) wrote:

To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. Some mystics imagine that they have such a method in a private inspiration from on high. But that is only a form of the method of tenacity, in which the conception of truth as something public is not yet developed. Our external permanency would not be external, in our sense, if it was restricted in its influence to one individual. It must be something which affects, or might affect, every man. And although these affections are necessarily as various as are individual conditions, yet the method may be such that the ultimate conclusion of every man shall be the same. Such is the method of science. (pp. 9–10)

73

Peirce (1868) criticized the Cartesian criterion which, he says, amounts to this, “whatever I am convinced of, is true” (p. 141). If I were convinced, I should have done so with reasoning and should require no test of certainty, but Peirce claimed that subjective conviction, no matter how strong and firm, is not a sufficient criterion for truth. He contended the subjectivism lies at the heart of so much modern epistemology; hence, he developed an intersubjective (social) understanding of inquiry, knowledge, communication, and logic. As Bernstein (2010) noted, for Peirce, “[i]t is only in and through subjecting our prejudices, hypotheses, and guesses to public criticism by relevant community of inquirers that we can hope to escape from our limited perspectives, test our beliefs, and bring about the growth of knowledge” (p. 36). Peirce’s notion of inquiry emphasized self-correcting, as a result of doubt stemming from an attitude of fallibilism. Fallibilism means that every knowledge claim is open to challenge, revision, correction, and even rejection. Uncertainty is not just an attitude forced on us by the unfortunate limitations of human cognition, but, for Peirce, it is the only source of knowledge. It is because uncertainty is the beginning of genuine inquiry. Indeed, uncertainty at Peircean epistemology works as an engine and powers knowledge generation. Thus, it is make sense that fallibilism is the core of Peirce philosophy (Cooke, 2006, in Klein, 2007, Para 1).

Peirce (1877) believed there are some advantages and disadvantages of the other three methods of belief fixation. On the whole, however, Peirce argued that the first three methods block the way of inquiry and do not necessarily provide the appropriate answers as they are ways in which we can fall into our old belief-habits without questioning them, as they could be steeped in prejudice. Individuals must, therefore, remain fallible and question themselves to sustain disequilibrium through inquiry until they have exhausted all possibilities to find equilibrium. The shift in experience from disequilibrium to equilibrium— from which habituation of belief springs—is accompanied by a change in behaviors and dispositions which impact on the environment. The process of modification of habits and habitat through the creation of new associations in response to new problems is what Dewey called reconstruction of experience.

The pragmatist theory of inquiry can be summed up as the process of recognition of problematic experience, formulation and testing of hypotheses leading to judgments about how to adapt individuals’ thinking, behaviors, goals, institutions and environments in such a way as to eliminate or reduce the agitation of doubt over a dissonance of previous experience and habits. Inquiry starts with a state of disequilibrium and terminates in a provisional equilibrium and, it is a continuous process of reconstruction. The concept of 74 inquiry in pragmatist social theory, situated in communities of inquirers, is vital to Peirce’s understanding of how knowledge is constructed. If absolute truth and certainty do not reside in individual consciousness, as Peirce’s rebuttal of Cartesian dualism attests, then people coming together to rigorously test ideas and hypotheses through an interpersonal method of arriving at results is vital to the pragmatist views of reality, truth and knowledge. As Peirce (1868) put it:

In sciences in which men come to agreement, when a theory has been broached it is considered to be on probation until this agreement is reached. After it is reached, the question of certainty becomes an idle one, because there is no one left who doubts it. We individually cannot reasonably hope to attain the ultimate philosophy which we pursue; we can only seek it, therefore, for the community of philosophers. Hence, if disciplined and candid minds carefully examine a theory and refuse to accept it, this ought to create doubts in the mind of the author of the theory himself. (p. 141)

To Peirce, the scientific method is the embodiment of inquiry, in which the community of inquirers moves from tangible premises to conclusions through inductive reasoning. Dewey, however, did not limit the community of inquiry in its application in the way Peirce did but applied it to everyday life. Dewey expanded Peirce’s project and applied the community of inquiry to the progress and amelioration reliant on public inquiry in a larger community of thoughts. Since every human has their own perception of reality, and no one can capture the whole of it, the community of inquiry can go beyond individual thinking and experience and collectively contribute to human knowledge.

In summary, in the section, the researcher provided a framework for my peace pedagogy model based on pragmatist theory and epistemology and the concept of community of inquiry. In the next section, the researcher examined the concept of CPI in Lipman’s educational theory and its contribution to peace education.

4.3 CPI as an Educational Theory for Peace Education

The theories of pragmatist philosophers, especially Peirce and Dewey, sociologist and psychologist George Herbert Mead, and Soviet psychologist and founder of cultural- historical psychology Lev Vygotsky, have informed Lipman’s educational theory and practice (see Lipman, 2004, 2008; Splitter & Sharp, 1995). It is no surprise then that he placed dialogue at the very foundation of thinking. Lipman (2004) concurred with them

75 that humans do not become social by learning, but rather, we must be social to learn. Activities we do together are gradually internalized so that they become activities we achieve through independent thinking. The researcher’s agenda for considering CPI as an effective dialogical pedagogy for peace education derives from Lipman’s theory and practice of educational philosophy, and, therefore, from pragmatist epistemology and social theory.

Lipman (2003) posited that inquiry is an exercise of self-criticism and self-correction that is social and communal because it is based on language that is a social phenomenon per se (p. 83). It is Peirce’s idea of community of inquiry, and Dewey’s adaptation of it as a methodology for education, that Lipman extensively developed as classroom pedagogy (Lipman, 2004; Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980). Lipman’s theory and practice extended beyond classroom practices. Not only he was concerned about “the achievement of an educated citizenry competent to participate in democratic societies” (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006, p. 100), but also he argued that the community of inquiry is an exemplar of democracy in action. It represented “the social dimension of democracy in practice, for it both paves the way for the implementation of such practice and is emblematic of what such practice has the potential to become” (Lipman, 1991, p. 249). As such, for Lipman, it is necessary for students to experience participation in democratic life, to develop the intellectual and social capacities and dispositions for active and informed citizenship (Burgh, 2003, 2014; Cam, 2006). Without such an education, students would be ill- equipped to deliberate on matters that affect themselves and others. Hence, Lipman stressed that the aim of the community of inquiry is “not to turn children into philosophers or decision-makers, but to help them become more thoughtful, more reflective, more considerate, more reliable individuals” (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 15).

Lipman (2004) made no secret of P4C’s debt to Dewey, especially his ideas on democracy and education. According to Dewey (1916), democracy is more than merely a political system or procedure. Rather, he understood democracy as a way of life; it required fully formed public opinion through effective communication among citizens, experts, and political representatives. Democracy, in Dewey’s (1916) words, “is more than a form of government, it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint, communicated experience” (p. 87). Traditional education, or what Freire (2007) called the “banking concept of education”, is not equipped to bring about such changes as the emphasis is on the transmission of knowledge rather than on the development of thinking. To Dewey, inquiry is primarily a social, participatory activity, with an emphasis on dialogue, reflective 76 thinking, and self-correction (Magee, 2000). In a classroom community of inquiry, children would not simply imitate democracy, but instead would operate as a democracy, insofar as they would deliberate over matters of concern to them rather than engage in the kind of social and political decision-making practiced in liberal-democracies around the world (Burgh, 2010, 2017).

CPI can be viewed as an ideal educational system in which democracy is both a goal and a method of instruction. Tolerance, respect, and trust are valued in such a democratic setting. This is consistent with the initial aim for the philosophical community of inquiry, that is, education for democratic citizenship. Dewey’s ideal of democracy is that of a strong democracy: a process of shaping a community with deliberative communication (Burgh, 2014, p. 29). In such a process, the stress is not just on participation but on the quality of participation—shifting to civic values like tolerance, listening attentively, and being open to alternatives. Such a democracy is fluid and on-going process of socio- cultural construction and citizens of this democracy focus on common experiences, cognitive processes, different approaches to cultural translation and the discourse of empowerment, which are means of cognitive formation of self and others (p. 30). Democratic education tries to make students critical and challenges them to understand the world as being made and, therefore, as changeable and able to be recreated and transformed. In such an educational approach, students have an integral role in shaping democracy, and that democracy is an educational process, not merely an educational goal. Building on Dewey’s notion of education as communication, and Lipman’s constructive pedagogy, CPI can be understood as an educational community in which diverse perspectives are brought into ongoing meaning-making processes of will- formation. That means a practice for creating and imagining other possibilities for the current situation. In this case, CPI presents a model of democracy as inquiry, which in itself is an educative process (p. 37).

As aforementioned, Vygotsky also influenced Lipman’s understanding of the community of inquiry as pedagogy. Unlike Piaget, who viewed the cognitive development of children in discrete stages, Vygotsky emphasized that development cannot be separated from its social and cultural context. As Burgh, Field, and Freakley (2006) explained, according to Vygotsky (1978), “human social and intellectual development is a process wherein the interpersonal communicative functions of language are internalized. The process is a transformation of an interpersonal communicative function to an individual psychological one” (p. 35). Indeed, he pointed out the importance of collaborative situations in achieving 77 a higher level of cognitive development in children. In this way, children in community of inquiry practice process thinking through philosophical dialogue and internalize related skills and dispositions and learn to think for themselves (p. 35).

Lipman’s educational philosophy builds on his conviction that communities of inquiry—a community of individuals engaged in intersubjective communication in the form of dialogical inquiry—are the epitome of the social dimension of democracy. This, as previously mentioned, rests on the assumption that individuals are fallible regarding knowledge, necessitating rigorous inquiry within a community to mitigate disagreement. Fallibilism plays an important role in Lipman’s model of the community of inquiry, which, as the researcher previously stated, is steeped in the pragmatist view of the search for knowledge. This circumvents tenacity, authority and a priori methods for seeking solutions which tend to block inquiry, and instead sustains engagement in rigorous inquiry, which Peirce thought necessary for “seeking the truth” Because Peircean inquiry rests on the notions of self-correction and fallibilism—thus reframing all knowledge claims as open to challenge, revision, correction, and even rejection, given genuine uncertainty about one’s own beliefs—Lipman’s community of inquiry takes on the same characteristics, but in a classroom setting (Burgh, 2009; Gregory, 2002; Pardales & Girod, 2006; Seixas, 1993). The link between fallibilism and disequilibrium is obvious; to move from disequilibrium to equilibrium without blocking inquiry requires openness to inquiry, which rests on an attitude of fallibilism. The connection is necessary for dealing with conflict through inquiry.

In this section, I explored the concept of CPI in Lipman’s educational theory and its contribution to peace education. In the following two sections, respectively, I seek to answer the major questions I asked at the beginning of the chapter, namely, does CPI reduce violent or aggressive behaviors and interactions, and does it promote peaceful behaviors and interactions among students?

4.4 The Role of CPI in Exploring Conflict

Many writers in the tradition of P4C have noted the value of conflict in community of inquiry (Gregory, 2004; Splitter & Sharp, 1995; Redshaw, 1994). Splitter and Sharp (1995) explained how the classroom community of inquiry could provide an appropriate environment for educating for peace and the reduction of violence. Children come into the classroom with specific views on many issues, including those related to peace and violence. Some of them could have a history of family violence or their parents behave violently or advocate violence as a means to what they consider might be a worthy end. It 78 is, therefore, necessary that the classroom provides a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which all views can be listened to, discussed, and investigated. When children express points of view in the classroom that could be considered violent, engaging in classroom dialogue with their peers allows for all views to be compared and contrasted in the community of inquiry. If this is treated as genuine disagreement, in which all beliefs are considered fallible, and subject to rigorous, self- correcting inquiry, the children may come to understand that their point of view is rationally indefensible, requiring justification which may result in a reconstruction of their thinking. Otherwise, if no one is concerned to engage children in a genuine collaborative inquiry, “we would” as Splitter and Sharp noted, “not be surprised to find that, years later, he is not only unwilling, but unable, to reflect on his views and feelings, or to self-correct” (p. 197).

Redshaw (1994) claimed that in the community of inquiry, participants address the problem, not attack the person. Such an educational setting allows children to understand that individuals can respect persons while still disagreeing with someone. The process allows for different views and disagreements to provisionally have equal value, credibility, and opportunity to be offered, listened to, and examined without any threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has suggested it. Redshaw argued that “thinking, planning and resolving problems all involve receptiveness to the particular situation” (p. 13), which is reflected in the community of inquiry.

Gregory (2004) offered a comprehensive account of conflict, inquiry, and education for peace. He pointed out that the conflict within a classroom community of inquiry can be either internal or external, and students are not always sensitive to the problematic experiences of others, and that not everyone will necessarily respond in the same way. However, he argued that in a model inquiry as cooperative intelligence, which lies at the heart of the community of inquiry,

even this conflict is valuable; that people bring to the life of the community divergent perspectives, opposing interests, and incommensurable views of what is good for the community. Good inquiry depends on a rich diversity of options—options for belief, value and action—upon which the community may apply its procedures of intelligent selection. (p. 269)

Gregory (2004) claimed there are two ways in which the notion of conflict can aid the ideal of diversity. First, conflict signifies contrast among different viewpoints and highlights the subtle and elusive differences. Second, conflict suggests diversity in options which enrich 79 the community judgments. Indeed, “conflict of opinion is essential for robust inquiry in which the better and truer ideas tend to win out in open competition” (p. 270).

While these writers speak positively of the community of inquiry providing what Splitter (1993) described as “an appropriate environment for ameliorating contemporary social problems in the area of violence, sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination” (p. 8), Splitter also acknowledges that the “phenomenon of violence, both throughout history and in our time, is complex” (p. 8). As Gregory (2004) pointed out, powerful individuals or factions and tyrannical majorities who resist self-correcting are serious threats to amelioration. The weaker also can block the way of social inquiry by shackling the stronger with “social pity and a sense of obligation” (p. 274). Such people may underestimate the priority of collective and reflective thinking over individual thinking or they do not mind ignoring long-term harm for short-term benefits (p. 275).

Reframing conflict as a disagreement or disequilibrium provides an opportunity to address the problematic experiences of those in community of inquiry beyond creating dualisms which polarise inquiry, only focussing on the two extreme sides of a dispute. As schools are social places in which students experience conflicts in their lives, practising inquiry and dealing with problematic situations should start here. By converting classrooms into communities of inquiry, the teacher and students can practice and internalize the inquiry skills and apply them to resolve the conflicts inside and outside the classroom. More significantly, it provides an educational setting for students to experience the phenomenological aspect of inquiry, to experience genuine doubt, to question, to test their beliefs, and develop hypotheses as part of the process of dealing with disagreement (Burgh & Thornton, 2016a). As Lipman (2003) stated:

One of the most important advantages of converting the classroom into a community of inquiry (in addition to the undoubted improvement of moral climate it brings about) is that the members of the community begin looking for and correcting each other’s methods and procedures. Consequently, insofar as each participant is able to internalize the methodology of the community as a whole, each is able to become self-correcting in his or her own thinking. (p. 219)

In the next section, the researcher addressed the second research question, namely, does CPI promote peaceful behaviors and interactions among students?

80

4.5 The Role of CPI in Promoting Peace

Lipman (1995), in his article “Educating for Violence Reduction and Peace Development”, claims that so many attempts to educate for peace have failed since they start with the prescription “Seek peace, Avoid violence” and, thus, cultivate superficial understandings about these concepts (p. 121). He adds:

To be sure, the face of peace is most attractive and that of violence is most unattractive. However, when it comes to education with regards to these values, it is not enough to cultivate immediate emotional responses, or to reiterate how good peace is and how bad violence is. Instead, we have to help children both understand and practise what is involved in violence- reduction and peace-development. They have to learn to think for themselves about these matters, not just provide knee-jerk responses when we present the proper stimuli. (p. 121)

Lipman argued that writers all around the world tend to admire concepts associated with peace, such as justice and freedom, and condemn the qualities related to violence. To a large extent, the consistency arises from specific features of the language in which good and bad characteristics have already attached to the words (pp. 127–128). Lipman posited that “[t]hus, it would seem that moral education need merely alert students to the terminology of the vices and virtues, and the built-in disapprobation or approbation will automatically teach the students the difference between wrong and right” (p. 128).

Lipman (2003) insisted that an effective peace education has “to help children to both understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace development” (p. 105). This requires a peace education model that focuses first, on exploring meanings and profound disagreements of concepts associated with peace and violence, and second, on practicing the procedures of rational deliberation, which require changing ordinary classrooms into communities of inquiry (pp. 105–106). In a community of inquiry, children mitigate prejudice through intersubjective, deliberative dialogue that focuses attention on the experiences of others, questioning automatic response to ethical questions as merely answers on what is right or wrong. Lipman believed many moral education programs settle for stereotypical thinking and generalizations in favor of peace and against violence without considering the different context and circumstances. For example, “she is passive, she must be good” or “he is dashing, he can’t be a violator of other people’s rights” (p.

81

107) are some irrational general judgments that should not be applied uncritically in every instance. In a community of inquiry, students can examine what is normally taken for granted. Lipman offered some examples of questions the community of inquiry might explore:

 “Can a person be cruel and still be kind?”  “Are there circumstances under which it would not be right to be generous?”  “Can we love someone we don’t like?”  “Is veracity sometimes inappropriate?”  “Can someone be both violent and benevolent?” (p. 113)

Lipman (1991) made the point that there is more to inquiry than rational deliberation. He preferred the term ‘higher-order thinking’ and spoke about critical and creative aspects of higher-order thinking and argued “there is no creative thinking that is not shot through with critical judgments, just as there is no critical judgment that is not shot through with creative judgments” (p. 193). In the second edition of Thinking in Education, Lipman (2003) extended this belief to fostering critical, creative, and caring thinking to prepare students not only to make better judgments but also to live qualitatively better lives. In other words, inquiry requires critical, creative, and caring thinking that results in strengthening the power of judgment to live better lives (p. 274).

According to Lipman (1988), every outcome of inquiry is a judgment, which is the forming of opinions, estimates, conclusions, or solving problems. For instance, architects, doctors, lawyers, and teachers are professionals whose work involves making judgments. Lipman believed that judgments “are likely to be good judgments if they are the product of skilfully performed acts guided by or facilitated by appropriate instruments and procedures” (p. 38). He argued that “critical thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates judgment because it relies upon criteria is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context” (pp. 38–39).

Regarding criteria, Lipman (2003) pointed out that whenever we make a claim, we are vulnerable unless we support it by reasons. Criteria are one kind of reliable reason, which includes standards, regulations, conditions, requirements, principles, goals, and methods that may have a high level of public acceptance. In Lipman’s words:

[B]y means of logic we can validly extend our thinking; by means of reasons such as criteria, we can justify and defend it. The improvement of student

82

thinking depends heavily on students’ ability to identify and cite good reasons for the opinions they utter. (p. 214)

Another characteristic of critical thinking is self-correction that seeks to discover the weaknesses of the inquiry procedures. Lipman believed students in a community of inquiry undertake correcting each other’s “methods and procedures” (pp. 218–219). Moreover, critical thinking is sensitive to the context that avoids making general rules on individual cases without considering whether such general rules are appropriate or not (pp. 220, 224).

As mentioned before, inquiry requires not only critical thinking but also creative and caring thinking, which results in strengthening the power of judgment to live better lives. According to Lipman, developing, exploring, and extending ideas is at the heart of creative thinking. The process of inquiry is based on generating ideas by participants and following the argument where it leads. Moreover, the inquiry should be developed by the participants themselves and should not be predetermined. Creative thinking, therefore, is the ability to imagine and seek opinions, assumptions, opinions, solutions and new ideas for different questions helping children to search for and find alternative, more creative solutions for their daily problems instead of ready-made answers (pp. 243–253). As Chesters (2012) pointed out, while critical thinking engages participants “in self correction, identify[ing] weakness in premises, fallacious reasoning, and unwarranted generalisation, as well as develop[ing] the skills of categorisation, concept exploration, finding definitions, and classification” (p. 47), creative thinking encourages “engaging with ideas, such as exploring alternatives or building on the ideas of others, and developing a hypothesis, [through which process] students gain a deeper understanding of what is being inquired into” (p. 47).

As the researcher discussed in Chapter 3, caring thinking is a form of emotional thinking that has an important role in education. Lipman (2003) indicated that emotions often are supposed to have a blurring, distorting effect upon one’s thinking; since clarity and distinctness have been taken for granted by the Cartesian tradition as the criteria of truth, the emotions are frequently blamed as the cause of error and falsehood (pp. 127–128). However, recently, writers have considered the positive role that emotions can play in thinking. Lipman referred to Catherine Elgin, who analyzes the contributions to thinking made by the emotions; focusing, framing, embedding, and emphasising to characterize and structure thinking by our emotions. He argued that caring thinking is paradigmatic for

83 all forms of emotional thinking. We cannot think emotionally about something without caring about it. Indeed, caring thinking is a concern for matters of importance (p. 262). Emotions focus our attention and control the judgments we make about the world and how we justify those judgments (pp. 127–128).

Sharp (2014) concurred with Lipman. However, she is quick to point out that more could be said about caring thinking and what she calls ‘caring practice’ than Lipman proposed. According to Sharp:

Caring thinking suggests a certain view of personhood and a pedagogical process. It also suggests a particular environment for the cultivation of such thinking. I am referring to the process of communal inquiry and the democratic environment of the classroom community of inquiry. It is as if you can't have one without the other, if you are interested in cultivating caring thinking among children on a large scale. (p. 16)

Sharp argued further that to foster caring thinking, individuals need much more than logic and reason. Through communal inquiry, children discover many things about themselves and the world. As children commit themselves to the process of communal inquiry, including the principle of fallibilism, something much more important happens than what was said in any particular classroom session. Children are committing themselves to a practice care for the tools of inquiry, their care for the problems, their care for the form of the dialogue, and their care for each other as they proceed in the inquiry itself. In other words, this deeper dimension of meaning lies not only in what they say to each other, how many problems they solve, what questions they decide to take on but in the aesthetic and intersubjective form of the dialogue as a whole as they experience it. According to Sharp:

They discover themselves as cooperative inquirers, persons who are feeling, intuiting, wondering, speculating, loving and willing, as well as thinking and writing, encountering the whole vast range of human experience with their classmates and teacher. This is an experience of caring. It is based on a trust that whatever happens in the external world, communication, love, solidarity, creativity, sharing of ideals such as beauty, justice and goodness, suffering and compassion are what really matters. (p. 6)

The community of inquiry provides students with a positive sense of belonging; as they begin to recognize their dependency upon the community of inquiry procedures, they begin to care for and feel protective of those procedures (p. 122). In this way, care can be 84 understood as providing procedural guidance through communal inquiry to develop an experiential understanding of how to think about problems as they situationally arise. Care, therefore, is a regulative ideal for the facilitation of inquiry guided by the principles of fallibilism, self-correction and dialogue to develop hypotheses and to test them as a community engaged in rigorous inquiry, which includes paying attention to the norms of inquiry and, indeed, to question these as part of that inquiry.

Chesters (2012) elaborated on Sharp’s views, adding that caring thinking is connective thinking. She described caring thinking as:

[c]onnections between individuals and thoughts in the communal dialogue. It is a process of: (1) caring for inquiry, which motivates students throughout the dialogue, (2) caring with others, which emphasises the connections between students through reciprocity, and an acceptance of difference, trust, and hearing, and (3) caring for problems deemed worthy, or those problematic situations that warrant further inquiry. (p. 144)

According to Chesters, connective thinking is much more than just relationships among people: “It sets standards by engaging in normative thinking, analogous reasoning, empathy, and attentive awareness through listening and questioning” (p. 152). In concert with creative thinking, which she calls generative thinking, “connective thinking creates new ways of making connections. It connects the social with the mental, the generative and evaluative aspects of thinking, the cognitive and the affective, risk and trust, and rationality and empathy” (p. 152).

It is noteworthy, as Chesters pointed out, that Lipman saw good thinking as more than critical or creative thinking.

Good thinking also requires generative thinking [or creative thinking] to make intellectual connections that would otherwise not be made possible by evaluative thinking [or critical thinking] alone. But it is connective thinking that makes this possible as it is the social dimension of thinking. Because we think together in dialogue, through wondering and evaluation we are able to make the familiar strange and see old patterns in new ways. Without connective thinking we will, as Bohm says, remain fragmented in both our thinking and in our social connections. (p. 153)

85

As discussed before, Lipman argued individuals needed to foster critical, creative, and caring thinking through CPI to prepare students to not only make better judgments but also to live qualitatively better lives.

Splitter and Sharp (1995) emphasized the importance of deliberative inquiry on the fundamental prescription “Seek peace, Avoid violence” (p. 196). First, they contend that although it seems there is no disagreement on peace principles and its preference to violence, in fact, there is. The behaviors of many governments, filmmakers, sports teams, and others in positions of authority and influence are hardly consistent with these principles. These inconsistencies are often justified in many ways. They ask the question: “how often do we hear violence among nations, in families and schools, defended on the basis of such appeals to means and ends: ‘Peace through strength’; ‘Spare the rod spoil the child’; ‘Be a man, not mouse’ and so on?” (p. 196). The community of inquiry provides an opportunity to examine these kinds of inconsistencies that children confront in their lives.

Second, the kind of rigorous inquiry advocated by proponents of the community of inquiry pedagogy is vital as there is little agreement on the subtle meanings and implications of concepts associated with peace and violence such as freedom, justice, power, war, equality, pride, tolerance, acceptance, dignity, rights, and abuse, which make them so problematic. The classroom community can “take such contestable terms as a starting point for its own inquiry and can then proceed to consider relevant issues at many different levels: from abuse in the home to bullying in the backyard, to ethnic tensions in the local community, to conflict within and among nations” (p. 196). The classroom provides a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which all views can be listened to, discussed and investigated as disagreement within a rigorous, self-correcting inquiry (p. 197).

In the section, the researcher offered a way in which CPI can contribute to peace education. She brought to attention that many peace education models fail since they cultivate only superficial understandings about the concepts related to peace and violence instead of helping children both to understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace education (Lipman, 2003, pp. 105–106). CPI has the potential to provide a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which students practice social inquiry and learn to make better judgments in their lives.

86

4.6 Summary

In the chapter, the researcher reviewed the theory and epistemology underlying pragmatism and argued that it could provide a theoretical framework for peace pedagogy. The researcher investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which is built on the pragmatist theory and explored its contribution to peace education. Finally, using existing CPI literature, she investigated and argued that CPI classroom can provide an appropriate environment for peace education and violence reduction.

In the next chapter, however, the researcher argued that although CPI is considered to be a safe and peaceful environment which allows all students to freely explore and inquire about conflicts, there is a problematic gap between an ideal CPI and what happens in classrooms. The researcher highlighted some significant problems with the actual practice of CPI, some of which can perpetuate inequality and epistemic violence in the classroom. In response, she proposed the Peaceful CPI as her model, which was designed to overcome the shortcoming of existing CPI models.

87

5 Peaceful CPI

5.1 Introduction

In the chapter, the researcher argued that although CPI is considered to be a safe and peaceful environment that allows all students to freely explore and inquire into conflicts (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980; Splitter & Sharp, 1995), there is a considerable gap between the ideal CPI and what happens in classrooms. Therefore, the researcher first, pointed out some major problems of CPI in practice that occur resulting from unquestioned prejudices and privileging of western values, logic and rationality, such as reluctance and hostility of students towards CPI, power imbalance and epistemic violence in CPI classrooms. Then, she outlined alternative solutions offered by various scholars and, after that, proposed a model for Peaceful CPI.

5.2 Problems with Existing CPI Models

Turgeon (1998) argued that despite the literature in favor of P4C, and reports on or observations of students’ eagerness and openness for philosophical engagement, in practice the is not always attained. She identifies the problem of reluctant or disruptive students in the community of inquiry, which raises several questions, such as: Why do some students act hostile to the idea of philosophy? To do so, she examines three major explanations of why some students disengage with philosophy in their classrooms (p. 9).

The first reason she identifies is that philosophy questions our “cherished beliefs, both personal and cultural” (p. 10), and threatens our complacency of our accepted way of viewing the world. The threat can produce a variety of feelings and judgments in students such as annoyance, fear, anger and anxiety. To avoid these uncomfortable feelings, some students protect themselves by rejecting the inquiry itself. Another reason is that students may “reject the act philosophizing as a waste of time” (p. 10) and that it “is a matter of opinion, personal taste, choice and therefore not an issued for real disagreement or debate” (p. 10). Due to the acceptance of an unreflective relativism and believing critical reflection to be an attack on the self-esteem of others, students may see inquiry as something rude or invasive and useless or of no practical worth. Some students suppose

88 that in CPI, every answer is as good as any others and that questioning someone else’s beliefs is something negative or disrespectful.

Furthermore, for many students, the act of education is divisive and hostile by nature, keeping them away from themselves and their own interests. Indeed, many students reject philosophical inquiry as “it clashes with their traditional ideas and framework what education should be” (p. 10). They think “philosophical inquiry is not true education although true education is not worthwhile” (pp. 10–11). Turgeon also recognized other reasons why students reject participating in communities of inquiry, such as the effect of personal life crisis (e.g., problems or crisis at home such as poverty, divorce, abuse) or “social dynamics of a particular group of students” (e.g., interpersonal conflicts) or students’ learning disorders, such as “attention deficit disorder” (p. 11).

Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) claimed that while CPI is regarded by many scholars as an “exemplar of democracy in action”, the distribution of power among members of the CPI classroom can be unequal. They explained power, using Lukes’ (1986, 2005) definition, as the ability of individuals and groups to influence the process of resource allocation to secure their particular and subjective interests. To this, Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) added:

In a deliberative community, such as the community of inquiry attempts to cultivate, the resources available to the members are time and ideas. These resources influence the outcomes of collaborative inquiry and as a result shape the individual and the collective habits of the community members. Because these resources and their distribution influence the result of the inquiry process and therefore carries implications of social reconstruction, a necessary requirement is that these resources be distributed as equally as possible to facilitate dialogue before any collective understanding is reached. However, the promise of building a community of inquiry in a classroom environment can be overshadowed by problems encountered in the classroom. (p. 443)

They argued that although Turgeon and others tried to explain the difficulty of reluctant or disruptive students, their explanations relied on the assumption that members of a CPI classroom are capable of inquiring, “together while refraining from behaviors that abuse their personal power, such as dominating the inquiry process and practicing coercion on the community, even in situation of conflict” (pp. 444–445). The assumption fails to notice

89 that unbalanced power among students in a CPI classroom could result in intense emotional responses manifested as resistance. They give an example that “certain members who are prone to silence or who dominate discussion might not be receptive to changing their patterns of behavior” (p. 445).

Burgh and Yorshansky turned to Sharp to describe a well-functioning inquiry as opposed to blocked inquiry. They contended that

[i]n a well-functioning community of inquiry participants move from considering themselves and their accomplishments as all important. They become conscious of other members' contributions and allow themselves to transform themselves, eventually becoming part of an interdependent whole. However, in order for this to happen, trust and care of the community must be in place. The absence of care and trust often result in a blocked inquiry in which some members are overpowered by fear and other emotions that keep them from sharing their views and ideas with the community. (p. 445)

The point they gleaned from Sharp was that the lack of care and trust among students in CPI classroom blocks the inquiry by unbalancing the power distribution among students and some members are overpowered by fear or anger and not able to share their views and ideas with the members of the community.

The “neutral stance” of the CPI teacher is often considered as a solution to inequality in the classroom. Lipman, for example, stated that the teacher

should normally be neutral when moderating discussions among students about specific substantive issues in which value questions predominate. But the teacher in such discussion should definitely be partial to and insistent upon the rules of procedure by which the discussion is carried on. (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 186)

Lipman advised teachers to take a neutral stance in moderating classroom discussions to prevent any value domination. They should only be partial on the procedural rules of inquiry. However, Thornton and Burgh (2017) criticized the supposed ‘neutral stance’ of the teacher’s role and argued that it is misplaced to assume that CPI is an intellectually safe environment in which students can explore. Indeed, teachers must be aware of the possibility of epistemic violence in CPI classrooms. They concurred with Freire’s (1987) view that

90

the dominant ideology makes its presence in the classroom partly felt by trying to convince the teacher that he or she must be neutral in order to respect the student. This kind of neutrality is a false respect for students. On the contrary, the more I say nothing about agreeing or not agreeing out of respect for the others, the more I am leaving the dominant ideology in peace! (Freire in Thornton & Burgh, 2017, p. 56)

Chetty (2017) also pointed out the problem of neutrality in Lipman’s position:

Whilst Lipman claims to have “neutralized” the “godlike power of the author” in his philosophical novels, this has been strongly questioned by Kohan (1995), and Rainville (2000), both of whom argue that it is not neutral to ignore the foundations of systematic discrimination and the ways institutions have arisen out of and continue to perpetuate the repression of minoritized groups. (pp. 40–41)

Thornton and Burgh (2017) contended that every classroom is a microcosm of the larger community in which it is situated, and can, therefore, reproduce the epistemic practices and injustices of that community and, hence, the CPI classroom is not immune from epistemic injustices and violence.

Schools engage in epistemic practices through curriculum and pedagogy which rely on the interpretation or acceptance of knowledge as part of, and are, therefore, an integral part of epistemic cultures; cultures of ‘knowledge setting’ that contribute to and shape society. Epistemic practices shape our belief-habits, through which we make sense of the world. Repetitive interaction with our environment builds our habits. Rightfully or wrongfully, when we enter a new environment we are likely to see it through the framework of the familiar. (p. 58)

Murris (2013), too, has expressed her views on the issue. She contends that epistemic injustice happens when adults see children as “other” who are epistemologically incomplete, irrational, untrustworthy, etc. These prejudices are obstacles to hearing the child’s voice and “cause them to miss out on pieces of knowledge offered by a child, but not heard by the adult” just because of the age of speaker (p. 253). She acknowledged that prejudice extends to multicultural classrooms and to girls: “But when child is black (and also female) the injustice done to her could be even greater” (p.257). Murris drew on Fricker (2007), who as aforementioned in Chapter 2, identified two kinds of epistemic 91 injustices: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice consists of prejudices cause a speaker’s word is received a “deflated level of credibility” by a hearer. However, hermeneutical injustice caused by structural prejudices and occurs when individuals or groups lack the shared social resources to make sense of their experience (Fricker, 2007, pp. 1–2)

Further:

When someone is excluded from the relations of epistemic trust that are at work in a co-operative practice of pooling information, they are wrongfully excluded from participation in the practice that defines the core of the very concept of knowledge. (p. 145)

Traditionally, women and minority groups have been targeted. When put into the context of multicultural CPI classrooms, there is the possibility that dominant narratives of rationality (e.g., western rationality) explicitly or implicitly “subjugate others and may come accompanied with feelings and expressions of anger, frustration, disbelief in alternative narratives, or general discomfort” (Thornton & Burgh, 2017, p. 60).

Some feminists who are interested in P4C expressed some concerns that traditional philosophy—particularly western philosophy with its established dichotomies (such as mind/body; reason/emotion)—may impact P4C through excluding women’s voices and perspectives of the world and reproduce gender inequalities (Field, 1995, 1997; Macoll, 1997; Haynes, 1994). For instance Macoll (1997) states her concerns as below:

I have to confess that I have often felt, as a feminist philosopher, some disquiet in advocating philosophy in schools, for the following reason: would you wish on women or small girls a practice of philosophy, which you yourself have come to see as deeply imbued with disguised, gendered ideals and associations, which are, if not wrong, at the very least, not appropriate for everyone? (1997, p. 6)

Chetty and Suissa (2017) argued that P4C is also not immune to ignoring or silencing multicultural voices: “despite the frequent references to identity, diversity, justice, and equality both within the P4C literature and as conference themes” (p. 11), Chetty (2017) contended that “there is little in the current literature relating to Philosophy for Children that explicitly addresses the topic of race and racism” (p. 39). Haynes and Murris (2012) who had considerable experience in leading P4C courses for teachers in the UK argued that for

92 teachers facilitating P4C classes, “[r]ace and racism often crop up as problematic ‘no go’ areas or as a discomfort zone” (p. 128). Chetty (in Chetty & Suissa, 2017) concurred, explaining that his experiences of writing about and teaching CPI and race in the UK and internationally, “as someone racialized as ‘other than white’”, also lead[s] him “to suggest that, for many P4C practitioners, race is also a ‘no go area’” (p. 11). He asked the question:

[I]f we are committed to the view that philosophy’s value in education lies largely in its ability to ‘shake the habitual certainty with which people take for granted the meaning of everyday abstract concepts’ (Murris 2008, in Smith 2011), can teachers racialized as white avoid the tendency to reject or domesticate the unfamiliar, a tendency that can close down the possibility of travelling to no go areas? (Chetty & Suissa, 2017, p. 11)

Chetty stated that ten years ago, he started “to raise some concerns about ‘doing’ P4C with children in racially diverse classrooms with other P4C practitioners, all racialized as white” (p. 13). He offered several questions he believes necessary to ask if we are to consider how the community of inquiry can deal with race and racism:

 “How does a routine of voting for a question give due consideration to minority concerns?”  “What does it mean for a facilitator to claim to be neutral whilst operating within an institution and broader society that is not?”  “Can guidelines intended to ensure politeness and co-operation permit expressions of anger at injustice?”  “What justifies the lack of materials written from a racially minoritized viewpoint amongst P4C materials?”  “Is there an assumption within some P4C literature that people regarded as ‘reasonable’ do not perpetuate racism?” (p. 12)

Chetty and Suissa reported that “many of the responses from experienced P4C practitioners are in line with depictions of ‘white talk’, which critical whiteness scholars have theorized as discursive strategies for avoiding such discomfort” (pp. 12–13). They compared this to McIntyre’s (1997) examples of ‘white talk’, such as: “derailing the conversation, evading questions, dismissing counter arguments, withdrawing from the discussion, remaining silent, interrupting speakers and topics, and colluding with each

93 other in creating a ‘culture of niceness’ that made it very difficult to ‘read’ the white world” (p. 13). Chetty and Suissa concluded that “[r]eviewing empirical research into discussions around race involving teacher candidates racialized as white” (p. 13) confirmed their experiences that “‘resistance, denial, hostility, ignorance, and defensiveness are consistent throughout the studies’” (Levine-Rasky, 2000 in Chetty & Suissa, 2017, p. 13).

Another criticism addressed by several authors (Burgh & Thornton, 2016c, 2017; Haynes & Murris, 2012; Kohan, 1995) is the selection of stimuli, such as text and picture books, as a starting point for the discussion. As Murris (2015) noted, the traditional “P4C curriculum is evaluative and prescriptive (in the sense of what counts as philosophy and what needs to be appropriated by the learners) and therefore normative” (p. 67).

Slade (1994) criticized the first P4C book, Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery. Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery is a story of a male character, Harry and his fifth year classmates who are trying to discover several basic concepts and principles of logic. Slade gives several examples of how the representation of the main characters in this narrative reproduces traditional gender stereotypes. For instance, Harry represents a man who is thinking abstractly and deductively. He also has a lack of interpersonal skills. On the other hand, Lisa, the main female character, represents the traditional role of a caring and supportive woman. Although these stereotypes can be critically addressed in philosophical inquiry in the classroom, they are still problematic.

Chetty (2017) made a similar claim. He pointed to Golding’s claim, which tended to represent the dominant view in P4C, that “dialogue within a community of enquiry is neither teacher-led, nor student-led dialogue. Instead it is idea-led” (p. 50). His disagreement is that “the ideas, the questions that frame philosophical dialogue come out of the starting point” and “selection of certain materials is controversial” (p. 50). The controversy, he stated, “is partly due to the fact that the selection of a text will itself steer a discussion, inasmuch that it will make some ideas more likely and others less likely to be explored” (p. 50).

Thornton and Burgh (2017) noted, to steer an inquiry into issues about racism, multiculturalism and diversity,

[i]t is not enough to create an intellectually ‘safe’ environment by creating a distance between real-life and the stories-as-text used as stimulus material, we need to also create an environment that allows intellectual freedom to flourish. […] Inquiry derived from purpose written stimulus material—such as 94

the stories-as-text written by Lipman—that focuses discussion on a kind of rationality of inquiry, could be complicit in perpetuating a rationality of dominance. (p .62)

Chetty (2017) also stated that individuals may assume the problem with text selection on the issue of racism is because “people of color have little to offer to the practice of philosophizing about race” (p. 50). However, he points out the problem with the view is that

the process of racialization affects us in such a way that our lives and our perspectives will often be shaped by it to some extent, just as they will be by our gender, social class and sexuality, to name but a few. SAPERE training materials do not include the perspectives of any philosophers of color on racism or any other topic. (p. 50)

In conclusion, he concurred with Leonardo and Porter’s (2010) pointed that “‘something has gone incredibly wrong when students of color feel immobilized and marginalized within spaces and dialogues that are supposed to undo racism’” (in Chetty, 2017, p. 50).

In summary, many arguments pointed to a gap between an ideal CPI and an actual CPI and that there are a variety of problems that can occur in practice that does not match the rhetoric that CPI as an exemplar of a ‘peaceful’ pedagogy, one that is communicative and not adversary, that is founded on listening and inclusion rather than exclusion. In the next part, the researcher proposed a peace education model, i.e., Peaceful CPI, which is an attempt to overcome these difficulties.

5.3 Peaceful CPI as Peace Pedagogy

To reiterate, there is a considerable gap between the ideals of CPI as effective peace pedagogy and the practice of CPI in the classroom. To fill the gap, the researcher proposed a modification of CPI that the researcher called Peaceful CPI. Her main ideas in Peaceful CPI are: (1) epistemic biases that students and teachers bring to the classroom are cultural and institutional and are not questioned until a novel situation questions them; (2) to achieve Peaceful CPI, more emphasis is needed on students’ emotions in the process of philosophical inquiry; and (3) peaceful inquiry requires teachers who are conscious of fallibility of narratives and their own prejudices.

95

Therefore, converting a CPI classroom into a Peaceful CPI requires modification of the model of facilitator-inquirer relation and the model of facilitator in CPI classrooms. A more comprehensive model of Peaceful CPI needs reflection on the selection of knowledge and stimulus used as a starting point in CPI classrooms. However, in the current study, the researcher does not focus on the issue. In the rest of the chapter, the research discussed the Peaceful CPI model in detail.

5.3.1 Reflection on the Model of Facilitator-Inquirer Relation: Listening to Students’ Emotions

In the section, the researcher focused on the importance of the emotional status of students in CPI classrooms during the inquiry process. The researcher argued although Lipman and other scholars considered the importance of emotion in P4C literature especially through caring thinking (as I discussed in Chapter 4), in practice, the role of emotions in the process of peaceful inquiry and growth is sometimes underestimated. If we ignore students' emotional state, such as anxiety, frustration, exhaustion, reluctance, being overwhelmed, anger, hostility, annoyance, impatience, fear, shame or lack of trust, as part of the learning process, we fail to get to the heart of what forms children’s prejudices, assumptions, and attitudes that fix their beliefs in the sense Peirce talks about regarding the fixation of belief. As Costa-Carvalho and Mendonça (2017) argued, attending to emotions in the inquiry process “does not mean simply to ‘think’ about them, or to subject them to rational criteria, but to consider them as modes of judgment on par with logical and other cognitive judgments, so that each may inform the other” (p. 131).

As mentioned in Chapter 4, according to the pragmatist theory, people not only see the world but shape it, based on their past experiences and their fixed belief and are unlikely to feel any necessity to change until they no longer can sustain their belief about their experience of the world. Genuine doubt breaks the resistance and uncovers prejudices. As genuine doubt is accompanied by a feeling of disequilibrium, children need a safe social and intellectual environment to inquire and experiment with ideas rather than seek equilibrium through tenacity, authority, and a priori. It is not uncommon for children to seek whatever solutions are at hand when exposed to problematic situations in their life, and so the role of inquiry is to create opportunities to take intellectual risks with others where disequilibrium is seen as a positive state of being.

96

Felt genuine doubt is crucial in changing behavior, which is a key element of peace education, and an effective CPI model must provide children with awareness about genuine doubt and the role it plays in reconstructing knowledge through the community of inquiry. This can be done in three different ways:

 Providing children with the opportunity to experience and become aware of genuine doubt through inquiry in community.  Engaging children in a dialogue about their experiences of genuine doubt, making assumptions, and how their feelings, emotions, prejudices, and other affective states could contribute as obstacles to inquiry.  Offering opportunities for metacognition, which is an important aspect of the community of inquiry in which participants reflect on their thinking skills and thinking progress.

By focusing on children’s experiences of genuine doubt in a community of inquiry, children can experience first-hand the phenomenology of inquiry founded on fallibilism (Burgh, Thornton & Fynes-Clinton, 2018; Burgh & Thornton, 2016a, 2016b). This can aid children to understand how knowledge is constructed, and its reliance on valuing aspects of inquiry that are crucial to gaining understanding about the world, such as open-mindedness, listening attentively, and self-correction (Nichols, Burgh & Fynes-Clinton, 2017). This is crucial to peace education in which the emphasis is not on outcomes alone, i.e., the achievement of peaceful solutions, but on the process, i.e., inquiry as a form of peaceful reflection. In the following paragraphs, the researcher examined how emotional awareness can help students to engage more genuinely in the process of CPI. She used CPI scholars’ arguments, including Turgeon (1988), Chetty (2017), Chetty and Suissa (2017) and Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) to make her point more explicit.

As discussed earlier, Turgeon (1988) believed that despite vast amounts of literature in favor of P4C and observations on students’ eagerness for and openness to philosophical engagement, reluctant or disruptive students in CPI are not uncommon. However, she argued that this could be positive and a sign of the health of the community, rather than as something that should be fixed or eliminated. This could mean that in the CPI classroom students are more honest in revealing their emotions compared with traditional classrooms. To use Turgeon’s words:

97

Perhaps such conflicts and protestations against philosophy reveal a more honest engagement within the classroom than is generally found in the traditional room. Instead of quiet, well behaved but intrinsically disconnected and bored children, we have touched a nerve which brings into the open the thoughts and feelings of the students far better than band-aid attempts to mask the alienation. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that education is working as so often happens in the orderly but sterile structured classroom. (p. 14)

In other words, facing emotions that are usually labeled as “negative” could be a positive sign and opportunity to start an honest and genuine inquiry with children about their feelings and thoughts.

Turgeon also suggested several solutions for engaging reluctant and hostile students in CPI classrooms. The first one is for reluctant students who think education is not worthwhile in general. She acknowledged the technique of Jackson who had developed a structured program for CPI in Hawaii and “focused on the need to encourage students to give education a chance” (p. 11). For example, he introduced the CPI classroom with a popular song with the words “all the crap we learned in high school” as a genuine starting point for a reflective discussion on the aim of education. As Turgeon stated, Jackson reminded us to start from where the students are instead of where we think they should be and speaking over their heads, which makes them confused or alienated (p. 11).

Furthermore, in the case of a relativist standpoint among reluctant students, which keeps them away from genuine inquiry, Turgeon (1998) used Fox’s example5 of using concrete stories for starting a genuine moral inquiry.

I tell my students a true story, about a friend of mine who lived in Australia, next to a family from Lebanon (as it happened, the nationality is not the point). My friend thought he was a moral relativist. He then discovered that his neighbor disciplined his children partly by burning them with a lighted cigarette. My friend quickly discovered that he could not assent to the view that: 'well, that's my neighbor's viewpoint; he's perfectly entitled to it ..." (p. 13)

5 This example came from an internet discussion among Turgeon and Richard Fox from UK in November 1997.

98

Turgeon believed that sometimes the most effective way to question relativism is to make a direct confrontation between students’ relativist beliefs and their actual practices through true stories (p. 13). I concur with Turgeon that true stories could stimulate reluctant students’ heart and emotions and make them eager to inquire into the problematic situation in a more genuine way.

To address the hostility of students towards education generally, and philosophy specifically, Turgeon suggested starting the inquiry on the nature and causes of the hostility with students. The discussion could develop further to the possible roles and function of education in children’s lives and opens the community to the honest dialogue around children’s doubts, concerns, and disappointment regarding the power structures that dominate their lives. The genuine inquiry could help students to discover the value of philosophical inquiry as it provides them an opportunity that they are listened to and their questions examined (pp. 13–14). What Turgeon meant is that there are no prerequisites needed for doing philosophical inquiry with children. The only important thing is to focus on the process of CPI to rebuild the knowledge from the start (pp. 13–14). Indeed, every emotion, even those consider as obstacles for a fully developed CPI – such as hostility towards CPI itself – could be considered as a starting point for opening a genuine inquiry which may result in fixation their beliefs.

Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) questioned the prevalent assumption among CPI scholars that CPI members are capable of inquiring together “while refraining from behaviors that abuse their personal power, such as dominating the inquiry process and practicing coercion on the community, even in situations of conflict” (pp. 444–445). They argued that the assumption ignores the possibility that sharing power and opinions in CPI could cause strong emotional responses and resistant behaviors among CPI members: “For example, certain members who are prone to silence or who dominate discussion might not be receptive to changing their patterns of behavior” (p. 445).

According to Sharp (1993), in a well-functioning CPI, participants transform themselves as individuals and become part of an interdependent whole if trust and care are in place. However, as Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) acknowledged, whenever there is a lack of trust and care this can result “in a blocked inquiry in which some members overpowered by fear and other emotions that keep them from sharing their views and ideas with the community [and] this is the sign that something is very wrong” (p. 445). Burgh and Yorshansky criticized Sharp and other CPI scholars who assume some emotions threaten

99

CPI and treat them as obstacles to inquiry. They argued that these behaviors could provide opportunities for individual and group transformation. It is because these emotional responses reveal the level of trust and care among group members that they are crucial for the goal of becoming democratic. In other words, these behaviors should be considered as a sign of a healthy community rather than something that must be eliminated (p. 445).

On a related matter, and as mentioned previously, Chetty (2017) criticized the central notion of the CPI as an egalitarian safe space. According to him, in some societies such as the United Kingdom, which he believed is a racially unequal society, basic guidelines for CPI could shut down some students’ critical perspectives on racism. Chetty explained the SAPERE6 handbook suggested teachers should have positive body language such as eye contact or smiling. He commented that “in such a scenario, we may ask what place there is for anger about injustice?” (p. 49). Citing Leonardo (2002), his response was that “anger is a ‘valid and legitimate feeling’ and when ‘complemented by clear though, frighteningly lucid,” and, therefore, ”[g]round rules such as encouraging ‘positive body language’ can give rise to ‘pedagogy of politeness’” (in Chetty, 2017, p. 49). Indeed, Chetty questioned CPI as an egalitarian safe space because he thought the CPI basic guidelines could suppress some emotions such as anger about injustice and unequal distribution of power among group members. The researcher assumed by labeling emotions such as anger as negative or a form of impoliteness, CPI lost the genuine emotional responses which reveal the distribution of power and level of trust and care among group members.

To overcome the unequal distribution of power among CPI members, Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) suggested group dynamic theories. Group dynamic theories offer “a way of understanding the function of conflict and the unbalanced manifestation of power and how these contribute to the emotional life of a group” (p. 445). Burgh and Yorshansky used the work of Bion to explain that “the members of a group function simultaneously as members of (1) a rational and task oriented working group; and (2) an emotional unconscious basic assumption group” (p. 446). While the rational oriented group is constituted of members who engage with cooperative inquiry and learning, the emotional group is composed of unconsciousness emotional assumptions and operates beneath the

6 SAPERE (Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education)

100 surface. Every group varies between rational and task-oriented behaviors and unconscious emotional resistant behaviors. According to group dynamic theory, the emotional status of a group could be presented as unequal sharing of power among community members. However, power inequality is a valuable hint “for possibilities of further progress and growth” (p. 445). Indeed, by considering the emotional state of the group as a whole and understanding the power imbalance “as the community's way of signaling their own needs and solutions for conducting inquiry, facilitators can establish trust and care based on its members fashion of sharing power” (pp. 445–446).

In the section, the researcher argued although Lipman and other scholars consider the importance of emotion in P4C literature especially through caring thinking, in practice, the role of emotions in the process of peaceful inquiry and growth is sometimes underestimated. The researcher suggested that to have Peaceful CPI, it is necessary to value all emotions, especially those labeled as negative or inquiry obstacles, such as reluctance, hostility, anger, shame, anxiety; otherwise it fails to get to the heart of what forms children’s prejudices, assumptions, and attitudes that fix their beliefs. Moreover, the researcher discussed students’ emotions could be educative and could reveal something about CPI classroom, for instance, power imbalance among the members. In the next section, she reflected on the role of the facilitator in a CPI classroom to expand the Peaceful CPI model. 5.3.2 Reflection on the Model of Facilitator; Stepping into the discomfort zone

In Chapter 4, the researcher argued that peace is not the absence of conflict, but that it is the capacity to turn conflict into inquiry as a way of life. The researcher also claimed that an effective peace education prepares students to turn conflict into inquiry, rather than as values education or character education that instills values of ‘fraternity and non-violence’ (Gregory, 2004, p. 277). The researcher also examined the idea that CPI has the potential to provide the framework. However, as was discussed earlier, according to some scholars, individuals need to pay attention to how the dominant discourse create obstacles to inquiry (Chetty, 2017; Chetty & Suissa, 2017; Haynes & Murris 2012; Murris, 2013). Thornton and Burgh (2017) concurred, but they argued that “it must be facilitated in a way that mitigates epistemic injustice and violence which is a form of harm brought about by a particular rationality of domination” (p. 55).

101

Thornton and Burgh (2017) addressed the problem through the development of “traitorous identities,” Traitorous identities are what Plumwood referred to as identities that are created “by focusing attention on ‘experiences that do not fit the dominant story’; experiences that point to the need to revise our ‘conception of the self and its relation’ to others” (p. 62). They argued that the development of traitorous identities should be a goal of CPI practitioners who are serious about peaceful facilitation in multicultural classrooms. Therefore, in peaceful inquiry, teachers are responsible for being conscious of their prejudices and develop their own traitorous identity to become a model for intellectual freedom for students. Alternatively, teachers’ prejudices easily flow into the discourse, content choices, and methodology of the CPI classroom. According to Thornton and Burgh (2017), the traitorous identities in teachers and students develop

[t]hrough lucid inquiry. In a lucid inquiry, the teacher as facilitator and co- inquirer is aware of the fallibility of narratives in order to mitigate epistemic violence perpetuated by dominant narratives. To aid in the awareness of dominant narratives, both teachers and students need to be attentive to the phenomenology of the community; to their own felt experiences along with those of others, e.g., anger, hesitancy, resistance, silence, silencing and so forth. (p. 62)

By paying attention to felt experiences, students and teachers are able “to resist immediate desire to make normative judgments on what they might consider being undesirable narratives in the community” (p. 62). It does not mean that every opinion is acceptable without providing reasons. It means attending to felt experiences - like anger or reluctance – that give the inquiry a chance to step into the students’ deep-seated beliefs and assumptions. Otherwise, there is a possibility of silencing or ignoring the offending or reluctant child who blocks the inquiry to further exploration based on the prejudices (i.e., an unquestioned epistemic framework that informs cultural biases) underpinning the child’s comment. Silencing and ignoring are two forms of epistemic violence which not only close the possibility of the child self-correcting or questioning their prejudices but also “assumes a privileged position within the inquiry, shutting out genuine doubt. This is especially problematic when the normative position taken by the one silencing is itself underpinned by unexamined prejudices” (p. 62).

Moreover, Chetty (in Chetty and Suissa, 2017), who focused on racial matters regarding P4C and the community of inquiry, found the solution by putting CPI practitioners into the

102 discomfort of a “no go area.” Chetty’s argument can be extended beyond issues of race, to sex and gender, and more broadly to all issues of violence as what is in question is the speaker’s epistemic framework. He contended that practitioners who belong to the dominant culture and do not question the dominant rationality do not feel any necessity to hear anything unfamiliar, which causes them to feel discomfort to reflect on their beliefs. He posed the question: ‘Can you tell me more’ as a starting point for stepping into the ‘no go area’ and breaking down the prejudices and, therefore, attending to epistemic injustice. In his words:

‘Can you tell me more?’ may indicate a request for greater context, a wish to empathize (we make no claims at this point about the capacity to empathize) and a suspension of judgment. On hearing something unfamiliar, ‘can you tell me more?’ signals a willingness to be a listener. It is not a restatement of one’s own position, which can be a retreat to familiarity and relative certainty, nor is it a redirecting of the line of inquiry onto more comfortable terrain. It signals interest, and a willingness to ‘stay’ with the subject and, by extension, the speaker. Unlike ‘why?’, ‘can you tell me more?’ is not a demand for justification. Persons racialized as ‘other than white’ are often expected to justify themselves more than white people: ‘Why do you use sound like that, look like that, feel like that, see things like that . . . ’, where ‘that’ is outside of white normativity. We are not suggesting that such questions should never be asked, rather that we should consider which questions are left unasked. (p. 14)

In conclusion, based on CPI scholars’ arguments, the researcher has outlined here; she suggested CPI educators need to be willing to step into the discomfort of “no go areas” and experience the status of disequilibrium and hesitation that may be accompanied by emotions of anger, or guilt. As discussed in Chapter 4, an effective peace education appreciates the dynamism of disequilibrium as a way to growth and transformation. Teachers should be aware that their avoidance of discomfort and stepping into pedagogical “no go areas” may block the path of inquiry. “Teachers need to be aware not just of the urge to reject the unfamiliar, but of the tendency to fail to recognize it as such and to domesticate it by reframing it in terms of reference that are familiar to them” (p. 14).

103

5.4 Summary

To reiterate, CPI is considered to be a safe and peaceful environment that allows all students to freely explore and inquire into conflicts; however, there is a considerable gap between the ideal CPI and what happens in classrooms. Some major problems of CPI in practice that occur result from unquestioned prejudices and privileging of western values, logic, and rationality, such as reluctance and hostility of students towards CPI, power imbalance and epistemic violence in CPI classrooms. Turgeon (1988), Chetty (2017), Chetty and Suissa (2017) and Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) provided alternative solutions to these problems. These are requirements for Peaceful CPI as an effective pedagogy for peace education.

Turgeon’s (1988) notion of the reluctant philosopher cannot be ignored because reluctance or hostility could be informative about students’ hidden judgments. Seeing reluctant or disruptive behavior as positive and a sign of the health of the community provides opportunities to start an honest and genuine inquiry with children about their feelings and thoughts. This is important because a peaceful pedagogy should start from where students are. Otherwise, it would be the same as many other pedagogies which try to instill particular character in students and results in their confusion or alienation.

Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) provided a way to analyze power imbalance in CPI classroom resulting from habitual emotional responses and resistant behaviors among CPI members. These behaviors are those of the greater community within which the school is located, as well as the cultural norms of that society. They are habits that have been formed in the home, community, church, and other institutions. They are what Peirce called prejudices and are not questioned unless we are provoked by novel situations. However, we should not see these as obstacles to inquiry and they could provide opportunities for individual and group transformation. This is not an easy task because according to group dynamic theories, the members of every community vary between rational and task-oriented behaviors and unconscious emotional resistant behaviors and assumptions operate beneath the surface which presented as unequal sharing of power among community members. The teacher needs to be aware of the power inequality considering it as a way that community signals its needs and solutions for conducting inquiry. The consideration could balance the power and establish trust and care among community members, which is crucial in a peaceful pedagogy.

104

Chetty (2017), however, raised a different problem not addressed by Turgeon, Burgh and Yorshansky. He questions CPI as an egalitarian safe space because he thought the basic guidelines could suppress some emotions such as anger about injustice and unequal distribution of power among group members. To avoid this, he suggested opening a space for emotions like anger as a legitimate and valid feeling in CPI. This is significant for the development of Peaceful CPI because it prevents labeling such informative emotions as negative and stopping further explorations.

Thornton and Burgh (2017) viewed the problem differently through the development of “traitorous identities” in teachers. They argue the development of “traitorous identities” tackle the issue of epistemic violence. This is vital for Peaceful CPI because a peaceful inquiry needs teachers who are conscious of the fallibility of narratives and their own prejudices and develop their own traitorous identity to become a model for intellectual freedom for students. Intellectual freedom is very important, especially in multicultural educational settings. Without it, epistemic injustice is perpetuated by dominant narratives or cultures.

The researcher built on this by including Chetty and Suissa’s (2017) idea of putting CPI practitioners into the discomfort of “no go areas” that can be extended beyond issues of race, to sex and gender, and more broadly to all issues of violence as what is in question is the speaker’s epistemic framework. What they suggested were practitioners who belong to the dominant culture and do not feel any necessity to suspend their judgments and hear anything unfamiliar should step into the discomfort of “no go areas” to reflect on their beliefs. The question of ‘Can you tell me more?’ is a starting point for stepping into the ‘no go area’ and breaking down the prejudices and, therefore, attending to epistemic injustice. Within the framework of Peaceful CPI, this allows for broader context to be listened to and empathized.

These are necessary conditions for Peaceful CPI and resolve the problems of CPI. Converting a CPI classroom into a Peaceful CPI requires modification of the role of facilitators who are conscious of fallibility of narratives and their own belief-habits so that they are open to hearing the unfamiliar and peacefully reflect on students’ emotional or meta-emotional7 status including anxiety, frustration, exhaustion, reluctance, being

7 “When emotions are about emotions, they are layered. For example, when someone is embarrassed about their jealousy, their embarrassment is a meta-emotion” (Costa-Carvalho & Mendonça, 2017, p. 131).

105 overwhelmed, anger, hostility, annoyance, impatience, fear, shame or lack of trust without silencing or ignoring those emotions or subjecting them to the rational criteria. Awareness of emotions and exploring their formations help teachers and students to genuinely question and modify their prejudices, assumptions, and attitudes that fix their beliefs and as a result, change their behaviors.

In the next chapter, the researcher discussed the research design and methodology to address the research questions of the study and examined the potential and limitations of CPI as peace pedagogy.

106

6 Research Design and Methodology

6.1 Introduction

In the chapter, the researcher outlined the methodological approach, research design and the conceptual framework underpinning the study. The researcher then introduced the participants in the study, data gathering strategies and data analysis method. Finally, the researcher discussed the strategies to validate the findings of the study.

6.2 Paradigmatic Pathways Leading to a Research Design

Denzin and Lincoln (2003) asserted that the researcher’s ontological, epistemological, and methodological premises and assumptions serve as an interpretive paradigm for all inquiry. The paradigm serves as a basic set of implicit, tacit and taken for granted beliefs that guide action throughout the entire research process (p. 33). Research paradigms posit the researcher within a “bounded net” of premises and assumptions that underpin all research decision-making processes in answering the research question or solving the research problem (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 33; Hittleman & Simon, 2002).

Two dominant research pathways that express distinctive ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions and assertions are the quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Quantitative research is generally underpinned by positivist, empirical and experimental paradigms of inquiry that emphasize measurement, statistical analysis of causal relationships between variables, perceived measures of objectivity and assumed value-free research orientations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Hittleman & Simon, 2002). Qualitative research, on the other hand, is established upon post-positivist, constructivist, hermeneutical, interpretivist and naturalistic paradigms of inquiry that empathize the structured and contextualized nature of reality, the interrelationship between the researcher and the researched, value-laden research orientations and the use of narrative and text-based modes of analysis and inquiry (Creswell, 2008; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 2003).

The study aimed to identify whether and how CPI is perceived by teachers and students as pedagogy to reduce violent interactions and promote peaceful interactions in the school 107 environment. Thus, the study was explanatory and interpretive and focused on the how of the process. The aim and the questions were appropriate for conducting qualitative research approach. In the next section, the researcher discussed the methodological approach of the study in detail.

6.3 Case Study as Research Design

Research designs are specific procedures involved in data collection, data analysis, and report writing associated with quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Qualitative research designs include ethnography, narrative, action research (Creswell, 2008,) and case study (Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2011). Case study is an empirical research methodology that is commonly used in social science. Stake (1995) defined case study as a “study of the particularly and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (p. xi). Thomas (2011) stated “case studies are analysis of persons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods” (p. 21). The main characteristics of case study are:

 It can investigate one or small number of cases.  It is an empirical, holistic and contextually integrated method (Stake, 1995). It investigates “a contemporary phenomenon (the case) in depth and within its real- world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16).  It is mainly answering how and why questions to reveal relationships and processes. In other words, case study is looking for “operational links needing to be traced over time rather than mere frequencies or incidents” (Yin, 2014, p.10).  It focuses on getting great details and deep understanding at the expense of being able to make generalizations (Thomas, 2011).  It can provide “a rich picture with many kinds of insights coming from different angles from different kinds of information” using different methods to collect and analyze data such as observation, interviews, statistics and questionnaires (Thomas, 2011, p. 21).

According to Thomas, in designing every research project there are several features that need to be considered as shown in Figure 9. Research begins with a purpose and questions. Questions are at the heart of every research project and determine the research approach, design and methods. 108

Literature Approach Design Decision Purpose Questions review to frame and about research methods process of the study

Figure 9. Designing research process. Adapted from G. Thomas (2011, p. 27)

According to Thomas, different kinds of questions lead to different kind of research. He introduced four basic kinds of questions.

 “What’s the situation? You are describing something”.  “What’s going on here? You are trying to understand what is happening in a particular situation.  “What happens when …? You introduce a change and look to see its effects”.  “What is related to what? You examine how one thing is related to another” (Thomas, 2011, p. 35).

Different research designs cover different types of questions as shown in Table 4. Design frames like the experiment are limited to specific kinds of questions while case study is appropriate for all kind of questions listed above.

Table 4. Questions, purposes and design frames

Design frame Purpose-especially good for … Kind of questions

What is the situation? Understanding the details of what is What is going on here? Case study happening What happens when …? What is related to what? Looking at different situations and making Comparative research What is the situation? comparisons

Experiment Establishing causation- Does X causes Y? What happens when …?

Note. Adapted from Thomas (2011, p. 37).

109

The aim of the current research was to understand how teachers and students perceive CPI as pedagogy to reduce violent interactions and promote peaceful interactions in the school environment. The research questions are:

 Do teachers and students perceive that CPI reduces violent or aggressive behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions?  student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

 Do teachers and students perceive CPI to promote peaceful behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions?  student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

In this project, the researcher tried to understand what was happening when CPI is implemented in the school. The questions also focused on the how of the process. The aim and the questions were appropriate for conducting case study research design.

When you decide on the design of the research, you need to determine the process of your study. To conduct a case study, the researcher needs to decide on the subject (or case) of study, the purposes behind it and the approach to take the study. This decision is also made based on the research questions.

110

The first step is to determine the origin and type of the case. According to Thomas (2011), there are different reasons for choosing a particular subject for a case study. You may choose the site or subject because it is unusual and reveals something interesting and different from the norm (Outlier case). You may also choose the site or subject because you want to know more about something that you already have a great deal of knowledge and experience about it (Local knowledge case). Finally, your reason for choosing a case could be because the site or subject is a good example of something (Key case).

In the current study, the case was a metropolitan state school in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy over the past six years8. The case was a specific site where CPI has been established effectively and teachers and students have adopted CPI as part of their weekly practice at the school. It appeared the school was competent in deploying CPI. Thus, the school site was a “key case” or “exemplary” site in deploying CPI. The research can throw light on whether—when CPI is established effectively—teachers and students perceive it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). The data gathering methods were based on individual interviews, observations and focused group interviews. The data gathering strategies has been explained in more detail in section 6.7.

The second step in determining the process of the study is to decide about the purpose of the study. Why is the researcher doing this case study? Is it for its intrinsic interests or as a tool to an end? Does the researcher want to explore something or evaluate it or explain it, or a combination of these? Stake (1995) differentiated between intrinsic and instrumental case studies. The purpose of intrinsic case study is to inquire out of pure interest for the case itself. However, in instrumental case study, the inquiry is serving a particular purpose and acting as a tool to facilitate the understanding of some other thing.

The exploratory case study is used when the researcher faces a puzzling issue that has little preliminary or one-dimensional knowledge about it. For instance, when you know of a situation as a teacher or principal or parent, you would need to follow up explorations to expand your understanding about the issue. The exploratory study focuses more on open ended questions, seeking ideas from different peoples using different methods; one will be listening rather than presenting ideas to test against the participants’ view (Thomas, 2011, p.104-105).

8 The research was conducted in the school in 2015 111

The evaluative case study is applied when the researcher “is doing the research to see how well something is working or has worked. Something has been changed or a new idea introduced and evaluative research is carried out to find out what the change has led to” (p. 99).

Finally, the explanatory case study is conducted when the purpose of the study is explaining. Explaining is a very common purpose of case studies. As mentioned above, in case studies the researcher limits the extent of research and focuses on one or small number of cases to get a deeper understanding and richer explanations of the case. However, the researcher should be aware that the explanations may be tentative or context-specific (p. 101).

The researcher’s aim for this study was not to study this particular school intrinsically but to study whether and when CPI is established effectively, teachers and students perceived it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). In other words, the aim of the study was to understand and explain the potential and limitations of CPI as peace pedagogy. Thus, the purpose of this study was instrumental and explanatory.

The third step in planning the process of the study is to determine the case study approach. If the researcher starts with a set of premises, a theory is being tested (testing a theory). While the researcher tries to find what ideas emerges from the study, a theory is being built (building a theory). Beyond this categorisation, the researcher may choose an interpretive or descriptive approach for doing the case study. The case study will be descriptive if there is just simple description about a case, but when the researcher is seeking to understand the perspectives and positions of participants, the study is interpretive (Thomas, 2011)

The current case study was based on a theoretical or explanatory framework about CPI and its potential and limitations as peace pedagogy. So, the researcher had already a number of assumptions about CPI as peace pedagogy. Also, the approach was interpretive as the researcher made interpretations about what was happening in the school. The map of the current case study research was shown in Figure 10.

The approach of this study was to test the theoretical assumptions in the exemplary school case through interviews and discussions with teachers and students as well as classroom observations in six major categories:

112

 Teachers’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  Students’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  The effects of CPI on teachers’ social and thinking skills  The effects of CPI on students’ social and thinking skills  How power and control were distributed in CPI classroom (teachers and students interactions in CPI classroom)  Limitations and challenges of CPI with regard to peace education

Subject (What) Purpose (Why) Approach (How)

Outlier Intrinsic Testing a theory

Key Instrumental Building a theory

Local Explanatory Descriptive

Evaluative Interpretive

Exploratory

Figure 10. Mapping out the design for the current case study. Adapted from G. Thomas (2011, p. 95)

Yin (2014) believed starting with a theory or theoretical framework to design a case study helps a researcher to generalize the lesson learned from the case study. The role of theory has been characterized by Yin (2014) as “analytic generalization” which has been contrasted with another way of generalizing known as “statistical generalization”. “In statistical generalization an inference is made about a population (or universe) on the basis of empirical data collected from a sample of that universe” (p. 40). This method is commonly used in surveys. However, in case studies, the statistical generalization could not be made since case or cases are not “sampling units” and are too small in number to “represent any larger population” (p. 40). In analytical generalization, the case is not a sample but it is an “opportunity to shed empirical light about some theoretical concepts or principles” (p. 40).

In other words, the analytic generalization could be “based on either (a) corroborating, modifying, rejecting, or otherwise advancing theoretical concepts that one referenced to in designing the case study or (b) new concepts that arose upon the completion of the case study” (p. 41). So, the point is generalization in this way; it “will be in conceptual level higher than that of the specific case” or subject (p. 41).

113

In the next section, the researcher discussed the theoretical framework of the study.

6.4 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the study was built on the literature and arguments from Chapter 2 to 5 along with Basil Bernstein’s (1971) theory of power and control in educational contexts as lenses to draw inferences from the findings in Chapter 7.

Bernstein (1924–2000) is one of the most notable scholars in the sociology of education in the 20th century (Moore, 2013; Morais & Neves, 2004). His pedagogic theory offered “the most developed grammar for understanding the shape and character of our current educational practice” (Davies, 2001, p.1). Bernstein’s theory of power and control in educational contexts has been discussed in detail in the following section.

6.4.1 Bernstein’ Theory of Power and Control in an Educational Context

According to Bernstein, each pedagogic social context, including the classroom, is defined by specific power and control relations between spaces, discourses, and subjects (see Table 5) (Morais & Neves, 2004, p. 17).

Table 5. Power and control relations within a pedagogic social context Categories Relations Power/Control

Spaces Teacher-students

Student- student

CF

Discourses Between disciplines

Within discipline

Subjects Teacher-students

Student-student

Note. Adapted from Morais & Neves (2004, p. 17).

114

In the formulae shown in Table 1, C and F correspond to the concepts of classification and framing, used to analyze power and control relations, respectively within a social context. Classification refers to the degree of maintenance of boundaries within categories (spaces, discourses, subjects). Classification is strong when there is a sharp separation between categories, these originating hierarchies in which each category has a specific status and voice and, therefore, a given power. Classification is weak when there is a blurring of boundaries between categories. Framing refers to the social relations between these categories. Framing is strong when the categories with higher status have control in that relations and is weak when the categories with lower status also have some control in the relations. Between the extremes of strong and weak classifications and framings a grading may exist (pp. 4–5).

For example, at the level of the interactional dimension within the spaces category, the relation between teacher and student refers to the selection of knowledge, sequence of learning, pacing and evaluation criteria. Framing will be strong if the teacher has control upon the subjects and activities (selection), the order followed by learning (sequence), the time given to learning and if he/she makes clear to students the text produced as the result of learning (evaluation criteria). Framing will be weak when the students have some control upon selection, sequence, pacing and evaluation criteria. However, a weak classification between spaces of different students means that they share physical and material spaces. On the other hand, a strong classification means the existence of hierarchies between students themselves as well as teacher and student, which results in very sharp boundaries between spaces (pp.18–19).

Regarding the relation between discourses, there is a weak classification at the interdisciplinary level when boundaries between the content of a given discipline are blurred. However, a strong classification corresponds in the case to a separation of the content (p. 19). Framing is strong if some disciplines have higher status and control on the others. Framing is weak when all disciplines have the same status and control in the pedagogic context. Within discipline level, classification and framing are strong when the distinction between academic and non-academic is clear and one has a higher status than the other.

In the subjects’ category, a weak classification in the student-student’ relation means that boundaries between students of different social groups (social class, gender, race, school achievement) are blurred. However, a strong classification means the existence of

115 hierarchies between students. In the teacher-student relations, hierarchical rules are also crucial. They regulate the form of communication between subjects with distinct hierarchical positions (as it is the case of teacher and students). Framing is strong if the teacher controls the norms and rules of social conduct in the classroom. For example, when the teacher uses orders, admonitions, verbal or physical, as a form of leading students to behave in a given way, without providing reasons, framing is very strong. However, a weak framing means, for example, the student may criticize teachers’ practices or the teacher explains the reasons why the student should behave in a given way (pp. 18–19).

In the next chapter, the researcher applied Bernstein’s theory to analyze the power and control distributions among members in a CPI classroom. It is crucial because CPI could be an effective peace pedagogy if the classification and framing are weak within the CPI classroom.

6.5 Participants

The first group of participants included five teachers employed at the school. Teachers were selected by consultation based on their experience, training and expertise in collaborative philosophical inquiry (see Table 6).

Table 6. Research participants (group 1) Name Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Teacher E

The second group of participants included a group of 12 students consisting of four girls and eight boys (see Table 7). They were chosen to participate in an optional short-term CPI course which was run by one of the teachers. The course was for students from a range of years who already experienced CPI and were interested in attending the extra optional course. One of the final sessions was observed and audio recorded by the researcher.

Table 7. Research participant (group 2) Name A B C D E F G H J K L M

116

The third group of participants was selected from the extra optional CPI class and included two girls and three boys (see Table 8). The researcher tried to choose a sample which represented the whole class and included the different voices without ignoring the silent minority.

Table 8. Research participant (group 3) Name A B C E F

6.6 Ethical considerations

As part of the design process for any research involving human subjects, researchers require to obtain ethics approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The main purpose of the IRB is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in research activities (Creswell, 2008). In the current study, the researcher obtained ethics approval from the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) in February 2015 (See Appendices A & B). Gatekeeper approval was also obtained from the Department of Education and Training to approach the state school and request permission for implementing the study in that school.

In order to minimize the potential risk for the participants in the study, the researcher included the considerations and actions below:

 The researcher obtained informed consent from the participants including the school principal, teachers, students and their parents.  The researcher protected the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants by removing the participants’ names as well as the name and the location of the school. Also, the researcher removed all the information which indirectly made the participants possibly identifiable throughout the thesis.  The researcher provided participants with the right to withdraw from the research at any time.

The study was carried out across two school terms in 2015.

117

6.7 Data Gathering Strategies

According to Thomas (2011), when you choose the case study design, you can use a range of different methods for data gathering such as observation, diaries, questionnare, interviews, statistics or test. Indeed, the researchers could choose whatever methods they think of to help answer questions about their cases. In the current study, the data collection methods included semi-structured interviews with teachers, focus group interview with students and CPI classroom observations, which the researcher discussed in the following sections.

6.7.1 Semi-Structured Interviews with teachers

The researcher interviewed five teachers employed at the school. Each interview took about an hour. The questions were adapted from previous research on how peace education differs from normal schooling by Harber & Sakade (2009) published in the Journal of Peace Education. In the project, the researchers designed a list of interview questions for the teachers and students in a peace education project in England.

The interview questions included (see Table 9):

Table 9. Teachers' interview questions Please introduce yourself and tell me about your background question education and teaching background, your training

and experience in CPI and your story of joining the school?

Are there any aspects of the CPI program that you

Teacher’s perception of CPI value in particular?

Do you think CPI is needed in schools?

What kind of relationship do you aspire to create with students in your classroom?

How does your role as a CPI teacher differ from the Teaching approach questions student in a more usual or traditional classroom?

How do you manage to regulate students’ behaviors in particular conflicts in the classroom?

Effect of CPI on students and teachers Do you think CPI contributes to the individual development of students, for example, do you

believe there may be impacts on a positive self- 118

concept, self-esteem, self-confidence, self- assertiveness?

How does CPI contribute to the social development of students, for example, affirming others, tolerance of others differences, compassion?

Have you noticed any changes in students’ interactions and relationships inside and outside the classroom, for instance, on the school playground?

Have you noticed any changes in students in the way they deal with conflicts or in resolving everyday life problems?

Have you noticed any moments of hesitation, self- correction, or changing beliefs or behaviors in students?

Are there any particular aspects of CPI that you think are beneficial to you as a teacher?

Teachers’ beliefs about students’ perception of Can you tell me about somethings students CPI particularly like and enjoy and don’t like and don’t

enjoy about the CPI classroom?

Issues and challenges facing CPI What are some of the problems, issues, or limitations facing the implementation of CPI in schools?

Contribution of CPI to more harmonious lives How do you think CPI education can contribute to a for students more harmonious life for students and our future?

6.7.2 Focus Group Interview with students

At the end of the optional CPI course, five students were selected for a one-hour focus group interview. These questions also were adapted from previous research on how peace education differs from normal schooling (Harber & Sakade, 2009). Interview questions were (see Table 10):

119

Table 10. Students' interview questions In what ways is philosophy important /valuable to you?

What do you like most about your philosophy class? Students’ perception of CPI Are there things that you don’t enjoy or find challenging about community of inquiry? What are they?

Are there any differences you feel between philosophy Different between CPI and other classes classes with your other classes?

How do you feel about yourself in the philosophy classes?

Do you think philosophy can help you to deal with conflicts with your friends, with your family, brother, Effect of CPI on students siblings, etc.?

Does philosophy help you to have a better relationship with your classmates inside or outside the classroom such as playground?

Contribution of CPI to more harmonious Do you think philosophy help children to build a more lives for students peaceful world?

6.7.3 Observation of CPI Classroom

The researcher participated in several sessions of the optional CPI course. However, she observed and audio recorded only a one-hour CPI session for her study. The reason was that, after consultation, the researcher noticed obtaining ethics approval for observing more than a session would be difficult due to hesitancy on the part of the students’ parents. They would not get give consent because they worry that their children will be distracted from studying when they are subjected to empirical studies; especially when the school is popular and is approached quite often by researchers to conduct empirical studies. Therefore, the researcher decided to limit the observation to just one session.

Also, as the observer, the researcher did not intervene and change what normally happened in the class. She followed the school way of practicing CPI in the optional philosophy class. Traditionally, CPI follows a series of stages. Children see or read a stimulus, think about the ideas in it, create questions, evaluate the questions, and then choose one to talk about. However, in some CPI programs, or simply in some circumstances, the facilitator asks the first question; so the discussion gets started faster

120 making it more adaptable for use across the curriculum. The children’s own questions are still important, but they emerge through discussion. While the researcher was willing to observe a CPI session in the school as part of their normal program, the school gave her this option only to run her research.

Before the session, the teacher suggested that the researcher provide some questions for CPI discussion. In consultation the researcher designed several questions regarding peace and peace education (see Table 11). After getting the questions endorsed by the teacher, the researcher attended the session to observe the discussion and audio-record the dialogue. The list was a series of possible questions to stimulate children for inquiry around peace. Questions were designed in a way to be interesting for children and to start from students’ basic perception regarding peace. For instance one of the questions was “what are some things that you might think of or feel when you hear about peace?" Children had freedom to ask their own questions and the teacher acted as a facilitator rather than knowledge-giver.

Besides audio recording of the classroom dialogue, the researcher recorded some information during the classroom observation, including the physical setting of the classroom, particular activities and interactions between teacher and students and student-to-student.

Table 11. Discussion plan

 Leading idea: Peace

 Think about word association for peace and say what your reasons are  What are some things that you might think of or feel when you hear about peace?  What would be the opposite of peace, or is there an opposite of peace?  What criteria should you use to be considered a peaceful person?  Is it possible to be a peaceful person but still disagree with others? Or is disagreement opposite to peace?

121

6.8 Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Data

In the research, thematic analysis was used for the description and interpretation of the data set. Thematic analysis is a flexible data analysis method that can be applied for different methodological backgrounds (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To analyze the data, first, the researcher coded the raw data and developed several themes. The themes represented meaning and ideas from the data set that were related to the research questions. The researcher followed Creswell’s (2003) steps for the coding process:

1. Get a sense of the whole and read all of the transcripts to gain some main ideas.

2. Pick one document (such as one interview) and choose the most interesting or shortest part of it.

3. Identify text segments and assign a code word or phrase that accurately describes the meaning of the text segment (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. A visual model of the coding process. From J. W. Creswell (2003, p. 251)

The last step was the interpretation of the themes. The researcher used the deductive, or theory-driven approach to interpret the themes based on the past research and related literature around CPI and peace education. Interpretation in qualitative research means that the researcher steps back and forms some larger meaning about the phenomenon

122 based on personal views, comparisons with past studies, or both (Creswell, 2008). In the current study, the researcher interpreted the data given past research and related literature around CPI and peace education.

6.9 Validating the accuracy of Findings

Validity in qualitative research is a concern that theories and explanations derived from research data are ‘true’ and that they correctly capture what is happening in reality. Validity, as defined by Gibbs (2008) is “the extent to which an account accurately represents the social phenomena to which it refers” (p. 246). Adding to this, in qualitative research, validity is located within the research paradigm of the study and using validated elements of data-gathering and data analysis which place importance on ‘honesty, depth, richness and scope of the data achieved’ (p. 105). Selecting an adequate and quality resource and applying appropriate methodology and collection procedures gives qualitative research validity.

The strategies used to validate qualitative accounts vary. The study used triangulation to validate the study. Triangulation refers to the application of more than one research method to collect data in the study of the same phenomenon. In the study, the researcher collected data from diverse methods (individual interviews, focus group interview and observation) and different individuals (teachers, students and the researcher). The researcher examined each information source and found evidence to support the findings. The process ensured the study is accurate because the findings drew on multiple sources of information and processes (Creswell, 2008).

6.10 Summary

Chapter 6 outlined the methodological approach and the research design of the study. The study was grounded on interpretivist assumptions and was framed within a qualitative paradigm of inquiry that utilized case study research design. The case was an Australian capital city state school in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy over the past six years9. The study can throw light on whether, when CPI is established effectively, teachers and students perceive it to reduce violent conflicts (how?) and promote peaceful interactions (how?). The researcher collected data

9 The research was conducted in the school in 2015 123 from different perspectives (teachers, students and the researcher) and deploying different methods (individual interviews, focus group interview and observations). In this research, thematic analysis was used for the description and interpretation of the data set. The researcher analyzed and coded the raw data and developed several themes. The themes represented meaning and ideas from the data set that were related to the research questions. The researcher then used the deductive, or theory-driven approach to interpret the themes based on the past research and related literature around CPI and peace education. Bernstein’s (1971) theory of classification and framing was also used to analyze the power and control relations in the CPI classroom context. Finally, to validate the findings of the study, triangulation strategy was applied.

In Chapter 7, the researcher analyzed and discussed the research findings to answer the research questions and examined the potential and limitations of CPI as peace pedagogy.

124

7 Findings and Discussion

7.1 Introduction

In the chapter, the researcher analyzed and discussed the research findings of teachers’ individual interviews and students’ focus group interview as well as her classroom observations. Following this, the researcher investigated the aspects of power and control within the CPI classroom according to Bernstein’s classification and framing theory.

7.2 What Teachers Say about CPI

In this section, the researcher analyzed what teachers said about CPI derived from the interviews. The researcher coded their answers and categorized the codes in different themes and sub-themes. The main themes that emerged from the teacher’s interviews were presented in Figure 12. In the following paragraphs, each theme was unwrapped and examined more fully using several related examples.

Figure 12. What teachers say about CPI

125

7.2.1 Teachers’ Perception of CPI

According to the interviews, the teachers perceived CPI as valuable and important in the school because of several reasons. The teachers also perceived their role, their relationship with children and their teaching approaches to CPI as very different from those of traditional teachers. In the following paragraphs, these differences were explained further (see Figure 13).

Figure 13. Teachers’ perception of CPI

7.2.1.1 CPI allows children to think for themselves

In contrast to traditional modes of teaching and even some peace education programs that emphasize the transmission of knowledge or moral values rather than the development of thinking, CPI encourages children to think for themselves. Thus, they will not always be dependent upon adults to advise them on what to do. Instead, they become empowered to find their own answers and communicate those to others. As discussed in Chapter 4, children in CPI practice the process of thinking through philosophical dialogue, internalize related skills and dispositions and learn to think for themselves (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006, p. 35). According to Teacher A, CPI is valuable as “it allows children to think for themselves and teaches them how to think rather than what to think which has an effect on them through all the curriculum”. Teacher E believed

126

obviously we have to teach content in each learning area, but if we just teach content, we have … no intellectual understanding, it doesn’t work for them, they don’t learn to go to a deep level, they just learn at the surface level, but for children to learn at a deep level, they have to be able to have those skills of thinking and also not just skills but they have to have the identity of seeing themselves as learners … [and] learning because they want to become learners.

Teacher E asserted there is just one hour of philosophy a week for every classroom but those skills and tools that children learn through doing philosophy they could apply to their thinking in every other subject area such as science. So, the pedagogy of CPI has underpinned everything in this school and “is about becoming a thinker, about teaching students how to think and not what to think and therefore they are more able to think in other areas”. Teacher E believed when teachers give students the opportunity to engage with philosophical ideas, the ideas interest them, they want to inquire. It’s not just paper doubt, it is not just thinking about it because it is just part of the curriculum. And to give them the opportunity to engage with ideas they learn about their thinking and understand the way that they are thinking and can apply that thinking in other learning areas.

Teaching children to think for themselves and getting to the depth of learning is crucial in education for peace. As Lipman (1995) argued, when educating about peace and violence reduction “it is not enough to cultivate immediate emotional responses or to reiterate how good peace is and how bad violence is” (p. 121). Instead, children need to “both understand and practice what is involved in violence-reduction and peace-development” (p. 121). That is why “so many attempts to educate for peace have failed” (p. 121). By providing proper stimuli in the CPI classroom, children learn that the depth of peace and conflict matters instead of cultivating superficial understanding regarding these concepts.

7.2.1.2 CPI improves students’ social behaviors

In Chapters 3 and 4, caring thinking as the third dimension of multi-dimensional thinking in CPI was discussed. The rsearcher explored caring thinking as a form of emotional thinking, which has an important role in education. In CPI, children are committing themselves to a practice care for the tools of inquiry, their care for the problems, and their care for others, which emphasizes the connections between students through reciprocity, and an acceptance of difference, trust, and of hearing the voices of others.

127

When Teacher A was asked about her perception of CPI, she replied that CPI is valuable as it influences the social behavior of the children. She added:

After a while, you find that they are more tolerant, accepting [and] … more willing to negotiate with each other if they have an issue. They will accept other people’s opinions if they’re different to their own.

Learning and practising caring for others through CPI, students cultivated and internalized peaceful behaviors and interactions with others.

7.2.1.3 CPI allows students to have a voice, feel valued and treated like an equal

As discussed in Chapter 4, CPI is an educational setting that allows children to understand that individuals can respect a person while not agreeing with them. The process allows for different views to provisionally have equal value and credibility and an opportunity is offered to be listened to and an opinion examined without the threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has suggested it (Redshaw, 1994, p. 13). This is what Teacher B mentioned about the importance of CPI in the school. She believed CPI is very valuable because “it’s allowing students to have a voice, but to have a respectable voice, in the sense where they can feel, for a moment, valued and treated like an equal”.

The CPI classroom can prepare an appropriate environment for educating about peace and the reduction of violence. It is because it provides a cooperative, non-confrontational, and collaborative environment in which all views including those related to peace and violence can be listened to, discussed and investigated as disagreement within a rigorous, self-correcting inquiry. Otherwise, if no one is concerned about engaging the children in a genuine collaborative inquiry regarding, for instance, violent behaviors, it would not be surprising to find that, years later, children are not only unwilling, but unable, to reflect on their views and feelings, or to self-correct (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 197).

7.2.1.4 CPI builds a relationship between teachers and students

One of the significant differences between the CPI classroom and the traditional classroom, including some peace education models is the different role of teachers and their relationship with students. As discussed in Chapter 3, in the CPI classroom, teachers are facilitators are no longer the transmitters of knowledge and the controllers in the class. CPI is a community of care and trust that encourage students to control and regulate themselves. This is what Teacher B perceived and found valuable in her experience in 128

CPI. She stated in the CPI classroom, “I am trying to make sure it's not just me leading the class, but it's me being part of that. I think it's a valuable thing because it builds relationships with teachers”.

As discussed in Chapter 2, while the majority of school curriculum has a degree of control over what is taught and how it is taught, child-centered learning is the most effective approach in peace education (Harber & Sakade, 2009, p. 172; UNESCO, 2001, p. 39). It is because the strongly controlled participation approach or teacher-centered learning is an anti-dialogical method, resulting in the reproduction of prescribed ‘old’ knowledge and inequality in the society (Haresveld, 2008, p. 4). CPI pedagogy has a community-based teaching and learning approach that is in harmony with the idea of peace.

7.2.2 Teachers’ Beliefs about Students’ Perception of CPI

Students’ perceptions of CPI from the teachers’ points of view emerge in the six major themes illustrated in Figure 14. According to teachers, students’ experiences in the CPI classroom is different from other classes such as science or mathematics. A discussion of the students’ perception of CPI can be found in section 7.3.1.

Figure 14. Teachers’ beliefs about students’ perception of CPI

129

7.2.2.1 Students like thinking deeply and articulate the ideas and discuss ideas with others

As further discussed in the section, CPI allows students to think for themselves and gain depth in learning instead of passively accepting knowledge. They learn the skills of thinking and deep investigation and apply it to other subject areas as they develop the identity of a thinker. Teacher E believed children know CPI

is giving them some skills to use in other areas. They could see those skills helped them to discuss ideas with other students and to feel more able to articulate the ideas. CPI help them to think about themselves as a learner and realize they actually can learners they do have ideas because they feel valued in community of inquiry (CPI) so it made they think ‘I feel good about myself because I can think’.

7.2.2.2 Students do not like it when they do not have the opportunity to express their ideas because of the limitation of time

While students enjoy sharing their ideas, they do not like it when they do not have the opportunity to express their ideas in the classroom because of time limitations. Teacher E stated CPI sometimes is disappointing for “some children [who] are very talkative … [and] share more and more and more but they can’t take over, they have to respect to people in community [who] like to talk”. Also, “sometimes that feels frustrating for them because they only got an hour lesson and we are moving to the something else”. In other words, students sometimes feel frustrated as they have their ideas in “their head” but they do not have the opportunity to discuss them.

Indeed, allocating an hour a week for CPI in the school curriculum could result in students’ frustration. It is the evidence of what was discussed in Chapter 2 regarding the importance of organization in education for peace. As Haavelsrud (2008) explained, the education system in most countries around the world identified with educational basic characteristics, including distribution of knowledge in different subjects, specific criteria for the teachers of each subject, classification of students in different classes, and “division of the time into periods and breaks” (p. 4). Moreover, “[t]hese structural crucial features allow for only certain types of initiatives for introducing peace education into the curriculum” (p. 4).

130

7.2.2.3 Students do not like the taking turns strategy

In CPI classrooms, different strategies are used to organize the taking of turns amongst students. The strategy generally used in the state school is a ball strategy in which a student is allowed to speak only when they have the ball in their hands. When a student has expressed their ideas, they then passed the ball to another person, who was then allowed to speak.

Teacher A indicated the ball strategy is the other thing children do not like about CPI. She stated there is a perception amongst students that sometimes the children ‘pass the ball’ to the same people. Teacher A stated

That’s their perception that it [the ball] is always going to same people. As a facilitator, it’s important that every now and then you just say, ‘Oh, I can see X has got her hand up. Let’s pass it to her’. That way you’re trying to make sure that [the ball] does go to everybody who wants to speak and it’s not dominated by the same children all the time.

In theory, CPI is a democratic environment where all ideas provisionally have equal value and credibility to be listened to and investigated. However, teachers need to be aware of the possibility of unequal speaking opportunity among students. The researcher further discussed the matter in section 7.4.4.

7.2.2.4 Students think CPI helps them to change their behaviors and to deal with conflict in everyday lives

Behavior change and having the skills to deal with conflicts are the benefits of CPI for students, as discussed in Section 7.2.5 regarding the effects of CPI on students. However, in this section, I consider teachers feel that students are aware of these benefits. In the interviews, Teacher E mentioned that many children comment that CPI has changed their behaviors; their ways of thinking and the way they deal with other children. She brought forward examples from some of her students, one who said that CPI has “changed my life” and other comments about how CPI “helped them to deal with conflict with their sister”.

131

7.2.2.5 Students like to express their ideas in a safe environment without being judged

As discussed in Chapter 4, CPI is a safe and peaceful environment which allows all students to freely explore and inquire into their ideas without being judged. In the interviews, teachers emphasized the characteristic of the CPI classroom and believed it is another aspect that students like about CPI. Teacher A, for instance, said:

[Students] love to feel safe enough to share their own idea and that nobody is going to laugh at them about their idea. …[T]hey don’t tolerate it. They know that’s not OK. That’s not respectful.

Teacher D, the other teacher also mentioned although some students might feel uncomfortable with sharing their ideas and comments in front of others in a circle, they generally “like the ability to express themselves freely without feeling judged”.

7.2.2.6 Students do not enjoy CPI when they do not engage in the discussion

According to the interviews, when students do not engage in the discussion, they do not enjoy it. Teacher E believed

generally, once the community of inquiry is working well and a lot of children are contributing, they enjoy it. [However]…before that class working as a community and you had children disengaging…the community and that’s what they don’t enjoy it…because they don’t get to the depth of the discussion.

Teacher C supposed that some students

don’t like not getting their turn. That’s frustrating. Some of them...they haven’t learnt how it works. They don’t like it because for them, it’s boring. It’s just people talking and they’re not hooked into the discussion for whatever reason.

However, she proposed a reason for the disengagement:

I think there’s a lot of listening and thinking in CPI. It’s not like a puppet or something there. It’s not this visual thing…like movies and television.

132

Children really have to think about it for it to be enjoyable for them. When they’re young, that can be hard if they haven’t got that way of thinking. If they’re not natural thinkers I suppose, then it’s something they have to learn and they probably don’t enjoy it for a while.

The teachers’ answers showed there are students who disengage from CPI discussion. This disengagement reflects Turgeon’s (1988) argument that despite the literature in favor of CPI regarding students’ eagerness and openness for philosophical engagement, in practice, this is not always attained. He suggested several reasons and explanations for why children refrain from engaging in CPI discussions, for instance, students’ negative perception about the nature of philosophy, and their personal life crises such as poverty, divorce, abuse and interpersonal or intergroup conflicts among students.

However, as discussed in Chapter 5, the problem could be addressed through Peaceful CPI, the modified version of CPI. In Peaceful CPI, the notion of disengaged or reluctant students in CPI classroom is considered as something positive, which provides opportunities to start an honest and genuine inquiry with children about their hidden assumptions and prejudices. This genuine inquiry is significant for peace pedagogy because ignoring and silencing the emotions are forms of epistemic violence which block the possibility of the child genuinely doubting and reflecting on their prejudices. One of the requirements of converting a CPI classroom to a Peaceful CPI is to modify the role of facilitators so that they peacefully attend to students’ emotional status such as feeling disengaged.

7.2.3 Relationship between Teachers and Students

In the following section, the researcher explored what teachers think about their role, their relationship with children and their different teaching approach in CPI classes. In the following paragraphs, the researcher explained the major differences further (see Figure 15).

133

Figure 15. Relationship between teachers and students

7.2.3.1 Students regulate their behaviors

The first difference between the CPI classroom and the traditional model of teaching, including some peace education models, is the different role of the teacher in regulating the classroom. In the CPI classroom, teachers are facilitators who are no longer the controller in the class. CPI is a community of care and trust that encourages students to regulate themselves. Teacher E argued that when engaged in CPI, children gradually learn to regulate their behaviors together, collaboratively, through philosophical discussion.

A lot of discussion at the beginning of the year are about what needs to happen for each student to become that part of the community, how they can become an effective member of that learning community. So, when…[they] feel…the strength of community, quite often they don’t want it to…[do] bad behaviour, so it is very self- regulated…. The behaviour comes much more self-regulated. It is not about go and sit in the responsible thinking room…or anything like that. We don’t do that anymore. We have them talk about ways they can work together and ways that they can be more respectful to each other, ways that can value to each other ideas and not put each other down. …So, our school rules…[are] be respectful, be responsible, be a learner, and that set beautifully what it means to be a learner in a community. And on

134

assembly every week we always talk and highlight one of those rule and talk about.

Moreover, Teacher A emphasized that behavior difficulty is very rarely seen in the CPI classroom as children regulate their behaviors by conducting themselves through CPI rules.

The children are very aware of the rules that they need to be respectful and we’ve explored what rules mean in depth in that they need to listen carefully to each other and they need to build on each other’s ideas. …They know that if they disagree, they need to do that respectfully and they need to say why. It’s about disagreeing with the idea, not the person…. …[CPI] is very structured. I’m asking the students questions from a discussion list, and I’m asking them to use their inquiry skills for answering those. The children listen to each other and they take turns, and if they want to talk, they put their hand up after the person is finished and the ball gets passed to one person at a time. They know that if they don’t have the ball, they don’t speak. I guess it’s about setting the right culture early on about how we relate to each other in philosophy and it seems to work.

According to what was discussed in Chapter 4, in CPI classrooms, children do not passively accept the classroom rules and teachers do not rely on teacher-directed strategies to regulate classroom behavior. They explore, understand, practice, and internalize the rules of inquiry, including listening carefully or disagreeing with others respectfully learning to self-regulate their behaviors. Cultivating superficial understanding regarding peaceful interaction with others, as Lipman (1995) stated, is the fault many peace education models commit and, therefore, fail in achieving their goals to promote peaceful interactions (p. 121).

7.2.3.2 Teachers are facilitators instead of instructors

In the CPI classroom, teachers’ roles are quite different from that of the traditional classroom,10 which affects the relationship between students and teachers. Rather, the classroom is converted into a community of inquiry where teachers are no longer the

10 Note that CPI classrooms/lessons are a separate part of the usual sequence of lessons within a learning area and unit of work 135 instructors but facilitators who conduct the deliberative, collaborative dialogue. Teacher A described these differences:

It’s a very different relationship in philosophy than it is in other areas because you’re not usually the one doing the teaching in philosophy. …[For example], [m]ath is very much direct instruction; ‘watch me while I do it. Now, let’s do it together. Now, you have a try on your own’; whereas, philosophy is straightaway ‘what do you think about this question’ and giving them some control. …[In CPI], [t]he children are doing the learning together. They’re constructing their learning in the community and you just guide them along so you’re more the facilitator rather than a teacher in that environment. … [M]y role is to just listen and keep them on track, and to make them delve deeper by asking them to clarify something or to give an example or to see if anyone disagrees, and their reasons for that. I’m just there to guide them with their thinking and make sure they don’t just skim across the surface.

Teacher C asserted that in CPI the role of the teacher changes to “facilitator who is asking students questions, prodding them to think deeper, challenging their ideas, …trying to coordinate and get them to listen to each other…[and] makes the group work”. She explains about her different experience in the CPI classroom.

It feels different because you are listening to what they are saying, and there isn’t really a wrong answer. You might challenge things and encourage other children to challenge ideas, but they’re not looking at you to tell them, ‘Right, this is what we’re learning, this is what you’re supposed to know, do this, this and this’.

When CPI aims to encourage students to think for themselves, teachers’ role needs to change from instructor or knowledge transmitter to facilitator. Therefore, children and facilitator are constructing their learning together. The facilitator’s role is just conducting and encouraging the students along the inquiry. This process is what makes CPI appropriate environment for peace education as it provides students a participatory learning and teacher and students have equal participation in the educational process through dialogue about a problem and the teacher is not the expert in resolving the problem and giving the solutions (Haavelsrud, 2008).

136

7.2.3.3 Students have more control over the teaching and the learning process

In CPI, because the classroom has been converted into a community of inquiry and teachers’ roles change to facilitators instead of transmitters of knowledge, children have more control over the direction of classroom conversation. Teacher C believed the following of CPI classrooms:

…the children have more control…about the direction that it takes and adding their own ideas. They’re not just answering your questions. They’re coming up with their own ideas. …Whereas this is not about giving the teacher the answer that they want, that has in their mind. You actually want them to think for themselves and come up with some different ideas. I think that feels different for me and for the children too.

Teacher B argued that the difference between interconnection and the relationship between the teacher and students in the CPI classroom is that in the regular teachers generally teach to the curriculum and the different teaching role is based on that curriculum. Normal curriculum is like

teaching in front of the classroom, and philosophy is like teaching from the classroom…. The students see you are thinking differently…. [In the normal classroom] [Y]ou are driven by your curriculum, …your knowledge and your skills, and .. the techniques…. As soon as you get into philosophy [class], you are all together. You're all learning. …You see them and the students see you, differently.

However, Teacher B stated she still needed to have less control in CPI classrooms compared with other classes she has taught.

I still guide them in that community of inquiry, and lead them into questions. I sometimes can control and I can do that in my teaching role as well. I can have that control. But I have to learn how to take the control away in that community inquiry, and allow the students to take more control of the questioning and where we head with it. That's my novice, where I'm sitting at the moment, where I am trying to let go more of that and giving it more to them, but we have to work that out together. We have to teach and learn that together. 137

As discussed in Chapter 2, peace education models are classified into two main categories according to the degree of participation: strongly controlled participation and weakly controlled participation (Haavelsrud & Stenberg, 2012, p. 70) and the form of weakly controlled participation is founded upon the principle that in peace education models educational interaction should be in harmony with the idea of peace (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 3). This means that the teacher and students should have equal participation in the educational process through dialogue about a problem and the teacher is not the expert in resolving the problem (p. 3). This is what happens in CPI classrooms according to the teachers’ interviews.

7.2.3.4 Student are allowed to question even the rules of the classroom and challenge the teacher

Another distinction between CPI and traditional classrooms is students have the freedom to question and challenge even the procedural rules of the CPI. Teacher D explained

particularly, I found out children that are normally disengaged in the middle school will tend to become a little bit disengaged in the traditional subject areas. In philosophy they tend to shine, because they're often the quick thinkers and the ones who are looking for a way around a certain rule or questioning authority; ‘why do you say that’? Or ‘why should I have to do this?’

Teacher D added that CPI allows all kinds of discussion to occur in the classroom. For example, when students are trying to question authority in the classroom, it leads to finding reasons for a basis for respecting authority. He said the inquiry within the community tends to rigorously look for the very best ideas.

As already argued, in CPI classrooms, children do not passively receive the classroom rules but have the opportunity to explore and challenge the rules of inquiry. By cultivating superficial understanding regarding peaceful interaction with others, education models will not be successful in behavioral changes.

7.2.3.5 Philosophy gives freedom to students

Students have more freedom in CPI because the methodology of philosophy, being concerned with reasoning-giving and the construction and evaluation of arguments, gives them more freedom in thought and discussion than areas of the curriculum more 138 concerned with the direct transmission of knowledge. This is one of the reasons children enjoy CPI as they feel free to be imaginative through creative thinking and thinking critically about possible solutions or answers to questions, of which there could be more than one solution or answer. Teacher B believed

we are bound by rules when we teach curriculum, but we're not bound by rules when we're in philosophy because it takes us to different places. I think that's what students love. There's a freedom to take the concept somewhere and build it, and really get an understanding. Once they can find the connection, then they bring it back into their own thoughts and questions, so that we can reflect on it that way.

Providing students and teachers the freedom to explore concepts and ideas, CPI has the potential to allow different voices, and, therefore, ideas to be heard and treated equally in the classroom without being judged or silenced, which is the crucial principle in education for peace.

7.2.4 The Effects of CPI on Teachers

When teachers were asked if they think CPI affects them, the following sub-themes were presented in the responses (see Figure 16). Teachers’ answers showed they were beginning to experience personal and communal transformation since their commencement. The transformation and behavioral changes have a positive effect on the school culture and make children

naturally absorb the spirit of peace from it. There is a popular saying that peace has to be caught rather than be taught. Initiating a peaceful culture in school should start from within the staff, by developing attitudes and behavior of appreciation, co-operation, belonging, trust and spirit of learning. By way of developing a friendly and mutually respectful teacher-pupil relationship a peace culture will bloom naturally in the school (UNESCO, 2001, p.15).

In the following paragraphs, the researcher further described CPI teachers’ changes.

139

Figure 16. The effects of CPI on teachers

7.2.4.1 Making better judgments

As mentioned in Chapter 3 and 4, strengthening the power of judgment is one of the main purposes of CPI. Teacher E stated

I am sure [CPI] helps me to suspend judgments quite often and to think about things from different perspective. …I was probably more opinionated when I was younger and I think philosophy is given me the skills to sit back and think before I make a judgment about things or before I become angry about things.

According to Lipman (1993), judgments, which could take the forms of opinions, conclusions or solving problems, “are likely to be good judgments if they are the product of skillfully performed acts guided by or facilitated by appropriate instruments and procedures” (p. 38). This is what teachers and students understand, practice and internalize in CPI to make better judgments by following the guiding principles of inquiry. Individuals who have learned and internalized the process of making reliable judgments would be more capable of resolving conflicts and problematic situations.

140

7.2.4.2 Better listener

Attentive listening is one of the main procedural rules of CPI and peace education. In the process of inquiry, children learn to listen to others respectfully and carefully. Teachers as facilitators should allow different views to be offered, listened to, and examined despite potential disagreement without any threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has suggested it. The practice of CPI has positive effects on teachers’ listening skills as well. Teacher B affirmed that CPI helped her to respect the students more and listen to them more attentively. She stated that she used to wonder if students would find some things difficult. However, now,

I think because they're people. They're not just students that sit in front of you. …[W]hat they say is important and you need to really listen. You're actually following the same philosophy rules as well. Listen attentively, disagree respectfully. I do that.

Findings show teachers gradually noticed their epistemic biases towards children, which is crucial in CPI and Peaceful CPI. As Murris (2013) has explained, epistemic injustice happens when adults see children as “other” who are epistemologically incomplete, irrational and untrustworthy just because of their age. However, according to the findings, the teachers genuinely doubted and corrected their past belief-habit to a new habit of considering students as people and realizing that what they say is important and should be listened to respectfully and attentively.

7.2.4.3 More open for reflection and self-correction

Teacher B concurred that CPI made her reflect in her life.

When you have off days, you can really reflect on them. I think because… philosophy makes you reflect…. You have to really think in a different way to say, ‘Why is it like this? Where will I go from here?’ Reflection is such an important part of [CPI]. I built that into when I am doing anything. I look at, ‘Does this work? Why doesn't it work?’ My reflections are a lot deeper, and I then have to question certain things.

In another interview, Teacher A confirmed that CPI

141

has taught me to listen to the children, to be wrong about things, to accept children to challenge me on something and not feel threatened by that, [and] to change my mind about something….

As discussed in Chapter 5, an effective CPI should provide members with opportunities for metacognition, which is an important aspect of the community of inquiry in which participants reflect on their thinking skills and thinking progress. Through the reflection process, teachers, as well as students, learn how knowledge is constructed, and its reliance on the principle of fallibilism. So, they understand, practice and internalize being open to alternatives and open to correcting themselves through the inquiry process. This is crucial for peace education in which the emphasis is not on outcomes alone, i.e., the achievement of peaceful solutions, but on the process, i.e., inquiry as a form of peaceful reflection. The reflection in CPI classrooms was discussed further in section 7.2.5.4 and section 7.4.5.

7.2.4.4 Positive effects on staff relationships

The findings showed that CPI has positive effects on the relationship among colleagues in the state school. For instance, Teacher D told after implementation of CPI, the school “is a much happier atmosphere. … We understand each other a little bit more”. One of the reasons for that is, the staff members, including teaching and non-teaching ones also did some CPI in areas about “professionalism and respect and the nature of knowledge and learning”. The trainers of CPI “helped us to really get a collective view of who we are and what our core business is”. In many ways, it just provides that vehicle to discuss some of these things and help people to come together on an idea”.

7.2.4.5 Hope, enjoyment and satisfaction with the teaching profession

In the state school, CPI also had a positive effect on teachers’ satisfaction with their profession. Teacher D expressed he knows a philosophy teacher who

said if it wasn't for philosophy he would have left teaching years ago. I thought that was interesting because it was what engaged him in his profession, and gave him some hope that what he was trying to achieve as an educator was not lost in the sense that philosophy could produce something of value and something of interest to him. I guess I had to agree with him that it helps to keep your interest alive in a teaching profession. It's

142

so interesting just hearing other children say what they think and learning from their thoughts. That’s enjoyable.

Teacher C, another teacher, explained that CPI makes her enjoy teaching more.

I enjoy it a lot because…it feels like what you became a teacher for…. Not to be a policeman about children’s behavior and not to shove content down their throat, but to help them become growing, thinking young people. It happens so well I think in the community of inquiry, doing philosophy and then once they get the hang of that way of thinking, it goes across into other subject areas.

It is obvious, therefore, that increasing the level of teachers’ satisfaction, hope and enjoyment of their career will contribute to positive effects on the atmosphere of the school and improve the quality of interactions among teachers as well as teachers and students.

7.2.4.6 More open to differences

As aforementioned advocates of P4C consider CPI to be an ideal educational method for fostering democracy, where tolerance, respect, listening attentively and being open to differences are valued and practiced by teachers and students. For instance, Teacher A described how she has been changed through CPI.

I feel that I’m more open to difference than a lot of other people and more accepting of difference, difference of opinion, different beliefs, different cultures, and different ways of living. …I used to be just a little bit narrower, I guess, in my view on life”. …I feel that I’m a better listener and that I’m better at seeing things from other people’s points of view. I’m much better at being objective when somebody is saying or doing something. I’m trying to understand why their reasons for that rather than just reacting to that. I’m a lot better at putting myself in someone else’s shoes and questioning why they might be behaving that way and looking at what they’re actually trying to say and what they need and helping them.

7.2.5 The Effect of CPI on Students

When asked about the effects of CPI on students, teachers’ answers emerged across five main sub-themes, as illustrated in Figure 17. The findings include students’ individual and 143 social development as well as improvement of their collaborative interactions and self- correction skills.

Figure 17. The effects of CPI on students

7.2.5.1 Individual development of students such as positive self-esteem, self- confidence and self-assertiveness

Individual development is the first level of important needs in children that, unfortunately “are not sufficiently addressed in the process of schooling” (UNESCO, 2001, p.15). However, findings achieved form the teachers’ interviews show CPI has positive effects on students’ self-development. For instance, Teacher E believed CPI affects students substantially.

It changes their identity and enables them to develop this identity of themselves as a learner, or thinker or somebody who is responsible and who has confidence to do things. …When they think that it has a positive impact on their self-esteem definitely. …[S]ometimes, children might not be very academically high in a particular idea but they might do quite well in philosophy for what they believe and having their views listened to in the classroom and though about it gives them the confidence to then think ‘if I can do this in philosophy then I can think in another area’.

144

Teacher E believed that the teaching approach in the CPI classroom is very respectful and constructive, and encourages students to believe in themselves.

You wouldn’t hear teachers…treating them in a disrespectful way. Children are the same, too. We value their ideas and we want them to understand that and encourage them to talk and discuss their ideas, to question, to always question, we welcome their questions. The approach is very constructivist, and not a traditional one that just transmits information to the students. …[Also] we encourage them to … have a Growth Mindset that is very important to us. We just had a big philosophical exploration about Growth Mindset last year. All students involved needed to think about what it means to have a Growth Mindset and we encouraged them…to [believe] ‘yes, I can learn and I can be compassionate about learning’.

Teacher B also added, in CPI, students encourage each other in the community through watching and listening to each other and it helps toward developing their self-confidence and their self-esteem. The students, who are very good at CPI, are quite encouraging when they bring out answers like ‘I'm going to agree with that idea. I think that idea is great.’ And that idea might have been from a student very timid and very quiet.

However, Teacher B concluded individual development does eventually happen, but it does take time. …”[Y]ou've got to keep continuing to refer back and forth all the time and keep developing that, for them to actually build their own confidence in them”.

Teachers’ interviews show CPI has positive effects on students’ self-development. It gives students self-confidence and self-esteem as a thinker and learner as the constructive teaching approach in CPI directs students to have a growth mindset, which encourages them to believe themselves that can learn. Recall in Chapter 2, the researcher discussed that building an effective, integrated personality with positive self-esteem in children is an important factor that peace education models should develop in students to empower them to live peacefully in the society which they live (UNESCO, 2001, p.15). Indeed, having positive self-esteem can help students to have a desirable level of assertiveness which is crucial in building a more collaborative relationship with others (Gupta, 2013; Thakore, 2013; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Thomas, 1976).

145

7.2.5.2 Social skills development of students such as affirmation of others, tolerance of others’ differences and compassion

CPI, as argued in Chapter 4, provides a democratic environment for the cultivation of caring and connective thinking. In the interviews, the researcher asked teachers if they noticed any changes in students’ social skills since CPI was implemented in the state school. Teacher E, for example, argued that “always in the classroom you see the development of a culture of respect … they learn to value and they want to value everybody within the community and so definitely they able to affirm”. CPI also teaches children to work collaboratively “because working collaboratively is a part of the whole [CPI] process. So when they learn those procedures then they are able to appropriate those procedures wherever they’re working collaboratively in any other learning areas, whether Math or science.”

Moreover, Teacher A, answered that “philosophy has made a huge difference to the culture in the classrooms, to the way students relate to each other, the way that they resolve any conflicts and the way that they respect” others. Teacher D, another CPI teacher, believed CPI “helps us to appreciate how different we are and how differences can be actually utilized to assist one another”.

On another point, Teacher B explained two ways that CPI makes changes in students’ social development. The first one depends on what “you're developing in the community of inquiry”. She described an example.

[Last year] [w]e looked at animal cruelty, and we looked at ‘do animals have the right…to be cruel to other animals, and so on. I think when…you bring concepts and ideas about that into community of inquiry that brings the compassion into it. It brings the intensity as well, and the feeling of what's just and what's not just. Then, socially, when we have conversations about that, I had many students go home and look up and find out about the plights of animals that were discussed in the community of inquiry. …[Later], I noticed that a lot of them started to generate ideas about ‘what can we do to be more [compassionate]’…. We were thinking about making cupcakes and selling cupcakes in our own classroom setting, and saving that money up, and then donating that money to a cause that we’re feeling compassionate about. I think that's really important that they see that to have all those

146

thoughts and those discussions about those sorts of topics, and those ideas. Then they go and, in their real lives, want to show that.

The second way is through the CPI classroom rules. According to Teacher B, students are learning to have compassion within the community of inquiry when they are working on smart goals; they are “trying to include others as part of that, to be in that social situation”.

The teachers’ answers showed CPI had made positive changes to the culture of the school. Students practice caring, as Sharp (2003) explained and commited themselves to the process of communal inquiry. They value and respect each other and appreciate their differences. As cooperative inquirers, they care for the wide range of human experience and problems. They care for the rules and procedures of inquiry which motivate them to work on their goals collaboratively.

7.2.5.3 Improvement of students’ interactions and managing conflicts inside and outside the school

According to interviews with teachers, CPI has made a significant change on students’ interactions and managing conflicts. All teachers emphasized that, after implementation of CPI, the school climate started to become gradually more peaceful. Teacher E described the school atmosphere before the implementation of CPI in the state school. In that time, the school had approximately 35% of students with English as an additional language or dialect (EAL/D)11 and 12% Indigenous students. “There were huge behavioral difficulties at that time,” and there was a specific area, a responsible behavior room where children were sent when they were not going well in class or at lunchtime, and the room was always full of children.

The behavior…was very poor when I first went there. I saw this school had a bit of a cultural disrespect throughout the school and I could see the benefits of philosophy, but I knew it would take time for that to change.

Teacher E continued that it was very difficult at the beginning to introduce philosophy to students as “they hadn’t been using that type of culture in the way of learning”. However, after one year, some little changes appeared in the school culture, amongst students, teachers, and in the relationship between students and teachers:

11 Students for whom English is an additional language or dialect (EAL/D) require specific support to build the English language skills required for effective communication and access to the Australian Curriculum. 147

After a year we started to see a little difference. Just little things happening in classrooms and each year those things improved. The best thing we saw was that the children became a lot more respectful of each other and of the teachers, teachers to kids too. The whole culture of respect changed not just amongst the children but amongst the teachers as well because whenever we had staff reading or we had anything to introduce professional development with teachers, we always worked in the community of inquiry, so we used the practice all the time.

Teacher A also stated the same story. She believed the school used to have a “reputation for being fairly rough with behavior”. However, after the implementation of CPI,

[t]he incidences of [poor] behavior were drastically reduced. We have a room that used to be called a timeout room. It’s now called a positive thinking room. I was sending students there every day. This year, I think I’ve sent one student once …but the Year 6s and 7s here are just lovely children. …I could certainly say that the amount of problems that they’re bringing back into the classroom after lunch have reduced, but…beginning of the year new group together, you often get some conflicts.

In terms of handling the conflicts, Teacher E believed aggressive behaviors used to be very regular in the school. Children used to punch each other, show high levels of anger or storm out of classes. However, through CPI, they found a way to deal with conflicts. They found a way to talk about their conflict, discuss it with each other, think about how the other person is feeling and looking at things from different perspectives.

Teacher A also comments that CPI makes the students more reasonable in playground disputes.

Certainly, by the end of the year in any class, I’m seeing a really big difference in the way they relate to each other and, also, in the older years where they have been doing philosophy for many years, you’re seeing a big difference. …If I’m going to generalize here, they are usually more reasonable with each other in those playground disputes. …They’re learning how to relate to each other with respect. They’re learning how to listen carefully and to see things from someone else’s point of view. That is certainly something that should transfer into the playground. 148

The students’ changes in handling the disputes are not limited to the school playground. Teacher E indicated, “sometimes parents put comments that their children are more able to deal with conflict with their siblings”. Teacher E also believed students do carry out those ways of thinking in a CPI classroom and “it becomes a part of who they are”. It is a thinking way for them and they apply it inside or outside the school.

However, Teacher A noticed that “it’s really hard to talk generally about it because some children are very good at handling conflict, whereas, other children are not”. However, CPI provides students with a different language for their communication in conflict resolution.

You certainly hear…them using the language; ‘I feel this because …’ so they’re giving a reason for how they’re feeling about something. ‘I’m upset because’…and listening to each other. They do that, but sometimes you just need to help them because they’re upset, and they need to calm down. I guess that’s probably the one thing I do hear is a little bit of the language using reasons and understanding that they can disagree about something and that’s OK.

Teacher C explained the ways CPI helps students to deal with conflicts.

… it is about listening to other people, thinking about what they’re saying… realizing that there can be different points of view and the same way, being reflective about what that person might be saying, instead of reacting...So if something goes wrong in the playground, someone bumps into you, then a kid might lash out. If they are just being reactive and not thinking about it, they might just retaliate, assuming that someone has knocked into them deliberately when…very likely it wasn’t even deliberate. But the kids after having done…[CPI], I think are more likely to talk to the person about it. If there’s a problem, they would think about the problem, they would talk to the other person about the problem, listen to the other person’s point of view rather than just think of their own point of view and work themselves up [over it].

The above testimonies of the teachers describe how the school moves from having a “reputation for being fairly rough with behavior” to something different “after the implementation of CPI”. This is what was discussed in Chapter 4 that CPI can reduce aggressive behaviors and interactions since it makes the students more reasonable 149 regarding disputes either inside or outside the schools. Students internalize the ways of thinking and the language in a CPI classroom and transfer them beyond the classroom and school playground. Through the processes of CPI, they learn to listen to each other attentively and giving reasons for how they feel about something. It affects the way they relate to each other, value what somebody else is saying and attempt to develop an understanding of the perspective of others or as Sharp (2014) explained develop caring behaviors. When students can understand how a particular person feels about a specific issue and why they might behave in a certain way, they are more able to deal with conflict rather than react to the situation without reflection.

7.2.5.4 Improvement self-correction skills

As discussed in Chapter 4, in a CPI classroom, children engage in reflective thinking and self-correction. Teacher E stated:

…part of our reflection through philosophy is; how did we work as a group? How did we work together as a community? How did we work in a small community, small groups? And then discuss them, reflect on them and think meta-cognitively about why we did well and why it didn’t go well. So, they enable to apply those skills in other areas because they reflect upon them… and they become meta-cognitive for them.

Moreover, Teacher E recalled several examples of times when children started to challenge their own way of thinking and change their ideas through the inquiry process. When you hear things like

‘I think I’ve changed my mind’, ‘I am thinking about this again’, ‘I am thinking about this in different way’. But they haven’t just changed their mind because something their friends said and their friends change their mind. They change their mind because they heard a justified reason and they heard…effective reasoning to show them another side of thing and so they been able to think about that idea in another point view, so they change their mind through the thinking process rather than just because somebody else said.

In the other interview, Teacher A also agreed that CPI “teaches children to be more reflective, to reflect on their own behavior and their own thinking, [and to make them to] be

150 able to analyze things a bit more carefully”. She allocated 10 to 15 minutes of each session to answer some reflection questions or to ask any questions that they have or to draw something that’s related to what they have been discussing. She is reminded of one of her experiences in the CPI classroom. The conversation was the concept of ‘ideas’ and ‘what is an idea?’

One little boy drew this picture of an island with all of these different ideas in them and he had them in different categories like good ideas, ideas you’re saving or ideas that need building, and then he had separately on the other side on the edge, the idea wasteland, which was where all the bad ideas went and where all the ideas that didn’t work go. Ideas that can’t fit in your head anymore…get forgotten and they’re forgotten ideas. We talked about this idea that the boy had in his book and that was just fabulous and that’s now how they refer to the ideas, where they go, and where they go when you’re finished with them. How an idea can explode and change the world and grow, and how an idea can be lost or forgotten or ignored or recycled.

However, Teacher A added that students in year one who are still new to the CPI classroom usually “don’t like to be challenged because they take it personally like you are challenging them rather than their idea”. However, when they can make the distinction between the person and the idea, they stop getting offended.

Teacher D brings some examples of when children reflect on their beliefs and change them in CPI. He says, “quite often they’ll say something, and the discussion continues and then they’ll put their hand up again and … say, ‘Well, look, actually I have changed my mind on that’”. He brought an example:

There is one boy who used to, he thought he was very knowledgeable about, and he was actually quite good. He performed quite well in other academic areas, but as we started to get into the philosophy program he said that he used to think he was very knowledgeable and he didn't realize it at the time that he used to be a very black and white thinker. He said, ‘I'm not like that anymore. Now, I have realized that there are shades of gray between lots of ideas’. Before, he tended to just know the answer, but in the CPI classroom he realized that answers are actually dependent on the circumstances.

151

Finally, Teacher C believed CPI improves reflective thinking in students, which helps them in problematic situations to make better decisions instead of just reacting. That is why the children’s behavior has changed enormously in these few years.

One of the most important advantages of converting the classroom into a community of inquiry, as Lipman (2003) stated, is that the participants practice and internalize the methods and procedures of inquiry as well as the principle of fallibilism, which means every knowledge claim is open to challenge, revision and correction. Hence, the students begin to correct each other and become self-correcting in their thinking. In the beginning, they may resist as they think others are challenging them rather than their idea. However, gradually, they understand that CPI participants, as Redshaw (1994) described, address the problem rather than attacking the person, and become more open for alternatives, reflection on their beliefs and changing their minds.

This is crucial for peace education because while students feel disequilibrium in a problematic or conflict situation, they don’t react and look for solutions through tenacity, authority, and a priori methods to get to equilibrium. Instead, they genuinely engage in reflective thinking to make more reasonable decisions. They are even open to changing their belief-habits if necessary. This is discussed in Chapter 4, that peace is not the absence of conflict but the way individuals turn the conflict into peaceful reflection to grow and transform.

7.2.6 Issues and Challenges Facing CPI

In Chapter 2, the importance of context or organizational structure in which the peace program is applied was explored. The researcher explained that most educational systems identify with basic characteristics including distribution of knowledge in different subjects, specific criteria for the teachers of each subject, classification of students in different classes and time division to study and break (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 4). Therefore, these basic characteristics of the educational organization could influence the content and structure and goals of peace education programs and even contrast with them.

CPI as an optional program within the educational context of the state school is not an exception to these structural effects. In the interviews, the researcher asked the teachers to tell her about issues and challenges facing CPI in the state school either related to the educational structure or otherwise. Their answers were classified in the themes below (see Figure 18).

152

Figure 18. Issues and challenges facing CPI

7.2.6.1 Philosophy is not mandatory and can easily be discarded from the school curriculum

Teacher E draws attention to the first issue facing CPI.

Because philosophy is not mandatory, it can easily be discarded from the school curriculum. In the current state school system, teachers generally feel they are overloaded and busy and it is very hard for them to engage with philosophy.

7.2.6.2 CPI requires mentoring

Another concern is CPI requires mentoring. Teacher E stated

CPI is generally working well at the moment, but it always needs someone to take care of it. Some teachers are doing very well, but some of them could do better. So, they need to be trained more and be more engaged. The process is very long and slow and it needs to be sustained through coaching.

153

7.2.6.3 Misconception and ignorance about CPI

Teacher A mentioned the issue of resistance and misconceptions of some teachers about CPI.

You get a little bit of resistance if you’re implementing CPI into the school. You will have some teachers who are really excited and on board and open, and there will be some that are very resistant and just think, ‘Oh, here is another thing we have to do’. They don’t understand the value that it has because they haven’t given enough time to discover what it actually is all about. They have misconceptions about what it is.

7.2.6.4 Lack of time with an already jam-packed curriculum

Another challenge Teacher A asserted was the limitation of time for CPI classroom.

…[T]he curriculum is so jam-packed that every minute of every day is just time tabled with everything that we need to teach. For me, I’m very disciplined with that and making sure there is an hour of philosophy, but I could see that for some teachers that might be just pushed aside and that’s more math time or English time or something else. That’s one limitation is just that we’re just so overloaded with everything that we need to try and teach the children. There is just not enough time in the day.

Teacher B also noted the lack of time is the problem she faces in CPI classroom.

The timetabling is a problem…. You need to have a good amount of time to develop and then reflect. If you don't have enough time to reflect, you haven't fulfilled that whole community inquiry. I think if you leave that off, you've left out the most valuable part. …It is hard for students, too. With their learning, in classroom, you can’t just stop them and say, ‘Okay, you don't need to know anymore. We don't need to reflect on that. That's it. That's the end of the road for you’. I've always said to my students that ‘we are always learning. They know that because we talk about that in our community inquiry.

154

7.2.6.5 Conflict of expectation from teachers

Teacher D pointed to the issue of the conflict between typical expectations of teachers and the essence of the CPI classroom.

I think it's pretty typical of a classroom setting that there are a lot of demands placed upon us to get results and to get things finished whereas philosophical inquiry tends to be a little bit more open-ended. It can continue, and to go into different areas and it can [takes] a lot of the time. That has to be controlled and we can't really get to the depth in some [cases] just due to the constraints of the day-to-day operations in a classroom….

7.2.6.6 Teacher are sometimes confused about where the session is going or getting stuck

Teacher B noted another issue facing CPI teachers when they do not know what to do and get stuck in the philosophical discussion. She added

you go, ‘Where do I go now’? ‘What should I keep for next?’ …I think you're limited by the skills that you have. You have to do some learning on the way, and it's not easy. It's not an easy journey.… [However, my Mentor] showed me…[p]hilosophy has its own way, and it's more effective if you follow the way philosophy is taught, and less of your teacher path. …I think that's my limitation there.

7.2.6.7 Getting everyone engaged in CPI

Teacher C pointed out the challenges of getting everyone engaged in CPI. She stated getting everyone a turn to be involved is challenging because a lot of people want to speak. On the other hand, engaging the younger ones who are not used to CPI is a bit hard as they are still not used to using their minds in this way.

7.2.7 Contribution CPI to More Harmonious Life for Students

Finally, at the end of each interview, I asked teachers for their evaluation regarding the contribution of CPI to the more peaceful life for students. Teachers’ answers are categorized in the following themes (see Figure 19).

155

Figure 19. CPI contribution to a more harmonious life

7.2.7.1 CPI has the potential to make a big change in behaviors

As discussed earlier, behavioral change is one of the main purposes of peace education programs and according to Teacher E, CPI has the potential to make a big change in students’ behaviors and make their lives more peaceful. She argues

teaching children to be respectful, to look and consider new ideas, to accommodate a range of people’s perspectives and not just their own thoughts or what they may have heard from their own family develops empathy and respect among people and it does bring peace. This school is a micro example that proves CPI has the potential to make a big change in behaviors. Children in this school don’t treat each other the same as before.

She completed her argument with a personal example:

I interviewed one of my little students and I asked him the same question. He said that one day his parents let him listen to a session in parliament. He said if politicians had been taught differently in school maybe they wouldn’t behave the way they do. I think he is right. The more people engage in thought in education in schools, the more peaceful they are going to be with each other with more effective ways of dealing with conflicts.

156

7.2.7.2 CPI can make people more happy and comfortable with who they are

Earlier, the researcher discussed that having positive self-esteem has the potential to bring people more inner and social peace. Teacher A also believed that CPI can help students to be much happier with who they are, and, therefore, experience more harmonious lives.

I think philosophy makes you question and wonder about things and makes you want to find out and learn for yourself about things. …Questioning your own beliefs and values and opinions and, for me, that’s an important one. Being happy with who you are because of what you stand for…and what you believe in. That’s got to contribute to your overall wellbeing.

Teacher D also asserted that CPI could help students to be comfortable with their identity and who they are. CPI helps students

to make sense…of what is going on in their life. I think it helps [them] to unify their own sense of identity. That's certainly a big topic actually in philosophy; identity and who we are, what it means to be the person you are. I think some of those concepts really allow students the opportunity to think reflectively about their own life; who they are…and what sort of person they are becoming. …I'm not sure if it provides harmony but in terms of being comfortable with who they are and where they are going, I think it's definitely a way for them to consider those ideas. Otherwise it wouldn't be talked about and that would just be left there on the bottom, [unexplored or concealed].

7.2.7.3 CPI helps people to peacefully coexist through solving their conflicts reasonably

Earlier, the researcher argued that learning to peacefully disagree with others and managing conflicts reasonably could promote peaceful interactions inside and outside the classroom. Teacher D supported that CPI can help people to live more peacefully as they learn to coexist through discussing their conflicts reasonably.

I think it does help people to be more reasonable with one another. There might be conflicts of ideas and some of those ideas are so opposed. I think there will always be differences amongst groups of people. In terms of resolving those differences it may not help, but in terms of being able to

157

coexist, at least opens the conversation to allow people to look at…peaceful options.

7.2.7.4 CPI helps children to have better relationship with others

The researcher explained that CPI develops social skills and caring thinking in students which promote the culture of peace in the school. Teacher C believed that CPI contributes to a more peaceful life as she “has seen it happen here at the school in the last six years. She explains CPI helps students to have a better relationship with others and themselves too.

I just think CPI changes the way they interact with other people, so they are more thoughtful and more considerate of other people and this makes them more caring towards other people which means it’s a more harmonious environment for them; for all of them. It’s a better place to be because it’s a more caring place where they can have better relationships with other people. …[Also], I think it’s going to affect the way you feel about yourself too. I think it’s probably a two-way street between those two things. If you are thinking about other people, you probably think about what’s happening to you and deal with whatever’s happening to you in a more sensible, considerate way as well.

7.3 What Students Say about CPI

In this section, the researcher represented what students said about CPI derived from the focus group interviews. The researchers coded their answers and categorized the codes in different themes and sub-themes (see Figure 20). In the following paragraphs, the researcher classified the themes, sub-themes and related examples in different tables under different headings.

158

Figure 20. What students say about CPI

7.3.1 Students’ Perceptions of CPI

When asked about the possible ways philosophy is personally important and valuable to them, students’ answers emerged across two themes (see Table 12).

Table 12. The ways CPI valuable for students Themes Examples

Cultivating reflective “…[Y]ou just think like, whose fault was it? Was it actually his fault that he thinking stepped on my pencil, or was it just an accident? So, I kind of move from anger to forgiveness and it helps you with your social life a lot”.

Solving problems and “I think like, without philosophy we wouldn't be where we are now because making progress it's a way to kind of resolve conflict or kind of get a new understanding of something. So, let's take maybe, cavemen. If they didn't have that kind of

philosophy to kind of get new tools to make things, we wouldn't be here where we are now”.

The findings showed that philosophical inquiry is important and valuable for students because it cultivates their reflective thinking. As mentioned in Chapter 3, for Dewey (2004), reflective thinking is a synonym of inquiry. Through reflective thinking students learn to

159 suspend their judgments in order to explore and examine the alternative solutions for a conflict or a problematic situation. Therefore, whenever they encounter a problematic situation, they do not simply react according to their immediate unexamined judgments. Instead, they learn to turn the conflict into peaceful reflection to move from disequilibrium to the new understanding or equilibrium. This is what was discussed in section 7.2.5.4.

Students also believed philosophical inquiry is valuable because it could help individuals in solving problems and making progress. As explained in Chapter 3, when one is confronted with a situation and cannot respond to it in a way to satisfy its needs or desires, it transforms its environment as well as its habits to produce desirable ends. However, according to Dewey (2004), the transformation will be more effective and meaningful through inquiry or reflective thinking. Dewey (2004) also asserted that progress or growth is the constant and continuous transformation of habits and environment. Thus, by cultivating inquiry skills, CPI empowers students to meaningfully reconstruct their problematic experience and transform their environments and their habits. It is what makes CPI potentially effective pedagogy for peace because as discussed in Chapter 4, an effective peace education appreciates the dynamism of disequilibrium as a way to growth and transformation.

The next table includes the students’ answer to what they like and enjoy about CPI. Two major themes emerged from their answers to the question (see Table 13).

160

Table 13. What students like and enjoy about CPI Themes Examples

Community-based learning “I think everyone in that kind of group is learning, so like, when someone does build on your idea, it means that they've acknowledged that and

they've got that understanding that kind of links together and when a disagreement comes, that person that said that idea notices that it's not always correct…”.

“I think it's good because there are some things that it makes you feel good, and mainly because, if you say an idea and then with passing those, I'll build on your idea, it's like, oh, my idea has got this person along, or helped them go further. And then there's another one where it's like, I disagree with your idea but this has given me the idea road, such and such, which is, like, giving you a compliment, but also, like feedback, where it could help you and teach you”.

Weak classification and “Absolutely what I like about philosophy is that there is always more than framing in Philosophical or mostly more than one answer in, and that's why I like it. In other discourse classes, when someone has a turn at the board, if they get it correct, nobody else can say another answer because the one answer is already

there if they were”.

According to the findings, and in support of what has been otherwise widely acknowledged (e.g Sharp, 2014), what children like about CPI is the way they help each other to build ideas and make the discussion go further. They enjoy learning as a community through dialogue. This is what Sharp (2014) explains as a positive sense of belonging, when students begin to recognize their dependency upon the community of inquiry procedures and care for those procedures. So, they enjoy it when their ideas are modified through the inquiry guided by the principle of fallibilism, self-correction and dialogue by their classmates on the way to finding the best answers. Furthermore, children like CPI because philosophical discourse has weak classification and framing. Therefore, it gives them more freedom to explore and it does not limit them to certain answers. The researcher further justified and explored these aspects in more detail in section 7.5.

Students were also asked what they did not like about CPI and found challenging about it. A couple of dominant themes were consistently present in the responses (see Table 14).

161

Table 14. What students do not like about CPI or find challenging Themes Examples

Making no “I kind of find it frustrating when we're not making intellectual progress. I like it when intellectual we continue building to kind of get a deeper understanding”. progress “I agree how they get frustrated like, when we aren't going deep in our minds”.

Overthinking “…[P]hilosophy just um, sort of brings more things to me and just makes me go around and around in my head and I think um, that I worry. I worry a lot, yeah. Um, and I think philosophy makes me worry even more because I worry about what people think of me and why they think that”.

Discussion tools “It's not about the community, of course. It's mainly the tools and all that, I get very are confusing confused about them because as I was saying before, I have distinction for my idea. I have a counter claim for my idea. I have an example in my mind. I have a new idea and it's very confusing”.

Students get frustrated when they are stuck in disequilibrium and do not make any intellectual progress. Furthermore, according to the findings, CPI could make students overthink and worry about what people think and why they think in that way. Finally, what some children find challenging about CPI is its discussion tools. It seems for some children these tools are confusing. In section 7.4.3, the researcher explained the tools for discussion in CPI classroom. These findings are not those generally reported by CPI scholars and could be addressed in further studies.

7.3.2 Difference between CPI and Other Classes

Students were asked what they perceived to be the difference between their CPI class and other classes. The main themes in the responses were related to weak classifications and framing in interpersonal relations and the discourse of CPI class (see Table 15).

162

Table 15. Difference between CPI and other classes Themes Examples

Week classification and “I do find that in philosophy I am free to let my ideas go because normally in framing in the discourse math, I'm just like - I do not get this. I am just going to shout out the answer I think is right, and I normally, I actually kind of always get it wrong, but I feel like philosophy is the one place that I feel right”.

“In most of the other subjects, like one of them especially in math, there’s always one answer, and you can’t have two answers to the same question”.

Weak classification “In other classes such as math class, there's always going to be the person between student- at the top of the class who's the best at math, but in philosophy, that person student relations is everyone”.

Weak classification and “I see myself as the group because I'm giving my idea, but yet again, it's not framing between my idea, it's the group's idea, so, and then when somebody builds on my students-students and idea, or the group's idea, I kind of feel like I'm growing as a person in that teacher-students kind of group discussion”. relations

Philosophy, as a discourse, has weak classification and framing. It means in philosophical discussion, there are no certain distinctions between academic and non-academic ideas (weak classifications) and several answers could be right (weak framing). Moreover, in philosophy classes, there is no person who is at the top of the class as the best student and everybody can be the best in their way (weak classification). Finally, in CPI, students see themselves as a community, not as separated individuals (weak classifications) and no one dominates others (weak framing). Classification and framing in CPI classroom were discussed in more detail in section 7.5.

7.3.3 Effects of CPI on Students

When the researcher was choosing a diverse group of five from 12 students12 for her focus group interview, she included C, one of the students who was silent during the observed session. Then, the researcher decided to add a question to the focus group interview questions to compare C’s feeling with the feelings of other children who were sharing their

12 As I mentioned in Chapter 6, 12 students were chosen to participate in an optional course of CPI which was run by one of the teachers . One of the final sessions was observed and audio recorded by the researcher. 163 ideas during philosophizing in that session. The question was, “how do you feel about yourself in CPI classroom?” Students’ answers were categorized into the following themes (see Table 16).

Table 16. Students’ feeling about themselves in CPI classroom Themes Examples

Feeling as a “I see myself as the group, like as philosophy because I am giving my idea, but yet growing again, it’s not my idea, it’s the group’s idea, so, and then when somebody builds on my person in the idea, or the group’s idea. I kind of feel like I am growing as a person as that kind of group group discussion”.

Feeling “I think, I think um, I think what it is, is that we contribute, and I want to contribute, but I disengaged don't contribute”.

Feeling crazy “I think of myself as kind of like, the outgoing person that always gives their ideas and and serious doesn’t really care if they’re incorrect, I don’t mean just blabbering on, but there is also a serious side of me where I want to take the discussion further, so we can get something out of the lesson and make actual progress.”

“Well, I had, I had two analogies of myself. I had the serious way, which was sort of like a bathtub just overflowing, and then like, my crazy, my crazy blathering way just like, just like a, you know, those squeaky toys. I just keep on squeezing and squeezing it and it just makes all that noise, and just, everyone just goes whoa”.

The table shows how different students experience different feelings during philosophizing in CPI classroom. Some children feel like growing persons in a community. It is related to what the researcher said in section 7.3.1 about how children enjoy their dependence on each other to build the ideas and make the discussion go further.

The second group of students mentioned that they feel serious and crazy interchangeably during the philosophical discussion. They feel crazy when they explore new ideas through their creative thinking and feel serious when they want to evaluate the ideas with their critical thinking.

Finally, C, the silent student felt disengaged. C mentioned although she is willing to contribute, she does not contribute in CPI classroom. In section 7.2.2.6, the researcher discussed the notion of disengaged students in CPI and Peaceful CPI classrooms.

164

The researcher also asked the students how CPI helped them to deal with disagreements. Their answers were categorized in the following themes (see Tables 17).

Table 17. Dealing with conflicts Themes Examples

Emotional management “I think it does help me a lot because obviously like, before, my brother and I, we would get in fights a lot, but now, I know how to control my emotions, and so it, I use kind of logic.”

Listening to different “Instead of like, running at somebody and just start hitting them randomly perspectives because you're angry with their decision, you're able to hear their side of the story, what they believe in that thing”.

“For example, you're trying to prove to this person that this is a better idea, so your idea that you put out is your pursuing sentence to them, so then this person disagrees. You think, oh yeah, this is, on the other hand, can also be good in this way. This is why you trying to get further by giving reason, but then just you also have to think of the other sides to the story”.

Conflict of ideas enrich “For example, you're trying to prove to this person that this is a better idea, the community so your idea that you put out is your pursuing sentence to them, so then this judgments person disagrees. You think, oh yeah, this is, on the other hand can also be good in this way. This is why you trying to get further by giving reason, but then just you also have to think of the other sides to the story”.

Peacefully disagree with “… [Y]ou can disagree reasonably, respectfully, so that like, making them others feel like you're not their worst enemy, that you hate them, but you just disagree with the idea that they've presented, so then there's that kind of disagreement with the ideas, not the two people”.

Students answered that they learn through CPI to deal with conflicts better because of four different reasons. First, it is because CPI helps them to reflect on their emotions such as anger, and consider the causes and consequences instead of unreflectively reacting as the first step in dealing with conflict. Second, in conflict situations, they are able to care for what others believe and listening to different perspectives about an issue. Third, in CPI classroom, they learn to appreciate conflict of opinions because as Gregory (2004)

165 claimed, conflict suggests diversity in options which robust inquiry and enrich the community judgments (p. 270). Finally, through CPI, children learn to see the conflict as disagreement. Reframing conflict as a disagreement, as discussed in Chapter 4, provides an opportunity to address the problematic experiences beyond creating dualisms and not considering the other side of the conflict as the enemy. They also understand as Redshaw (1994) posited that they can respect persons while still disagreeing with their ideas. Indeed, CPI helped students to be able to peacefully disagree with others.

7.3.4 Contribution of CPI to a More Harmonious Life

When the researcher asked the students how CPI contributes to a more peaceful world, their answers were categorized in the following themes (see Table 18).

Table 18. Contribution of CPI to a more harmonious life Themes Examples

“I believe it's like a more peaceful way to kind of resolve conflict because it's like a more peaceful way to discuss conflicts, rather than going with, look, we declare Dealing with conflicts war with this country because they disagree with our religion. Let’s fight now. They discuss it, reasonably, and like, they can actually consider the other person's belief and rather than just fighting them. It also helps let the world grow, like with its ideas and ways it works”.

“It’s like you're continuing a pattern, and the pattern's going over and over again, and I don't want to continue that pattern. Are you forced to, or can you make up Reflective thinking your own mind and in the general word, are you allowed to change, because there's a whole lot of people out there who probably have their thoughts and in general, they probably stand against me”.

“…[P]hilosophy is in everyone's mind, not just in one person's mind. So you cannot make the world a better place just by yourself…because not everyone Peace is a multi- thinks the same, which is, oh, yeah, everyone in here thinks the same thing as I layered process am, but that's not what I'm thinking about, what I'm thinking, then it's not really general, is it? Because then we can't really make the world a better place without agreeing to the people"…”.

166

Students’ perception of the contribution of CPI to a more peaceful life divided into two contrasting categories. The first category belongs to students who agreed that CPI could make the world a better place to live. They believed CPI helps people deal with conflicts reasonably and disagree peacefully instead of fighting and making wars. They also believed CPI could provide a better world through developing reflective thinking in individuals.

Using reflective thinking helps people change their old behavior patterns and habits which no longer fit in the situation. According to Peirce (1877), beliefs guide our desires and shape our actions, and we start to reflect on our beliefs when we confront a genuine doubt about the efficiency of that belief. Peirce believed there are four different ways people move from doubt or disequilibrium to new belief or equilibrium. The ways are tenacity, a priori, authority and scientific (or inquiry) methods. However, the method of inquiry which requires logic and reason is the most reliable method to fix our beliefs and get to the new equilibrium. The shift from disequilibrium to equilibrium is what Dewey (1916) called reconstruction of belief-habits. The process of modification of habits and habitat through the creation of new associations in response to new problems make progress and personal and social transformation.

The second category belongs to those who were quite skeptical that CPI can make the world a better place to live. They argued peace would not be achieved by one person or a group of people engaging in CPI. To make a world more peaceful, we need more people to agree with the ideas of peace. It is what Harris (2004) pointed out that peace is a multi- layered process and is an essential facet incorporated into all levels of society from interpersonal and intergroup to national and international levels.

7.4 What a CPI Classroom Looks Like?

In the following parts, the researcher presented her classroom observations as well as her analysis in the different categories of discussion plan, describing the setting, starting the discussion, conducting the discussion, ball strategy, and ending the discussion in the CPI classroom. The findings of the section will provide information for discussion of power and control relations within the CPI classroom in section 7.5.

167

7.4.1 Discussion Plan

The discussion plan recommended questions to initiate the procedure of inquiry in the classroom. Cam (1995) pointed out that usually a CPI class begins by reading a story or purpose-written materials as a stimulus, and the discussion plan starts with incidents in the story or one of its leading ideas. As explained in Chapter 6, the session that the researcher attended did not include a story or purpose-written materials; rather, it commenced with a list of prepared questions related to peace.

Before the session, the facilitator suggested that the researcher provide some questions for CPI discussion. In consultation the researcher designed several questions regarding peace and peace education (see Table 11). After getting the questions endorsed by the teacher, the researcher attended the session to observe the discussion and audio-record the dialogue. The list was a series of possible questions to stimulate children for inquiry around peace. Questions were designed in a way to be interesting for children and to start from students’ basic perception regarding peace. For instance one of the questions was “what are some things that you might think of or feel when you hear about peace?" Indeed, the researcher tried to stimulate children’s cognitive and affective dispositions by choosing several questions that represent various paths to facilitate the discussion towards a deeper level. Children still had freedom to ask their own questions and the teacher acted as a facilitator rather than knowledge-giver.

7.4.2 Describing the Setting

As Cam (1995) emphasized, the suitable physical arrangement for a discussion that includes the whole class is a circular grouping. In CPI, children need to be facing each other so that everyone can see the face of each participant, so making communication more conducive to dialogue by responding to each other. The arrangement of the classroom in recent studies is shown in Figure 21.

168

S S

S S Q

F S

S

Figure 21. CPI classroom arrangement. Adapted from Fisher (2005, p. 136)

S: Student; F: Facilitator; Q: Question

Before the inquiry began, the facilitator presented several colored cards listing the procedural rules of CPI. The protocols for engagement included:

 Listen attentively  Build on and connect ideas  Respect self, others and place  Disagree reasonably and respectfully  Many responses could be considered correct

The facilitator began the discussion with the review of the classroom procedural rules:

Take a minute to think before you respond and try to consider them in a deep way. Also, think about alternative suggestions if you hear somebody say your idea, don’t say the same thing again because it's already been said. If you want to build on it and stretch it out, that's great. You can make it bigger. And when we talk about peace there's a lot of generalizations people make about the concept of peace, so be aware that we try to test generalizations as well. If you think, ‘Oh, that doesn't really stick with me, I'd like to test that’, remember you can test your generalizations with a counter example.

169

7.4.3 Conducting the Discussion

After reviewing the procedural rules of CPI, the facilitator asked the first question and the discussion started. The researcher chose a sample of the discussion to show how the discussion proceeds in the CPI classroom. In conducting CPI discussion, the facilitators need to observe students and guide their dialogue so that they are attentive to their reasoning and the procedural rules of the CPI at all times. According to Cam (1995), the discussion tools for CPI classroom have the following characteristics:

Clarity: the facilitator should ask for more clarification if they are uncertain about what was said by a child.

Consistency: the facilitator should encourage students to consider consistency in their discussion and reasoning.

Degrees of commitment: students need to be aware of the degree of commitment to an idea; they can show support, assert, suggest, consider, doubt, oppose or reject, but they should distinguish between these commitments clearly.

Exploring disagreement: disagreement provides an opportunity to create a dialogue. But in cases of disagreement, students should also look for alternatives and be sure of why the disagreement happened and what it is about.

Considering alternatives: the discussion plan provides a good opportunity to ask students to reflect on alternative perspectives and different possibilities around the concept.

Appealing criteria: in case of disagreement or judgment, students need to present criteria for their choices. So in the case of judging, evaluating or choosing, students need to consider criteria as a guide to reasonable reaction.

Making appropriate distinctions: students need to make useful distinctions in cases where things are so much alike that differences may be overlooked, or so different that genuine similarities may be neglected.

Jumping to conclusions: students need to have a solid understanding of logical reasoning (deductive and inductive) that enables them to make generalizations in a principled and considered way.

170

Logical implication: students need to know there are logical consequences distinct from practical consequences or causal consequences; that is, they need to work towards engaging in deductive reasoning.

Conversational implication: students need to consider that their statements, commands or questions should be clear enough to prevent any misunderstanding.

Implications of events and actions: students are encouraged to consider the causes and consequences in any events that the story presents, and to think about further steps in any event.

Engaging in self-correction: CPI provides the opportunity for students to engage in self-correction; by listening carefully to others and considering alternatives or having second thoughts to what they agree or disagree.

Sharing the discussion: the discussion should not be dominated by specific members. By presenting direct questions rather than what the discussion plan entails, the facilitator can ensure a fair sharing of discussion between the members.

Respecting others: every member of the CPI needs to show respect for peers’ ideas by listening carefully, not interrupting, waiting for their turn and not monopolizing the conversation.

Keeping track of the main issue: the discussion should be coherent around the chosen topic and any shift to a different topic needs to be a conscious decision (pp. 44–55).

In the sample discussion, as shown in Table 19, the researcher highlighted which CPI tools and procedural rules were followed by the facilitator and students. The sample discussion shows how students listen to each other, building on each other’s ideas, looking for alternatives, exploring disagreements respectfully and appealing counter example for their disagreement as I discussed in Chapter 4. They also practice care for the procedural rules of inquiry, care for the problem and care for each other that reflects what Sharp (2014) argued.

171

Table 19. Sample discussion in CPI classroom

Facilitator: We talked about jealousy and you’re seeing jealousy as being on the, say, other end of the continuum to peace. If you think about a continuum and peace is up here, maybe jealousy you're suggesting is down here somewhere. Is that right? What do you think might be right at the other end of the continuum, if anything? What would be the opposite of peace, or is there an opposite of peace? What would you consider that is opposite, is the opposite of peace? [Asking the question as stimulus]

Child13: I think freedom.

Facilitator: Freedom's the opposite of peace?

Child: Kind of.

Facilitator: In what ways could freedom be opposite of peace? [Asking for clarity]

Child: Um, like ...

Facilitator: Okay, so think that one out and pass onto somebody else.

Child: Okay. I'm not even sure really, I can't even clarify that because, and build on that. I kind of, I don't think there is an opposite, because as F said like perspectives, because some people's idea of peace will be, um, living a life where they're earning lots of money, have a good family, um, they're just living their normal life with no, nothing to worry about, but then another person's peace could be um, living in a hospital bed because they're, they don't enjoy going outside because it's too much effort for, um, them in a wheelchair to get around using all that muscle all day when they'd rather just be in a hospital bed. So, I think it's mainly like at the other end of the continuum it would probably, I don't know if there is one to peace.

Facilitator: Okay. Is there anybody that does think there is one? Is there anybody that would like to disagree with that idea? [Exploring alternatives]

Child: Sorry. Um, well I think, on one I'm not quite sure if this really makes sense but on one side is peace and on the other side is peace.

Facilitator: Okay, so you're saying peace is opposite to peace?

Child: Well, yes it can be.

13 In the audio recording, it was not quite clear who put this comment. 172

Facilitator: Can you explain that? [Asking for clarity]

Child: Well, I think because like, um, when, um, A said his idea about, um, sitting in a hospital bed, um, many people probably wouldn't want to, um, sit, I mean, um, be in a hospital bed. Um, um, be in a hospital bed and for them that wouldn't really be peace and -

Facilitator: Okay, so you're saying …

Child: They would think that other things would give them peace. I'm not quite sure if …

Facilitator: You're saying …, can I just clarify. Somebody's the opposite is the different ideas of peace? Different perspectives of peace? [Seeing conversational implications]

Child: Yeah.

Facilitator: Okay. Anybody like to build on that or, or challenge that idea? [Reminding CPI procedural rules to the students]

G: I'm kind of building on that and all of this. Like, I think peace and freedom being the opposite of peace. So maybe one person's, like, vision of peace is where you have no freedom or you should be locked away in a cave where you don't have, like, you don't have the freedom to go and kill yourself, so you are kind of peaceful, but at the same time you're not peaceful because you're locked away and want to be safe or something. [Building on and connecting ideas]

Facilitator: So you're linking also, it sounds like you're linking to the idea of being in a hospital bed isn't, isn't everybody's type of freedom, so ...

Tom: Well, yes. Sort of.

Facilitator: Did that stimulate that idea for you, the idea of being restricted by something like that? Would anybody like to build on G's idea or challenge these ideas that you're hearing? So we're thinking about what is right down this other end of the continuum. Is there anything down the other end of the continuum that you feel is opposite to peace? Ever think about what disturbs your peace? What disturbs your peace? Would that sit down there at the end of the continuum? Um, G, just choose somebody when you're finished thinking. F? [Asking for building on or Exploring alternatives]

F: I'd like to kind of build on H's idea, like, sort of like peace sort of relating to B's idea that perspective of somebody else may not be your peace so then when your freedom is getting away from that kind of thing, but then wouldn't the peace be somebody else's

173

peace, so that's not really, yeah. That's sort of half explained. So freedom is sort of like the opposite of getting away from that. [Building on and connecting ideas]

Facilitator: Let me ask H. Is that what you were thinking when you first said that idea of freedom? [Seeing conversational implications]

H: I'm not sure. I lost my idea now

Facilitator: Okay.

Child: Yeah. The opposite of peace is, like, feelings because, like, anger it disturbs your peace, like you can't really feel peaceful at the same time you're angry. Like, you can't feel peaceful and annoyed.

Facilitator: Okay. What do others think about that idea? You can't feel peaceful and annoyed. Uh, E? [Exploring alternatives]

E: Well, um, it sort of relates to the idea, but um, about H’s idea, um, and also what B’s said, um, that, that I think I know what you're trying to say about freedom at the end of peace, um, because freedom is at the end of peace because, um, usually in a group with peace and being, you're clinging onto them, you're trusting them, and you're normally, just because you're with them doesn't mean you're, you're necessarily free. You're not really in charge of yourself, but freedom is normally about yourself, like ... [Building on and connecting ideas]

Facilitator: Okay.

Child: Independent, and so, wouldn't it be the opposite?

Facilitator: Let's think about that.

Child: Umm…

Facilitator: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Do you want to go to H?

H: Oh, say, say you're in a group of six people and they all have equal freedom, right? And so, um, if one has more, um, freedom than the other five, then that means this person can move out of the group and start their own or be stronger and lead the group instead of being equal with each other.

Facilitator: Okay. And how does that relate to peace? [Asking for clarity]

174

H: Um, so, like, you can trust each other at first, but if you use your strength it's like freedom is like a weapon, so the, um, so freedom's like prey, no the predator of peace, which is prey.

Facilitator: Okay, so freedom is the predator of peace. Okay, that's an interesting thought. Would anybody like to build on it or share your ideas about that? Okay, B? [Building on and connecting ideas]

B: Um, well I'm not quite sure if this is, um, relevant now but with what is going on, but do you know how you once said that, um, the opposite of peace is, uh, feelings? Well, um, well I think, um, well you can be annoyed and you have peace at the same time, but um, can I go if you're sad and you have peace? [Exploring disagreement with a counter example]

Facilitator: Okay, so you're giving a counter example to that idea?

B: Yes, and well because ...

Facilitator: So you're testing that idea with a counter example?

B: Yes, because if something really bad happened to you, like, um, something terrible happened to you, but then, um, you try not to think about it and, um, you're like in this Japanese garden or something. You try not to, um, feel, um, various emotions and like you're, you're sad deep down inside but um, um, you feel peace and you're sort of trying to focus on your true heart, so you're happy as well sort of. So, this is linked to peace. [Exploring disagreement with a counter example]

Facilitator: So you mean you could still try to find peace? [Seeing conversational implications]

Child: Yes.

Facilitator: Okay. Do you want to go back to M, because you had an idea and you might like to respond to that as well because, um, B was linking to your idea. Do you want to ...

M: Um, I do agree with B, like, uh, some feelings that you can have peace with, like obviously you could have peace with relaxation or happiness, but you wouldn't be able to have peace with things like rage or anger, but sadness it's kind of like in the middle. Like you try not to think about it but somehow it's like your prime directive, you always end up thinking about it even though you try not to. [Making appropriate distinctions]

175

7.4.4 Ball Strategy

In CPI classrooms, generally, different strategies are used to organize turn taking. In the current CPI classroom, the facilitator applied a ball strategy in which students are allowed to speak only when they have the ball in their hands. Otherwise, they should wait until they get the ball. When a student expressed their ideas, they then passed the ball to another person so that they could then speak. The problem is that students usually tended to pass the ball to their friends, even if other students were raising their hands and wanted to speak.

In the researcher’s interviews with teachers, she asked Teacher A about what students did not like about CPI. She said what the students did not like about CPI is taking turns because sometimes the children pass the ball to the same people and as a result, the discussion is dominated by them.

That’s their perception that…[the ball] is always going to same people. As a facilitator, it’s important that every now and then you just say, ‘Oh, I can see X has got her hand up. Let’s pass it to her’. That way you’re trying to make sure that [the ball] does go to everybody who wants to speak and it’s not dominated by the same children all the time.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) questioned the prevalent assumption among CPI scholars that CPI members are capable of inquiring together “while refraining from behaviors that abuse their personal power, such as dominating the inquiry process” (pp. 444–445). They argued that the assumption ignores the possibility of unequal distribution of power among CPI members. Burgh and Yorshansky explained power as the access of individuals to the CPI resources meant time and ideas which influence the outcomes of collaborative inquiry (pp. 443–445).

Domination of the discussion by a specific group of students results in unequal access among the community members to the CPI resources, and, therefore, power imbalance. Burgh and Yorshansky argued power imbalance results from habitual emotional responses that have been formed at home, in the community, church, and other institutions. They are what Peirce (1877) called prejudices and are not questioned unless they are provoked by novel circumstances. However, these emotions should not be considered as obstacles to inquiry. These emotional responses reveal the level of trust and care among CPI members and provide opportunities to genuinely explore unconscious emotional resistant 176 assumptions operating beneath the surface, which are presented as unequal sharing of power among group members. As discussed in Chapter 5, to have a Peaceful CPI classroom, the facilitators need to be aware of the power inequality and consider it as a way that the community signals its needs and solutions for conducting inquiry. The consideration could balance the power and establish trust and care among community members, which is crucial in a peaceful pedagogy.

7.4.5 Ending the Discussion; Reflecting and Evaluating

The discussion was concluded with these questions:

 What do you think about peace now?  Have you changed your mind in any way?  Have you come up with a few different ideas?  Have you added to your own ideas?

Table 20. Reflection part

Facilitator: Just before we end, if just a few of you would just like to summarize the discussion by saying what do you think about peace now? Have you changed your mind in any way? Have you come up with a few different ideas, have you added to your own ideas? What do you think about it now?

F: I think my idea of peace would be like a person that was kind to everyone, like being like nice and caring, but now my new idea is that like a way of being peaceful is by not fitting in. [Engaging in self-correction]

Facilitator: Okay, so by having some disagreement with the situation and things like that. Okay, that lends to our last idea, doesn't it about disagreement. Anybody else? B: I feel the same way about what F said. I did think that peace was just all about everything nice and like just relaxing and like sort of shutting down... [Engaging in self-correction]

Facilitator: Mm-hmm (affirmative)

B: But sometimes it can actually be a little bit stressful when you have to disagree to be peaceful.

Facilitator: Oh, when you have to disagree in order to be peaceful.

B: Yes

177

Facilitator Okay. Anybody else like to add?

E Nelson Mandela also said that peace must not include war. Now I'm starting to question that thing, is that better to have less wars or is it better to have more, because he left his hatred behind, but now I'm questioning. [Experiencing genuine doubt]

Facilitator So you're in genuine doubt about this now. [Indicating to the student that she is in genuine doubt]

E Yes

Facilitator Leaving you in genuine doubt. [Ending the discussion]

Table 20 shows how the students engaged in the reflection process and self-correction. As discussed in Chapter 5, an effective CPI should provide members with opportunities for metacognition to reflect on their thinking skills and thinking progress. Through the reflection process, students learn how knowledge is constructed and how it relies on the principle of fallibilism. So, they understand, practice and internalize being open to alternatives and self-correction through the inquiry process, which is crucial in peaceful reflection.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 4 and 5, people fixate their belief based on their past experiences and are unlikely to feel any necessity to change until they confront a genuine doubt about the efficiency of that belief. Genuine doubt breaks the resistance and uncovers prejudices. Therefore, feeling genuine doubt is crucial in changing behavior, which is a key element of peace education. An effective CPI must provide children with awareness about genuine doubt and the role it plays in reconstructing knowledge through the community of inquiry. As shown in the table, one of the students experienced genuine doubt, and the facilitator indicated it to her.

7.5 Power and control in CPI classroom

As discussed in section 7.2.3.3, peace education models are categorized into two main groups according to the degree of students’ participation: strongly controlled participation and weakly controlled participation (Haavelsrud & Stenberg, 2012, p. 70). Moreover, the researcher explained in Chapter 2 that the weakly controlled participation, which depends on dialogic educational interactions is the most effective approach in peace education

178

(UNESCO, 2008, p. 39). However, strongly controlled participation approach is an “anti- dialogical method, resulting in the reproduction of prescribed ‘old’ knowledge and the lack of production of ‘new’ knowledge” (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 4).

It is assumed that CPI is a social system that is dependent on the participation of each member of the system in which there is no intent to try to practice control over others through coercive or disciplinary power (Lushyn & Kennedy, 2003, p. 103). However, to systematically investigate the distribution of power and control in the CPI classroom, the researcher adopted Bernstein’s sociological models of classification and framing in educational contexts.

As investigated in Chapter 6, according to Bernstein, each pedagogic social context including the classroom is defined by specific power and control relations respectively classification and framing within spaces, discourses, and subjects’ categories (Morais and Neves, 2004, p. 17).

In every classroom, at the level of the interactional dimension within the spaces’ category, the relation between teacher and student refers to the selection of knowledge, sequence of learning, pacing and evaluation criteria. Table 21 shows the framing scale in a classroom from the first point (F--) to the fourth point (F++). Relatively, the first two points are corresponding to weak framing and the last two ones are considered as strong framing.

As shown in the table, framing will be strong if the teacher controls (1) the selection of teaching subjects and activities; (2) the sequence of the learning process; (3) the time given to learning (pacing); and (4) the evaluation of students against very strict criteria. On the other hand, framing will be weak when the students have some control in each category (pp. 18–19).

179

Table 21. Framing scale in a classroom

Framing scale F- - F- F+ F++

Selecting Students Discussion is Discussion is Discussion is adjusted choose the directed by directed by by prescribed questions Indicator: discussion students’ teacher’ questions and materials materials questions from from chosen Choosing already chosen materials discussion materials materials (stimuli)

Sequencing Students decide Students can Teacher has Sequencing of questions on the change the control over are adjusted by a Indicator: sequencing of sequencing of sequencing of restricted teaching plan questions questions questions Sequencing of questions

Pacing The pace of Students have Teacher has Pacing strictly adjusted discussion some control over control on pacing by restricted rules and Indicator: adjusted by the pace of time table students’ discussion Time allocated to abilities answer each question

Evaluation Teacher does Teacher asks for Teacher gives an Teacher Indicates the Criteria not make any Clarification indication of the text which is missing in notation scientific the answer Indicator: contents/ competences Incomplete which are missing answer

Note. Adapted from Morais (2002, p. 563).

In the observed CPI classroom session, the discussion started with the discussion plan designed by the researcher and the facilitator. Therefore, students had less control over conducting the discussion and sequencing the learning process (F+). However, according

180 to teachers’ interviews, in the school CPI classrooms, discussions are directed by students’ questions from chosen materials selected by teachers based on the concepts of the Australian Curriculum (F-). Findings also showed in the school CPI classroom students have some control over the sequence of the learning and conducting the discussion (F-). Based on the classroom observation, the teacher gave students some control to adjust themselves with the pace of discussion (F-) (see Table 22). However, lack of time as a structural factor could decrease the students’ control on pacing the discussion. Regarding the evaluation criteria, the teachers are no longer instructors who evaluate students with restrictive standards, but as discussed in section 7.4.3, are facilitators who observe students and guide their dialogue so that they are attentive to their reasoning and the principles of inquiry at all times. Also, as discussed in section 7.4.5, in the CPI classroom, students learn to evaluate themselves by reflection on their thinking progress (F-).

Table 22. Pacing adjustment in CPI classroom

Facilitator: You can just think about that for a minute and then we'll go around the group. If you haven't got your idea just say pass and we'll come back to you. I'll just give you a minute and so either and put your hand on your head when you've got an idea.

F: Pass, I am thinking…

Facilitator: We're going to move on even though we're missing a few people. Yeah, we'll have to, yeah. Otherwise, we'll run out of time. Who are we missing?

B: Miss, I also happen to have a word.

Facilitator: Oh, sorry, we missed, let me go back.

Moreover, the observations showed that in the school CPI classroom, there is a weak classification within the spaces category (C-). It means that teachers and students share physical and material spaces, as shown in Figure 21.

However, the interviews and the observation revealed contrasting findings about CPI classroom classification and framing in the subject category. Some findings showed that in the CPI classroom, classification and framing in the subject category is strong (F+, C+). It means hierarchies between students from different social groups specifically based on their school achievement are distinct. One student explicitly said they could not participate

181 well and the researcher observed this student. Also, some teachers reported the problem of disengaged students and domination of the discussion by a specific group of children.

On the other hand, some other findings represented weak classification and framing in the subject category of CPI classroom (F-, C-). It means hierarchies between students from different social groups specifically based on their school achievement are not distinct. According to one of the students, “in other classes such as math class, there's always going to be a person at the top of the class who's the best at math, but in philosophy, that person is everyone”. In CPI classroom children feel like a community. As one other student commented:

I see myself as the group because I'm giving my idea, but yet again, it's not my idea, it's the group's idea, so, and then when somebody builds on my idea, or the group's idea, I kind of feel like I'm growing as a person in that kind of group discussion.

Findings also showed, in the CPI classrooms, the hierarchies between teachers and students are blurred. According to the observation and interviews, in the CPI classrooms, teachers are facilitators rather than the controllers in the class. As Teacher E said when engaged in CPI, children gradually learn to regulate their behaviors by conducting themselves through CPI rules. Teacher E continued

The children are very aware of the rules that they need to be respectful, and we’ve explored what rules mean in depth in that they need to listen carefully to each other and they need to build on each other’s ideas.

Finally, in the discourse14 category, philosophy in comparison with other disciplines such as science or mathematics has weaker classification and framing. It means in philosophical discussion, the contrast between academic and non-academic is less distinct. It is one thing that students like about CPI classroom in which, according to one of the students, “there is always more than or mostly more than one answer” is correct. However, “[i]n other classes, when someone has a turn at the board, if they get it correct, nobody else can say another answer because the one answer is already there if they were”.

14 In the current research, the focus is just on CPI pedagogy not the discourse. So, I will not discuss it in detail here. 182

In conclusion, the findings indicate that classification and framing and respectively power and control in the school CPI classrooms are weak. However, this does not mean power is not abused in some situations in the CPI classrooms. As Lushyn and Kennedy (2003) argued, power and control are the fundamental characteristics of human system dynamics. Therefore, in an open system like CPI, there is always a possibility of abuse of power. This reflects what was discussed in section 7.4.4 that sometimes in the school CPI classrooms discussion is dominated by a specific group of students.

7.6 Summary In this chapter, the researcher presented the findings of the case study in four major parts: ‘what teachers say about CPI?’, ‘what students say about CPI?’, ‘what a CPI classroom looks like?’ and ‘power and control in CPI classroom’. To answer the research questions, the researcher discussed the findings in six major categories including:

 Teachers’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  Students’ perceptions of CPI and its contribution to peace  The effects of CPI on teachers’ social and thinking skills  The effects of CPI on students’ social and thinking skills  How power and control were distributed in CPI classroom  Limitations and challenges of CPI with regard to peace education

The findings showed teachers and students perceived CPI to reduce violent conflicts and promote peaceful interactions within and outside the school environment. Teachers believed aggressive behaviors and interactions in students have significantly reduced after implementation of CPI in the school. On the other hand, the findings showed that CPI has some limitations regarding the distribution of power among community members and disengaged students from philosophical discussion. However, the researcher explained that Peaceful CPI, the modified version of CPI could address these limitations.

In Chapter 8, the researcher concluded the key findings of the study and answered the central research questions. After that, the implications and limitations of the study were investigated and some recommendations for further research were suggested.

183

8 Conclusion 8.1 Introduction

Since there is an emphasis on the importance of education as a principle means of building a culture of peace (e.g. United Nations, 1999), it is necessary to evaluate peace education programs. Therefore, the thesis aimed to examine the potential and limitations of CPI as an candidate pedagogy for peace. The researcher pointed out that existing peace education models lack a rich and integrated framework for peace pedagogy. The researcher also criticized peace education models for generally appealing to a negative notion of peace as merely the absence of conflict rather than a positive vision of the capacity to respond to conflict as a way of personal and social transformation, and, therefore, tend to appeal to values education or character education.

To address these criticisms, the researcher reviewed the theory and epistemology underlying pragmatism to provide a framework that underpins my proposal for peace pedagogy. The researcher explained pragmatism as a philosophical movement originated around 1870, in the USA, with Peirce (1839–1914) and Dewey (1859–1952) being the most significant classical pragmatists. According to the epistemology of pragmatist theory, our knowledge and cognition are constructed based on our attempts to survive in the world by dealing with problematic experiences. Humans can only learn when they encounter a problematic experience leading to a specific kind of persistent, rigorous and self-correcting inquiry, which is characterized by the interactions of the inquirers moving between states of genuine doubt (or disequilibrium) and fixed belief (or equilibrium), resulting in action, confidence and eventually to belief-habits (Peirce, 1877).

The epistemology of pragmatism could change individuals’ approach towards conflicts as an opportunity for growth rather than something negative that should be eliminated. According to conflict resolution studies, there are five different strategies which people use to handle conflicts. These strategies are: (1) avoidance: a passive strategy that aims to hide and ignore conflict instead of resolving it; (2) accommodation: a win-lose strategy based on low concern for self and ignoring own needs and goals out of fear of harming the relationship; (3) competing: an aggressive strategy based on high concern for self and low concern for others; (4) compromise: a type of a middle ground strategy between competing and accommodating; and (5) collaboration: a win-win strategy that relies on strong cooperation and assertiveness.

184

However, according to pragmatist scholars, the collaborative inquiry is the most reliable way to deal with conflicts or problematic experience and moving from the state of disequilibrium to the comfort of equilibrium. It is because, through the inquiry method, people reflect on their belief-habits and remain fallible until they have exhausted all possibilities to find equilibrium. The shift from disequilibrium to equilibrium is what Dewey (1916) called reconstruction of belief-habit where people adapt their new knowledge and skills, and where old habits are no longer seen as effective strategies for dealing with problematic situations. The process of modification of habits and habitat through the creation of new associations in response to new problems leads to progress and personal and social transformation.

In Chapter 4, the researcher investigated CPI in Lipman’s educational theory, which is built on pragmatist theory, and argued CPI could provide an appropriate environment for peace education and violence reduction. The researcher argued Lipman’s educational philosophy builds on the principle that communities of inquiry—a community of individuals engaged in intersubjective communication in the form of dialogical inquiry—are the exemplar of the social dimension of democracy in which individuals are fallible regarding knowledge and require rigorous inquiry within a community to mitigate conflicts and disagreements.

Many writers in the tradition of P4C explained how CPI can provide an appropriate environment for educating for peace and the reduction of violence. According to Splitter and Sharp (1995), children come into the classroom with different views and prejudices on many issues, including those related to peace and violence. CPI classroom allows all views to be listened to, discussed, and investigated as genuine disagreement, in which all beliefs are considered fallible, and subject to rigorous, self-correcting inquiry. Therefore, if a child comes to understand that their belief is rationally indefensible, they reconstruct their thinking. Otherwise, if no one is concerned to engage children in a genuine collaborative inquiry, “we would not be surprised to find that, years later, he is not only unwilling, but unable, to reflect on his views and feelings, or to self-correct” (p. 197).

Redshaw (1994) claimed CPI is an educational setting that allows children to respectfully disagree with others. The process allows for different views and disagreements to provisionally have equal value, credibility, and opportunity to be offered, listened to, and examined without any threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has suggested it. Gregory (2004) also claimed the notion of conflict is valuable in CPI because it suggests diversity in options which enrich the community’s judgments. Indeed, “conflict of opinion is 185 essential for robust inquiry in which the better and truer ideas tend to win out in open competition” (p. 270).

By converting classrooms into communities of inquiry, the teacher and students have the opportunity to practice and internalize the inquiry skills and apply them to resolve the conflicts inside and outside the classroom. As Burgh and Thornton (2016a) examined, CPI provides an educational setting for students to experience the phenomenological aspect of inquiry, to experience genuine doubt, to question, to test their beliefs, and develop hypotheses as part of the process of dealing with disagreement.

Moreover, Lipman (2003) argued that many peace education models fail, since they cultivate only a superficial understanding of the concepts related to peace and violence instead of helping children to understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace education. However, in CPI, children learn to think for themselves and to be reasonable. According to Lipman (1993), a reasonable person makes reasonable judgments through the process of inquiry. Reasonableness is cultivated through the improvement of critical, creative and caring thinking in CPI.

Following that, as discussed in Chapter 4, Sharp (2014) expanded on Lipman’s caring thinking and called it caring practice. Sharp argued to foster caring thinking individuals need much more than logic and reason. It is through communal inquiry that children discover many things about themselves and the world. They commit themselves to the process of communal inquiry, including the principle of fallibilism, and to practice care for the tools of inquiry, care for the problems, care for the form of the dialogue, and care for each other as they proceed in the inquiry itself. Indeed, the community of inquiry provides students with a positive sense of belonging; as they begin to recognize their dependency upon the community of inquiry procedures, they begin to care for and feel protective of those procedures (p. 122).

Chesters (2012) elaborated on Sharp’s views, adding that caring thinking is connective thinking. According to Chesters, connective thinking is much more than just relationships among people: “It sets standards by engaging in normative thinking, analogous reasoning, empathy, and attentive awareness through listening and questioning” (p. 152). In concert with creative thinking, which she calls generative thinking, “connective thinking creates new ways of making connections. It connects the social with the mental, the generative

186 and evaluative aspects of thinking, the cognitive and the affective, risk and trust, and rationality and empathy” (p. 152).

To conclude, the researcher built on Lipman’s educational theory to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education, drawing on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom. The researcher argued CPI has the potential to provide an appropriate environment for peace education and violence reduction. However, during her studies and classroom observation, the researcher detected some limitations of CPI in practice, including the potential for inequality and epistemic violence in the classroom. Scholars have already addressed some of these problems, including reluctance and hostility of students towards CPI, power imbalance and epistemic violence in CPI classrooms which are the results of unquestioned prejudices, and privileging of western values, logic and rationality (Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011; Chetty, 2017; Chetty & Suissa, 2017; Thornton & Burgh, 2017; Turgeon, 1988)

Turgeon (1988) argued in spite of the vast amount of literature and experimental research in favour of students’ eagerness and openness for philosophical engagement, the problem of reluctant or disruptive students in the community of inquiry is not uncommon. Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) claimed that while CPI is regarded by many scholars as an “exemplar of democracy in action”, the distribution of power among members of the CPI classroom can be unequal. Chetty (2017) questioned CPI as an egalitarian safe space because he thought the basic guidelines could suppress some emotions such as anger about injustice and unequal distribution of power among group members. Thornton and Burgh (2017) contended that every classroom is a microcosm of the larger community in which it is situated, and can, therefore, reproduce the epistemic practices and injustices of that community through curriculum and pedagogy; hence, the CPI classroom is not immune from epistemic injustices and violence. According to Murris (2013), epistemic injustice happened when adults see children as “other” who are epistemologically incomplete, irrational or untrustworthy. These prejudices are obstacles to hearing the child’s voice and will cause her removal from contributing to the body of knowledge just because of the age of the speaker (p. 253). She continues that these prejudices extend to multicultural classrooms, where the children from outside the dominant culture “are wrongfully excluded from participation in the practice that defines the core of the very concept of knowledge” (Fricker, 2007, p. 145). That is what Chetty and Suissa (2017)

187 argued that CPI, same as other pedagogies, is not immune from ignoring or silencing multicultural voices in its pedagogy and curriculum.

These arguments reveal the gap between an ideal CPI and an actual CPI and the variety of problems that can occur in CPI classroom that does not match the rhetoric that CPI is an exemplar of a ‘peaceful’ pedagogy. To fill the gap, the researchers built on the problems’ explanations and suggested solutions provided by Turgeon (1988), Chetty (2017), Chetty and Suissa (2017) and Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) to propose a modification of CPI that the researcher call Peaceful CPI. The researcher’s main ideas of Peaceful CPI are: (1) epistemic biases that students and teachers bring to the classroom are cultural and institutional and are not questioned until a novel situation questions them; (2) to achieve Peaceful CPI, more emphasis is needed on students’ emotions in the process of philosophical inquiry; and (3) peaceful inquiry requires teachers who are conscious of fallibility of narratives and their own prejudices.

According to Burgh and Yorshansky (2011), power imbalance in the CPI classroom are caused by habitual emotional responses are formed at home, in the community, church, and other institutions. They are what Peirce called prejudices and are not questioned unless they are provoked by novel situations. However, they are not obstacles to inquiry, and they could provide opportunities to genuinely explore unconscious emotional resistant assumptions operating beneath the surface, which are presented as unequal sharing of power among community members. Teachers need to be aware of the power inequality considering it as a way that community signals its needs and solutions for conducting inquiry. The consideration could balance the power and establish trust and care among community members, which is crucial in a Peaceful CPI.

Turgeon (1988) also saw the problem of disengaged students in CPI classroom as something positive that provides opportunities to start an honest and genuine inquiry with children about their hidden assumptions and prejudices regarding their reluctance or hostility. Then, she proposed different strategies to make children genuinely doubt their assumptions, to reflect on and probably change them. Chetty (2017), on the other hand, believed emotions like anger are informative of injustice and unequal distribution of power among group members and should have a space to be explored in CPI classroom. This is significant for the development of Peaceful CPI, because it prevents labeling such informative emotions as negative, impolite, disrespectful, illogical, unreasonable, and so forth, which block further exploration. Attending to emotions like anger or reluctance gives 188 the inquiry a chance to step into the students’ deep-seated beliefs and assumptions. Silencing and ignoring are two forms of epistemic violence which (1) close the possibility of the child genuinely doubting and reflecting on their prejudices; and (2) block unfamiliar voices such as multicultural ones from contributing and influencing the inquiry process.

Finally, Thornton and Burgh (2017) through the idea of development of “traitorous identities” in teachers, and Chetty and Suissa (2017) through the idea of putting CPI practitioners into the discomfort of “no go areas”, tackled the issue of epistemic violence in the CPI classroom. This is vital for Peaceful CPI because a peaceful inquiry requires teachers who are conscious of the fallibility of narratives and their own prejudices, able to suspend their normative judgments, willing to hear anything unfamiliar and reflect on their beliefs to become a model for intellectual freedom for students. The intellectual freedom is very important for peaceful inquiry, especially in multicultural educational settings. Without it, epistemic injustice is perpetuated by dominant narratives or cultures.

These are necessary conditions for Peaceful CPI and resolving the problems of CPI. Converting a CPI classroom into a Peaceful CPI requires modification of the role of facilitators who are conscious of the fallibility of narratives and their own belief-habits so that they are open to hearing the unfamiliar and peacefully attend to students’ emotions without silencing or ignoring those emotions. As Costa-Carvalho and Mendonça (2017) argued, attending to emotions in the inquiry process “does not mean simply to ‘think’ about them, or to subject them to rational criteria, but to consider them as modes of judgment on par with logical and other cognitive judgments, so that each may inform the other” (p. 131).

To argue the efficiency of CPI and to answer the main research question that whether or not CPI provides an effective model for Peace Pedagogy, the researcher carried out a case study research in a state school in an Australian capital city, in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole school approach to pedagogy since 2009. Teachers’ interviews, students’ focus group interviews, and the researcher’s classroom observations were analyzed to investigate when CPI is established effectively:

 Do teachers and students perceive that CPI reduces violent or aggressive behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions? 189

 student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

 Do teachers and students perceive CPI to promote peaceful behaviours and interactions

a) within the school environment regarding  teacher/student interactions?  student/student interactions?  student behaviors?  teacher behaviors? b) outside the school environment? and c) If so, how?

These questions informed both the research methodology and data gathering strategies selected for the study and provided the conceptual framework for corroborating the capacity of CPI as peace pedagogy and its contributions to violence reduction and peace promotion in the school environment, resulting in a range of findings that have been presented in Chapter 7.

8.2 Key Findings

The key findings derived from teachers' individual interviews, students’ focus group interview and the researcher’s classroom observation were classified into six different categories. The findings showed teachers and students perceived CPI to reduce violent conflicts and promote peaceful interactions within and outside the school environment. On the other hand, findings suggested CPI may have some limitations regarding the distribution of power among community members and disengaged students from philosophical discussion. 8.2.1 Teachers’ Perception of CPI and its Contribution to Peace

According to the interviews, the teachers perceived CPI is valuable and important in the school because of several reasons. First, it is because CPI “is about becoming a thinker—

190 about teaching students how to think and not what to think”.15 Therefore, it helps students not always to be dependent upon adults to advise them about what to do. Instead, they become empowered to find their own answers and communicate the answers to others. Teaching children to think for themselves and getting to the depth of learning is crucial in education for peace. As Lipman (1995) argued, if we are to educate for peace and violence reduction “it is not enough to cultivate immediate emotional responses or to reiterate how good peace is and how bad violence is” (p. 121). Instead, children need to “both understand and practice what is involved in violence-reduction and peace- development” (p. 121). That is why “so many attempts to educate for peace have failed” (p. 121). By providing proper stimuli in the CPI classroom, children learn the depth of peace and conflict matters instead of cultivating a superficial understanding regarding these concepts.

Second, teachers also argued that CPI is valuable as it improves students’ social behaviors. According to one of the teachers, “after a while, you find that students are more tolerant, accepting and more willing to negotiate with each other if they have an issue. They will accept other people’s opinions are different to their own”. In Chapters 3 and 4, the researcher discussed caring thinking as the third dimension of multi- dimensional thinking in CPI. The researcher explored caring thinking as a form of emotional thinking, which has an important role in education. In CPI, children are committing themselves to practice care for the tools of inquiry, care for the problems, care for the others, which emphasize the connections between students through reciprocity, acceptance of difference, trust, and hearing. By learning and practicing caring for others through CPI, students cultivate and internalize peaceful behaviors and interactions with others.

Third, CPI is important as it is “allowing students [not merely] to have a voice, but to have a respectable voice, in the sense where they can feel, for a moment, valued and treated like an equal16”. As discussed in Chapter 4, CPI is an educational setting which allows children to understand that we can respect persons while still disagreeing with them. The process allows for different views and disagreements to provisionally have equal value, credibility and opportunity to be offered, listened to and examined without any threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has suggested it (Redshaw, 1994, p. 13). The

15 The quote is from one of the teachers. 16 The quote is from one of the teachers. 191 cooperative, non-confrontational and collaborative environment can prepare an appropriate environment for educating for peace and the reduction of violence in which all views, including those related to peace and violence, can be listened to, discussed and investigated as disagreements within a rigorous self-correcting inquiry. Otherwise, if no one is concerned to engage children in a genuine collaborative inquiry regarding, for instance, violent behaviors, it would not be surprising to find that, years later, children are not only unwilling, but unable, to reflect on their views and feelings, or to self-correct (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 197).

Also, the teachers perceived CPI has a contribution to make more peaceful lives for students. As another teacher expressed, CPI teaches children to “look [for] and consider new ideas, to accommodate a range of people’s perspectives and not just their own thoughts or what they may have heard from their own family” that “develops empathy and respect among people and it does bring peace”. Moreover, CPI can bring peace for students because it helps them to be more confident and comfortable with who they are. Indeed, philosophy allows them to think reflectively about their own life—their own beliefs, values, and opinions, who they are and what sort of person they are becoming. These contribute to their overall wellbeing. Third, CPI contributes to a more peaceful life for students as it helps them to peacefully coexist through solving their conflicts reasonably. Finally, CPI makes more harmonious lives for students, since it teaches them to have a better relationship with others.

8.2.2 Students’ Perceptions of CPI and its Contribution to Peace

According to the students’ focus group interview, CPI is important and valuable for students because it cultivates their reflective thinking as well as develops their capacity to resolve problems. As mentioned in Chapter 3, for Dewey (2004), reflective thinking is a synonym of inquiry. Through reflective thinking students learn to suspend their judgments in order to explore and examine the alternative solutions for a conflict or a problematic situation. Therefore, whenever they encounter a problematic situation, they do not simply react according to their immediate unexamined judgments. Instead, they learn to turn the conflict into peaceful reflection to move from disequilibrium to the new understanding or equilibrium. According to one of the pupils, CPI is valuable because “…you just think like, whose fault was it? Was it actually his fault that he stepped on my pencil, or was it just an accident?” It is what students learn in CPI classroom to reflect on their thinking, looking for different perspectives and correcting themselves to choose the best answers. 192

Students also believed philosophical inquiry is valuable because it could help individuals in solving problems and making progress. As explained in Chapter 3, when one is confronted with a situation and cannot respond to it in a way to satisfy its needs or desires, it transforms its environment as well as its habits to produce desirable ends. However, according to Dewey (2004), the transformation will be more effective and meaningful through inquiry or reflective thinking. Dewey (2004) also asserted that progress or growth is the constant and continuous transformation of habits and environment. Thus, by cultivating inquiry skills, CPI empowers students to meaningfully reconstruct their problematic experience and transform their environments and their habits. As one of the students commented, “I think like, without philosophy we wouldn't be where we are now because it's a way to kind of resolve conflict or kind of get a new understanding of something…”. It is what makes CPI potentially effective pedagogy for peace because as discussed in Chapter 4, an effective peace education appreciates the dynamism of disequilibrium as a way to growth and transformation.

Furthermore, findings showed what students like about CPI is the way they help each other to build ideas and make the discussion go further. They enjoy learning as a community through dialogue. This is what Sharp (2014) explained as positive sense of belonging when they begin to recognize their dependency upon the community of inquiry procedures and care for those procedures. Consequently, they enjoy it when their ideas are modified through the inquiry guided by the principle of fallibilism, self-correction and dialogue by their classmates on the way to finding the best answers. One of their comments was “I think everyone in that kind of group is learning, so like, when someone does build on your idea, it means that they've acknowledged that and they've got that understanding that kind of links together and when a disagreement comes, that person that said that idea notices that it's not always correct…”.

Finally, students’ perception of the contribution of CPI to a more peaceful life is divided into two contrasting categories. The first category belongs to students who agreed that CPI could make the world a better place to live. They believed that CPI helps people deal with conflicts reasonably and disagree peacefully instead of fighting and making wars. They also believed CPI could provide a better world through developing reflective thinking in individuals.

Using reflective thinking helps people change their old behavior patterns and habits which no longer fit in the situation. In his famous paper, “Fixation of Belief,” Peirce (1877) argued

193 that beliefs guide individuals’ desires and shapetheir actions, and they start to reflect on their beliefs when they confront a genuine doubt about the efficiency of that belief. Therefore, the reflection makes them modify or reject any belief which does not seem to get the expected results. According to one of the students, “[i]t’s like you're continuing a pattern, and the pattern's going over and over again, and I don't want to continue that pattern”. The modification is what Dewey (1916) called reconstruction of belief-habit, which results in progress and personal and social transformation.

However, the second category belongs to those who were quite skeptical that CPI could make the world a better place to live. They argued peace would not be achieved by one person or a group of people engaging in CPI. To make the world more peaceful, we need more people to agree with the ideas of peace. According to one of the students, “you cannot make the world a better place just by yourself”. It is what Harris (2004) pointed out: peace is a multi-layered process and is an essential facet incorporated into all levels of society from interpersonal and intergroup to national and international levels.

8.2.3 The Effects of CPI on Students

According to the interviews, CPI had positive effects on students’ self-development, social skills, conflict management, and self-correction skills. It reduced aggressive behaviors and interactions within and outside the school environment. The findings also reveal CPI promoted peaceful behaviours and interactions among the students.

Teachers’ interviews showed CPI has positive effects on students’ self-development. They claimed that CPI improved students’ self-confidence and self-esteem as thinkers since it provides them a non-confrontational and collaborative environment in which, as Redshaw (1994) claimed, all views have equal value, credibility and opportunity to be offered, listened to and investigated without any threat of discrediting or invalidating the child who has proposed it. Also, the constructive teaching approach in CPI involves students to have a growth mindset, which encouraged them to believe they can learn. Building an effective, integrated personality with positive self-esteem in children is an important factor in peace education. According to UNESCO (2001), an effective peace education model should develop self-esteem in students to empower them to live peacefully in society. Having positive self-esteem can help them have a desirable level of assertiveness which is crucial in building more harmonic relationships with others (Gupta, 2013; Thakore, 2013; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Thomas, 1976)

194

Teachers’ interviews also showed that CPI develops students’ social skills, such as respecting and valuing differences, compassion, and collaboration. Teachers believed philosophy had made a considerable difference to the culture of the school and the classrooms by changing the way students relate to each other peacefully and respectfully and appreciating their differences. This reflects the view that CPI provides an environment for the cultivation of caring thinking, as Sharp (2014) explained. Indeed, in the process of communal inquiry children are committing themselves to practice care for the procedural rules of inquiry, care for the problems, care for the form of the dialogue, and care for each other. Developing skills and attitudes of respect, tolerance of difference, compassion, co- operation, and positive sense of belonging could improve the quality of relationship among students and teacher which makes a culture of peace pedagogically possible as part of the ‘natural’ environment of the school.

This is further attested from the interviews that reveal CPI has made significant changes to students’ interactions and the way they are managing the conflicts. All teachers emphasize that after implementation of CPI, the school climate gradually became more peaceful insofar developing what might be described as a culture of communication or an empathetic community of inquiry. Teachers reported before starting CPI, “there were huge behavioral difficulties”. However, after introducing CPI to the school, “the incidences of poor behavior were drastically reduced”. Teachers added that aggressive behaviors used to be very regular in the school. Children used to punch each other, show high levels of anger or storm out of classes. However, through CPI, they found a way to deal with conflicts. They found a way to talk about their conflict, discuss it with each other, think about how the other person is feeling and looking at things from different perspectives.

CPI makes the students more reasonable in playground disputes. However, according to the interviews, the students’ changes in handling the disputes are not limited to the school playground and “some parents have reported their children started to discuss ideas rather than have a conflict with their siblings quite often”. In other words, they became more communicative in their attitude toward others, or as Sharp (2014) put it, they showed caring behavior. Students internalized the ways of thinking in a CPI classroom and transferred them beyond the classroom and school playground. Dewey (1916) argued that this is a kind of reconstruction where students adapt their new knowledge and skills to different contexts where they engage with their existing environments in different ways— which old habits are no longer seen as effective strategies for dealing with conflict.

195

Through the processes of CPI, they learn to listen to each other attentively, value what somebody else is saying and attempt to develop an understanding of the perspective of others. When students are able to understand how a particular person feels about a specific issue and why they might behave in a certain way, they are more able to deal with conflict rather than react to the situation without reflection. Understanding how others feel requires empathy, and, hence, the need to emphasize caring thinking, which can be fostered in communities of inquiry.

Students also expressed that they learn through CPI to handle conflicts better. They argued CPI helps them reflect on their emotions, such as anger and thinking about its causes and consequences instead of unreflectively reacting as the first step in dealing with conflict. This helped them explore conflict more reasonably and be able to care for others and listen to the different perspectives about an issue. According to one of the students in CPI classroom you learn “[i]nstead of like, running at somebody and just start hitting them randomly because you're angry with their decision, you're able to hear their side of the story, what they believe in that thing”. Furthermore, through CPI, children learn to see the conflict as disagreement. Reframing conflict as a disagreement, as discussed in Chapter 4, provides an opportunity to address the problematic experiences beyond creating dualisms and to respect persons while still disagreeing with their ideas. Indeed, CPI helped students to be able to peacefully disagree with others. As another student expressed, “… you can disagree reasonably, respectfully, so that like, making them feel like you're not their worst enemy, that you hate them, but you just disagree with the idea that they've presented, so then there's that kind of disagreement with the ideas, not the two people”.

According to teachers’ interviews, CPI provided the opportunity for students to engage in self-correction, by listening carefully to others and considering alternatives and challenging their way of thinking and changing their ideas. Teachers supposed CPI improves reflective thinking in students, which is problematic situations, helps them make better decisions instead of just reacting. This was identified as a major contributor as to why children’s behaviors have changed enormously in these six years. Indeed, one of the most important advantages of converting the classroom into a community of inquiry, as Lipman (2003) stated, is that the participants practice and internalize the methods and procedures of inquiry as well as the principle of fallibilism, which means every knowledge claim is open to challenge, revision and correction. So, the students begin to correct each other and are

196 able to become self-correcting in their thinking. As one of the teachers indicated, “[y]ou can see the feature quite directly [from students] following discussions when you hear things like ‘I think I’ve changed my mind’, ‘I am thinking about this again’, ‘I am thinking about this in different way’.

This is crucial for peace education because while students feel disequilibrium in a problematic or conflicting situation, they do not react and look for solutions through tenacity, authority, and a priori methods to get to equilibrium. Instead, they engage in reflective thinking to make more reasonable decisions. They are even open to changing their belief-habits if necessary. This was discussed in Chapter 4: that peace is not the absence of conflict but is the way individuals turn the conflict into peaceful reflection to grow and transform.

8.2.4 The Effects of CPI on Teachers

According to teachers’ interviews, CPI had positive effects on teachers’ interactions in the school. After one year from the implementation of CPI, “the whole culture of respect changed, not just amongst the children but amongst the teachers” in the school. It is because “CPI teacher training or professional development always worked in the community of inquiry”, so the teachers practiced it regularly.

Findings also showed teachers learned to become more open to reflect on their thinking, genuinely doubt their belief and fix their belief through inquiry. As one of the teachers confirmed CPI

has taught me to listen to the children, to be wrong about things, to accept children to challenge me on something and not feel threatened by that, [and] to change my mind about something….

Indeed, through the collaborative inquiry, teachers—as with their students—learned how knowledge is constructed and relies on the principle of fallibilism. So, they understood, practiced, and internalized to listen attentively, to be open for alternatives and differences and to correct themselves through the inquiry process. It is crucial for peace pedagogy as peace is not the absence of conflict, but is the capacity to turn conflict into peaceful inquiry, which is the epistemological basis of pragmatism.

Moreover, findings show teachers gradually noticed their epistemic biases towards children, which is crucial in CPI and Peaceful CPI. According to the findings, the teachers

197 genuinely doubted and corrected their past belief-habit meaning seeing children as epistemologically incomplete and irrational “other” to a new habit of considering students as people and realizing that what they say is important and should be listened to respectfully and attentively. One of the teachers wondered if students would find some things difficult. However, now,

I think because they're people. They're not just students that sit in front of you. …what they say is important and you need to really listen. You're actually following the same philosophy rules as well. Listen attentively, disagree respectfully. I do that.

8.2.5 Power and Control in CPI Classroom

As discussed in Chapter 2, peace education could be recognized in two main categories, which are constructed according to the degree of participation: strongly controlled participation and weakly controlled participation (Haavelsrud and Stenberg, 2012, p. 70). However, according to UNESCO (2008), weakly controlled participation is the most effective approach in peace education (p. 39). It is due to the principle that in peace education, “the educational interaction should be in harmony with the idea of peace” (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 3). Therefore, the teacher and students should have equal participation in the educational process through having a dialogue about a problem and the teacher is not the expert in resolving the problems. On the other hand, strongly controlled participation approach is an “anti-dialogical method, resulting in the reproduction of prescribed ‘old’ knowledge and the lack of production of ‘new’ knowledge” (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 4). Moreover, the learners’ right to participate in the process of developing knowledge is denied in this method, which is an example of cultural and epistemic violence.

The CPI classroom, however, can be understood as an interactive, open and self- regulating pedagogic system (Lushyn & Kennedy, 2003). It is assumed that CPI is a social system that is dependent on the participation of each member of the system in which there is no intent to try to practice control over others through coercive or disciplinary power. Therefore, it has a significant difference from traditional pedagogic systems involving overtly unequal relations of power and control (p. 103).

However, according to Lushyn and Kennedy (2003), power and control are the fundamental characteristics of human system dynamics. In an open system like CPI, there 198 is always a possibility of abuse of power. In the research, a new way of describing and understanding the power and control relations in the CPI classroom was examined. To systematically investigate the distribution of power and control in CPI classroom, the researcher adopted Bernstein’s sociological models of classification and framing of educational context. Investigating the findings that arose from teachers’ and students’ interviews as well as the classroom observation through the lens of Bernstein’s classification and framing theoretical framework, revealed that the power and control within the school CPI classrooms generally are weak; however, this does not mean power is not abused in some situations in the CPI classrooms in the school.

Following the interviews and the classroom observation, in the school’s CPI classrooms, stimuli including text, questions or discussion plans are selected by the teachers based on the concepts of the Australian Curriculum. However, students have some control over the sequence of the learning, conducting the discussion, and asking their questions. The teachers give students some control to adjust themselves to the pace of the discussion. However, the lack of time as a structural factor could decrease students’ control on pacing the discussion. Regarding the evaluation criteria, the teachers are no longer instructors who evaluate students with restricted standards but are facilitators who observe students and guide their dialogue, so they are attentive to their reasoning and the principles of inquiry at all times. Also, in the CPI classroom, students learn to evaluate themselves by reflection on their thinking progress.

However, the interviews and the observation revealed contrasting findings about hierarchies between students from different social groups specifically based on their school achievement. Some findings showed that in the CPI classroom, hierarchies between students specifically based on their school achievement are distinct. One student explicitly said they could not participate well and the researcher observed this student. Also, some teachers reported the problem of disengaged students and domination of the discussion by a specific group of children.

On the other hand, some other findings represented hierarchies between students from different social groups specifically based on their school achievement are not distinct. According to one of the students, “in other classes such as math class, there's always going to be a person at the top of the class who's the best at math, but in philosophy, that person is everyone”. In CPI classroom children feel like a community. As one other student commented:

199

I see myself as the group because I'm giving my idea, but yet again, it's not my idea, it's the group's idea, so, and then when somebody builds on my idea, or the group's idea, I kind of feel like I'm growing as a person in that kind of group discussion.

Also, in the CPI classrooms, the hierarchy between teachers and students is blurred. The teachers are facilitators rather than the controllers in the class. As teacher E said when engaged in CPI, children gradually learn to regulate their behaviors by conducting themselves through CPI rules. She continued

The children are very aware of the rules that they need to be respectful and we’ve explored what rules mean in depth in that they need to listen carefully to each other and they need to build on each other’s ideas.

However, according to Burgh and Yorshansky (2011), there is a possibility of domination of a group of students over others. In CPI classrooms, generally, different strategies are used to organize turn-taking for sharing ideas. In the current school CPI classrooms, a ball strategy is used in which students are allowed to speak only when they have the ball in their hands. Otherwise, they should wait until they get the ball. When a student expressed their ideas, they then passed the ball to another person so that they could then speak. In the interviews, teachers mentioned what students did not like about CPI is the way of taking turns, is that sometimes students pass the ball to the same people and as a result, the discussion is dominated by them.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Burgh and Yorshansky (2011) questioned the prevalent assumption that CPI members are capable of inquiring together “while refraining from behaviors that abuse their personal power, such as dominating the inquiry process” (pp. 444–445). They argue that the assumption ignores the possibility of unequal distribution of power among CPI members. Burgh and Yorshansky explained power imbalance as unequal access of individuals to the CPI resources meant time and ideas which influence the outcomes of collaborative inquiry (pp. 443–445).

Burgh and Yorshansky argued power imbalance in CPI classroom results from habitual emotional responses which are formed at home, in the community, church and other institutions. They are what Peirce called prejudices and are not questioned unless they are provoked by novel situations. However, these emotional responses should not be considered as obstacles to inquiry as they could provide opportunities for individual and

200 group transformation. It is because these emotional responses reveal the level of trust and care among group members that is crucial for the goal of becoming democratic. To have a Peaceful CPI, the teachers need to be aware of the power inequality considering it as a way that community signals its needs and solutions for conducting inquiry.

8.2.6 Limitations and challenges of CPI

According to the teachers’ and students’ interviews and the classroom observation, there were, however, some students who were seemingly disengaged from CPI discussions at the school. This reflects Turgeon’s (1998) argument that despite the literature in favor of CPI regarding students’ eagerness and openness for philosophical engagement, in practice, this is not always achieved. Several reasons prevent children from engaging in CPI discussions. Turgeon, for instance, recognized some possible explanations for the disengagement including students’ negative perceptions about the nature of philosophy, their personal life crises—such as poverty, divorce and abuse—and interpersonal or intergroup conflicts among students.

However, as discussed in Chapter 5, the problem could be addressed through Peaceful CPI, the modified version of CPI. In Peaceful CPI, the notion of the disengaged students is considered as an opportunity to start an honest and genuine inquiry with children and step into the students’ deep-seated beliefs and assumptions. Students’ disengagement also could be educative and could reveal something about CPI classroom, for instance, power imbalance among the members. However, it could simply be ignored by teachers when it is labeled as the lack of skills in the students to engage in the CPI discussions. As aforementioned, silencing and ignoring are two forms of epistemic violence which not only close the possibility of the child genuinely doubting and reflecting on his prejudices but also block unfamiliar voices such as multicultural ones from contributing to and influencing the inquiry process. Therefore, one of the requirements of converting the CPI classroom to Peaceful CPI is to modify the role of facilitators so that they peacefully attend to students’ emotions such as feeling disengaged or meta-emotions such as feeling embarrassed about their disengagement.

The second group of issues is (1) the threat of discarding CPI from the school curriculum because it is not part of the compulsory curriculum; (2) the school time-table being already overloaded and not allocating enough time to CPI (just an hour in a week); (3) some teachers having resistance to implement CPI; and (4) contradictions between expectations

201 from teachers in CPI and the usual classroom. These issues are mostly related to the educational structure of the school. In Chapter 2, the researcher discussed the importance of context or organizational structure in which a peace program is performed. She explained that most educational systems identified with basic characteristics such as the distribution of knowledge in different subjects, specific criteria for the teachers of each subject, classification of students in different classes and time division to study and break (Haavelsrud, 2008, p. 4). Therefore, these basic characteristics of the educational organization could influence the content and structure of peace education programs and even contrast with them. CPI as an optional program within the educational context of the state school is not immune to these structural effects.

The last group of issues is related to CPI itself. They are (1) teachers sometimes feel confused as to how to facilitate the discussion; (2) for some children CPI discussion tools are confusing; and (3) CPI could make students overthink and worry about what people think and why they think in that way. These are some unexpected results that could be addressed in future studies.

8.3 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

The findings of the study have generated a range of implications that will impact educational theory and practice within the fields of peace education, P4C, and the broader scholarly area of educational philosophy. As discussed in Chapter 2, many peace scholars criticize peace education on two fronts. First, there is an absence of a rich foundation to integrate all variances of streams in peace education models. Second, peace education models generally appeal to a negative notion of peace and ignore the positive dynamism of peace as a way of transformation. However, the current study addressed these two criticisms and provided a rich theoretical foundation for peace education through the epistemology and theory of pragmatism that (1) can integrate the variances of streams in peace education models; and (2) appeals to positive notion of peace as the capacity to turn the conflict to peaceful inquiry as a way of personal and social transformation.

Moreover, the study highlighted the potential of CPI in theory and practice to develop peaceful attributes and reduce aggressive behaviors and interactions in the students both inside and outside the classroom. Therefore, it could be beneficial for peace education scholars and educators to use the findings of the study to enrich their research and practice, bridging divided disciplinary fields.

202

Also, the study was not limited to the positive aspects of CPI. The researcher also detected the limitations of CPI in practice, and with the help of CPI scholars’ arguments regarding CPI practical limitations, proposing a new model, namely, Peaceful CPI, which is the modified version of CPI. Indeed, Peaceful CPI tries to overcome the potential limitations of CPI in the schools, addressing the power imbalance and epistemic violence. Therefore, Peaceful CPI could have a significant influence on the way P4C scholars and practitioners understand CPI. Furthermore, because of the focus on emotions and including more diverse voices, Peaceful CPI may have greater potential to be applied as peace pedagogy within diverse contexts and cultures, capable of addressing all degrees and types of conflict, violence and crises. It is anticipated that the Peaceful CPI model will be of benefit for all peace and P4C educators, principals and leaders who seek an emotionally deliberative and effective education for children.

However, Peaceful CPI is a new model in need of further exploration; it requires study and research to test and augment its effectiveness. Due to the nature of Peaceful CPI, further psychological and sociological investigation is recommended. Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 5, in the current study, the researcher only reflected on the role of facilitators and their relations to the students in the CPI classroom. As such, a more comprehensive model of Peaceful CPI needs reflection on the selection of knowledge and stimuli used as a starting point in CPI classrooms. Therefore, the researcher highly recommends the matter for further studies.

Moreover, since Peaceful CPI emphasizes the emotional status of students, it requires a wide range of stimuli that activates students’ emotions as well as their cognitive thinking. Exploring possible stimulation such as art, music, theater, games and so forth, as well as proposing effective materials to be used in Peaceful CPI classroom is highly recommended for future studies. In this regard, according to the researcher’s studies and experience, peace education programs have a wide range of games and activities that could be beneficial for use in a Peaceful CPI classroom. Finally, considerable research into designing an effective teacher training system for Peaceful CPI is warranted.

In conclusion, it is anticipated that the findings from the central research questions of the study will also contribute to the extension of the field of knowledge, research, and publication regarding education for peace, democracy and citizenship in Australia and overseas.

203

8.4 Limitations of the Study

The findings developed within the study were bounded within unique and contextualized settings and had a context-dependent nature (Janesick, 2003; Stake, 2003). Also, as discussed in Chapter 6, case studies focus on getting great details and deep understanding at the expense of being able to make generalizations (Thomas, 2011). Therefore, generalizing the lesson learned from the case study is difficult.

Furthermore, the participants of the current study (the classroom observation and focus group interview) were a group of students who were chosen to participate in an optional course of CPI. The course was for students from a range of ages who were interested in attending the extra optional course. Therefore, the sample included available participants who were interested in CPI but excluded the students who were not interested in attending CPI optional course and were probably not interested in CPI in general. This is another limitation of the study results making generalizations difficult based on the findings. While the researcher was willing to observe a CPI session in the school as part of their normal program, the school gave her this option only to run her research.

To minimise these limitations, the study purposefully incorporated a range of processes and procedures into the research design to enhance the external validity of the study, including triangulation of data sources, researcher bias disclosure and reflexive journals (Janesick, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 2003; Merriam, 1998).

Therefore, it is recommended that readers of the research interpret the findings of the study through a context-dependent approach and then carefully consider these findings for their applicability and generalizability across relative educational contexts.

8.5 Final Summary

In the final chapter of the thesis, the researcher initially reviewed the aim of the study and the research problems. Afterward, the researcher highlighted the main points of the theoretical framework of the study, meaning pragmatism, epistemology alongside Lipman’s educational theory, and their contribution to peace education. Then, the researcher expanded on Lipman’s educational theory and drew on the existing literature and studies of CPI in the classroom to develop a theory of educational practice for peace education. The theory explained how CPI has the potential to provide a cooperative, non- confrontational, and collaborative environment in which students can practice social inquiry 204 and learn to make better judgments in their lives. However, the researcher exposed some limitations of CPI in practice, also reported by various CPI scholars, concerning the potential for inequality and epistemic violence in the classroom. Consequently, the researcher proposed her model of Peaceful CPI that provided pedagogical strategies to address potential inequality and epistemic violence in CPI classroom.

Following that, the researcher reflected on the main research questions and presented the key findings of the study derived from the case study in an Australian capital city state school, in which the practice of CPI has been adopted as a whole-school approach to pedagogy since 2009. The findings were discussed in six major categories: the teachers’ and students’ perception of CPI, the effects of CPI on teachers and students, power and control in CPI classroom and CPI limitations and challenges. The findings showed teachers and students perceived CPI to reduce violent conflicts and promote peaceful interactions within and outside the school environment. On the other hand, findings suggested CPI may have some limitations regarding the distribution of power among community members and disengaged students from philosophical discussion.

Ultimately, the researcher suggested a range of implications and recommendations of the study that will impact educational theory and practice within the fields of peace education and P4C. It is anticipated that the findings of the research will assist peace education and CPI scholars and practitioners by embracing and enacting a more emotionally deliberative and effective education for children.

205

References

Adams, L. (2017). Why conflict is a good thing. Retrieved from http://www.gordontraining.com/free-workplace-articles/why-conflict-is-a-good-thing/# Agler, D. (2013). Peirce’s critique of the Cartesian maxim. Retrieved from http://www.american- philosophy.org/saap2013/openconf/modules/request.php?module=oc_proceedings &action=view.php&a=Accept&id=32 Bajaj, M. (2008). Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bar-Tal, D. (2002). The elusive nature of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world. (pp. 27-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New Directions for Sociology of Education (pp. 47-69). London: Collier-Macmillan. Bickmore, K. (2014). Peacebuilding dialogue pedagogies in Canadian classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 553-582. Bleazby, J. (2012). Social reconstruction learning: Dualism, Dewey and philosophy in schools. Routledge. Brahm, E. (2003, Sep). Conflict Stages. Retrieved from https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_stages Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brodsky, G. (1982). Rorty's interpretation of pragmatism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 18(4), 311-337. Burgh, G. (2003). Democratic education: Aligning curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and school governance. In P. Cam (Ed.), Philosophy, Democracy and Education, APPEND Phil. Series: (4 ed.) (pp. 101–120). Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO. Burgh, G. (2009). Reconstruction in philosophy Education: The community of inquiry as a basis for knowledge and learning. In the ownership and dissemination of knowledge, 36th Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of

206

Australasia. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 4–7 December 2008, pp. 1–12 Burgh, G. (2010). Citizenship as a learning process: Democratic education without foundationalism (revised). Reprinted in D.R.J. Macer & S. Saad-Zoy (Eds.), Asian- Arab Philosophical Dialogues on Globalization, Democracy and Human Rights (pp. 59–69). Bangkok: UNESCO, Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific. Burgh, G. (2014). Democratic pedagogy. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 1(1), 22–44. Burgh, G. (2018). The need for philosophy in promoting femocracy: A case for philosophy in the curriculum. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 5(1), 38–58. Burgh, G., & Nichols, K. (2012). The parallels between philosophical inquiry and scientific inquiry: Implications for science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(10), 1045-1059. Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2016a). Inoculation against wonder: Finding an antidote in camus, pragmatism and the community of inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(9), 884–898 Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2016b). Lucid education: Resisting resistance to inquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 42(2), 165-177. Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2016c). Philosophy goes to school in Australia: A history 1982– 2016. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 3(1), 59–83. Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2017). From Harry to philosophy park: The development of philosophy for children resources in Australia. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 163–170). Abingdon, VA: Routledge. Burgh, G., & Yorshansky, M. (2011). Communities of inquiry: Politics, power and group dynamics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 436–452. Burgh, G., Freakley, M., & Field, T. (2006). Ethics and the community of inquiry: Education for deliberative democracy. Vic: Thomson Social Sciences Press. Burgh, G., Thornton, S., & Fynes-Clinton, L. (2018). Do not block the way of inquiry: Cultivating collective doubt through sustained deep reflective thinking. In E. Duthie, F.G. Moriyón & R.R. Loro (Eds.), Parecidos de Familia. Propuestas actuales en Filosofía para Niños [Family Resemblances: Current trends in philosophy for children]. Madrid: Anaya. Cam, P. (1995). Thinking together: Philosophical inquiry for the classroom. NSW: Hale & Iremonger and Primary English Teaching Association. 207

Cam, P. (2006). Twenty thinking tools. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Campbell, J. (1984). Rorty's use of Dewey. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 22(2), 175-187. Chesters, S. D. (2012). The Socratic classroom. Springer Science & Business Media. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Chetty D. (2017). The elephant in the room. In: Lin CC., Sequeira L. (Eds) Inclusion, Diversity, and Intercultural Dialogue in Young People’s Philosophical Inquiry. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Chetty, D., & Suissa, J. (2017). No go areas. In M. Gregory, J. Haynes, K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 11-18). Abingdon, VA: Routledge. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clarke-Habibi, S. (2005). Transforming worldviews: The case of education for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 33-56. Cooke, E. (2006). Peirce's Pragmatic Theory of Inquiry: Fallibilism and Indeterminacy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative Analysis. London, UK: Falmer Press. Costa-Carvalho, M., & Mendonça, D. (2017). Thinking as a community: Reasonableness and emotions. In M. Gregory, J. Haynes, K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 127-134). Abingdon, VA: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. NJ: Pearson. Danesh, H. B. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3(1), 55-78. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

208

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. NY, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola. New York: Dover. Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Mineola, New York: Dover. Edel, A. (1985). A missing dimension in Rorty's use of pragmatism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 21(1), 21-37. Field, T. (1995). Philosophy for children and the feminist critique of reason. Critical and Creative Thinking, 3(1), 9-12. Field, T. (1997). Feminist epistemology and philosophy for children. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 13(1), 17-22. Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. London, UK: Nelson Thornes. Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic teaching: Developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6&7), 615-631. Fisher, R. (2009). Creative dialogue: Talking to think. Farhang, 22(69), 239-255. Fitzgerald, J. J. (1968). Peirce's theory of inquiry. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, IV(3), 130-143. Fountain, S. (1999). Peace education in UNICEF. NY: UNICEF. Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: Continuum. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics and knowing. London, UK: Oxford Publishing. García-Moriyón, F., Rebollo, I., & Colom, R. (2005). Evaluating philosophy for children: A Meta-Analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), 14-22. Gibbs, G. R. (2008). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic. NY, NY: Vintage. Glasl, F. (1999). Confronting conflict: A first aid kit for handling conflict. Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming aualitative researchers: An introduction. Elbourne, Victoria: Longman Gouinlock, J. (1995). What is the legacy of instrumentalism? Rorty's interpretation of Dewey. In H. J. Saatkamp (Ed.), Rorty and Pragmatism. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Gregory, M. R. (2004). Conflict, inquiry and education for peace. In S.N.Chattopadhya (Ed.), World peace: Problems of global understanding and prospects of harmony (pp. 265-278). Kolkata, India: Naya Prokash. 209

Gregory, M. R. (2002) ‘Constructivism, standards, and the classroom community of inquiry’, educational theory, 52(4): 397-408. Gregory, M. R. (2008). Philosophy for children, a practitioner handbook. NJ: IAPC, Montclair State University. Gregory, M. R., Haynes, J., & Murris, K. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis. Gupta, B. (2013). Conflict management: Need for organization effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 3(5), 61-65. Haavelsrud, M. (2008). Conceptual perspectives in peace education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace Education (pp. 59-66). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Harber, C., & Sakade, N. (2009). Schooling for violence and peace: How does peace education differ from 'normal' schooling? Journal of Peace Education, 6(2), 171- 187. Harris, I. M. (1999). Types of peace education. In A. Raviv, L. Oppenheimer, & D. Bar-Tal (Eds.), How children understand war and peace: A Call for International Peace Education (pp. 299-317). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harris, I. (2003, April 21-25). Peace Education Evaluation. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL: ERIC. Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace education theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 5-20. Harris, I. M. (2008). History of peace education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace education (pp. 15-23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publications. Harris, I. M. & Morrison, M. L. (2003). Peace education. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland. Haynes, F. (1994). Male dominance and the mastery of reason. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(3/4), 18-24. Haynes, J. (2008). Children as Philosophers: Learning Through Enquiry and Dialogue in the Primary Classroom. Routledge. 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. Haynes, J. and Murris, K. (2013). The realm of meaning: Imagination, narrative and playfulness in philosophical exploration with young Children. Early Child Development and Care, 183(8), 1084-1100. Haynes, J., & Murris, K. (2012). Picture books, pedagogy and philosophy. NY, NY: Routledge.

210

Hicks, D. (1987). Education for peace: Principles into practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 17(1), 3-12. Hicks, D. (1987). World studies 8-13: Practice and principles. Education 3-13, 15(2), 51- 56. Hicks, D. (2004). Teaching for tomorrow: How can futures studies contribute to peace education? Journal of Peace Education, 1(2), 165-178. Hildebrand, D. L. (1996). Genuine doubt and the community in Peirce’s theory of inquiry. Southwest Philosophy Review, 12, 33–43. Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2002). Interpreting educational research. An introduction for consumers of research (3rd Ed.). Trenton, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Janesick, V. J. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed., pp. 46-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kennedy, D. (2012). Lipman, Dewey, and the community of philosophical inquiry. Journal of Education and Culture, 28(2), 36-53. Kennedy, N., & Kennedy, D. (2010). Between chaos and entropy: Community of inquiry from a systems perspective. An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(2), 1-15. Klein, Alexander (2007). Review of Elizabeth F. Cooke, Peirce's Pragmatic Theory of

Inquiry: Fallibilism and Indeterminacy. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrived from https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/peirce-s-pragmatic-theory-of-inquiry-fallibilism-and- indeterminacy/ Kohan, W. (1995). The Origin, nature and aim of philosophy in relation to philosophy for children. Thinking: Journal of Philosophy for Children, 12(2), 25-30 Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Lee, B. X. (2016). Causes and cures VII: Structural violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 28, 109-114. Legg, C. (2014). Charles Peirce’s Limit Concept of Truth. Philosophy Compass, 9, 204– 213. Leonardo, Z. (2002). The souls of white folk: Critical pedagogy, whiteness studies, and globalization discourse. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 29-50. Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of ‘safety’in race dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(2), 139-157.

211

Levine-Rasky, C. (2000). The practice of whiteness among teacher candidates. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(3), 263-284. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lipman, M. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery, Upper Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38-43. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. NY: Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M. (1992). Unreasonable people and inappropriate judgments. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 10(3), 18–22. Lipman, M. (1993). Unreasonable people and inappropriate judgments. Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australian Journal of Philosophy for Children, 1(2), 10–18. Lipman, M. (1995). Educating for violence reduction and peace development: The philosophical community of inquiry approach. In J. Portelli and R. Reed (Eds.), Children, philosophy and democracy (pp.121-137), Canada: Detseling Enterprises. Lipman, M. (1997). Thinking in community. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines 16(4), 6–21. Lipman, M. (1998). The contributions of philosophy for deliberative democracy. Teaching Philosophy on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century. Ankara, Turkey: International Federation of Philosophical Societies, 6–29. Lipman, M. (2003) Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M. (2004). Philosophy for children’s debt to Dewey. Critical & Creative Thinking, 12(1), 1-8. Lipman, M. (2008). A life teaching thinking. Montclair, N.J.: IAPC. Lipman, M. (2011). Philosophy for children: Some assumptions and implications. Ethics in Progress Quarterly, 2(1). Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1978). Some educational presuppositions of philosophy for children. Oxford Review of Education, 4(1), 85-90. Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd Ed.) Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lukes, S. (1986). Power. NY, NY: NY University Press. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view, 2nd ed. NY, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

212

Lushyn, P., & Kennedy, D. (2000). The psychodynamics of community of inquiry and educational reform: A cross-cultural perspective. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 15(3), 9-16. Lushyn, P., & Kennedy, D. (2003). Power, manipulation and control in community of inquiry. Analytic Teaching, 23(2), 17-23. Macoll, S. (1997). Opening philosophy. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(3&4), 5-9. Magee, B. (2000). The great philosophers: An introduction to western philosophy. NY, NY: Oxford University Press. Mayor, F. (1999). Toward a new culture of peace and non-violence. In people building peace: 35 inspiring stories from around the eorld. Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention. McDermid, D. (2018). Pragmatism. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/ McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with white teachers. NY, NY: State University of NY Press. McWhinney, W., & Markos, L. (2003) Transformative dducation: Across the threshold. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 16-38. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 546-567. Millhouse, H. (2009). The place of peace. Peace Prints: South Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 2, 39-63. Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Morais, A. M &. Neves, I. P. (2004). The theory of Basil Bernstein. Retrieved from http://essa.ie.ulisboa.pt/ficheiros/teoriabb_eng/bernsteinstheory_textprint.pdf Morais, A. M. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559-569. Morais, A., Neves, I., Davies, B., & Daniels, H. (2001). Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. Peter Lang. Murris, K. M. (2008). Philosophy with children: The stingray and the educative value of disequilibrium. Journal of Philosophy of Education 42(3–4): 667–85. Murris, K. M. (2013). The epistemic challenge of hearing child’s voice, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(3), 245–259.

213

Murris, K. M. (2015). Listening-as-usual: A response to Michael Hand. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(3), 331–335. National Center Against Bullying. (2018). Bullying in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.ncab.org.au/ Nevo, B., & Brem, I. (2002). Peace education programs and the evaluation of their effectiveness. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 271-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nichols. K., Burgh, G., & Fynes-Clinton, L. (2017). Reconstruction of thinking across the curriculum through the community of inquiry. In M. R. Gregory, J. Haynes & K. Murris (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children (pp. 245–252). Abingdon, VA: Routledge. Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Kennedy, C. (2017). Comparing two inquiry professional development interventions in science on primary students’ questioning and other inquiry behaviors. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 1-24. Osipova, E. (1989). Emile Durkhiem's sociology. In I. S. Kon (Ed.), A history of classical sociology (pp. 206-254). Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. Pardales, M. J., & Girod, M. (2006). Community of inquiry: Its past and pPresent future. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 299-309. Peirce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(3), 140-157. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. NY, NY: Basic Books. Pritchard, M. (2018, Feb 27). Philosophy for children. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/children/ Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. NY, NY: Random House. Rainville, N. (2000). Philosophy for children in Native America: A post-colonial critique. Analytic Teaching, 21(1), 65–77. Retrieved from http://www.viterbo.edu Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 214

Reardon, B. A. (1988). Comprehensive peace education: Educating for global responsibility. New York: Teachers College Press. Redshaw, S. (1994). Philosophical applications: Cultivating alternative approaches to dispute resolution, Thinking, the Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(2), 10-13. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Trenton, NJ: Princeton. Salomon, G. (2002). The nature of peace education: Not all programs are created equal. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace Education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum. Salomon, G. (2003, June). Does peace education make a difference? Paper presented at the André Salama workshop for research on peace education, University of Haifa, Center for Research on Peace Education. Salomon, G. (2006). Does peace education really make a difference? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12(1), 37-48. Salomon, G. (Ed.) & Cairns, E. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook on Peace Education. NY, NY: Psychology Press. Salomon, G., & Nevo, B. (Eds.). (2005). Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world. Psychology Press. Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict resolution: Theory, research, and practice. Albany, NY: Suny Press. Scholl, R., Nichols, K. & Burgh, G. (2009). Philosophy for children: Towards pedagogical transformation. In: Teacher education crossing borders: Cultures, contexts, communities and curriculum; Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA). Albury, NSW, Australia, (1-15). 28 June - 1 July 2009 Scholl, R., Nichols, K., & Burgh, G. (2014). Transforming pedagogy through philosophical inquiry. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(3), 253-272. 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. Seixas, P. (1993). The community of inquiry as a basis for knowledge and learning: The case of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2): 305-24. Sharp, A. M. (1993). The community of inquiry: Education for democracy. In: M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking children and dducation (pp. 337–345). Dubuque, IA: Kendal/Hunt. Sharp, A. M. (2004). The other dimension of caring thinking. Critical & creative thinking, 12(1), 9-14. Sharp, A. M. (2009). The child as Critic. Farhang, 22(69), 53-64. 215

Slade, C. (1994). Harryspeak and the Conversation of Girls. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(3/4), 29-32. Smith, R. (2011). The play of Socratic Dialogue. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2): 221–33. Splitter, L. J., Sharp, A. M., & Australian Council for Educational, R. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stopbullying. (2018). Effects of bullying. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at- risk/effects/index.html Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. Basinstoke, UK:Falmer Press. Thakore, D. (2013). Conflict and conflict Management. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 8(6). 7-16. Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management in, M. Dunnette (Ed.), The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thornton, S., & Burgh, G. (2017). Making peace education everyone’s business. In inclusion, diversity, and intercultural dialogue in young people’s philosophical inquiry (pp. 55-65). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Topping K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive gains at two-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 787–796. Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007b). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’ interactive behavior. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 73–84. Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007c). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10–12 Years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 271–288. Trickey, S & Topping, K. J. (2004). Philosophy for children: A systematic review. Research Paper in Education, 19(3), 365-380. Trickey, S. & Topping, K. J. (2006). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: socio-emotional effects at 10–12 Years, School Psychology International, 27(5), 599–614.

216

Trickey, S. & Topping, K. J. (2007). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: participant evaluation at 11–12 Years. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 18(3), 23–34. Tucker, M. J., Berg, C. J., Callaghan, W. M., & Hsia, J. (2007). The black–white disparity in pregnancy-related mortality from 5 conditions: Differences in prevalence and case- fatality rates. American Journal of Public Health, 97(2), 247-251. Turgeon, W. (1998). The reluctant philosopher: Causes and cures. Critical & Creative Thinking: The Australian Journal of Philosophy for Children, 6(2), 9–17. UNESCO (1998). World Directory of Peace Research and Training Institutions. Deddington, Oxford, UK; NY, USA: Berg; Paris, France: UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2007). Philosophy, A school of freedom, teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize: status and prospects. Paris, FR: UNESCO. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Immunization summary: A statistical reference containing data through 2013. Retrieved from http://data.unicef.org/resources/immunization-summary-a-statistical- reference-containing-data-through-2013.html United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2012). Pneumonia and siarrhea: Tackling the deadliest diseases for the world’s poorest children. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/eapro/Pneumonia_and_Diarrhoea_Report_2012.pdf United Nations (UN). (1999). General assembly, UN documents. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/a53r243a.htm Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Winter, D. D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001). Structural violence. In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. Winter (Eds.), Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st . World Bank. (2012). The world development report 2012: Gender equality and development. Retrieved from https://siteresources-worldbank- org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/INTWDR2012/Resources/7778105- 1299699968583/7786210-1315936222006/Complete-Report.pdf World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). World report on violence and Health: Summary. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2011, Nov, 21). Definition and typology of violence. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/

217

World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2010 WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the world bank estimates. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44874/1/9789241503631_eng.pdf World Health Organization (WHO). (2017, Nov, 29). Violence against women. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

218

Appendices

Appendix A: University Ethical Approval for the Current Study

219

Appendix B: Amendment of University Ethical Approval for the Current Study

220