Sunday, August 22, 2010

All pictures are on the site!

All of my pictures and captions are now available on my shutterfly site: http://nazarioinnorway.shutterfly.com/

Now you can see my entire journey. Enjoy!

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Pictures, Pictures, Pictures!

I finally uploaded my Oslo Pictures to Shutterfly. Please visit this site to see them: http://nazarioinnorway.shutterfly.com/ There are captions on some of the pictures. I will be uploading Helsinki and Copenhagen shortly. In Oslo, we explored our minds in the classroom and explored nature during our free time. It was a wonderful balance that I hope to bring back to my life in New York City.

Philip Cam - Philosophy for Children (P4C)

Australia's Philip Cam is heavily inspired by New Jersey's "Father of Philosophy for Children" Matthew Lipman.  Much of our class was based on Cam's thinking and practical applications in the classroom.  The following video explains how philosophy works at the primary school level.  Our instructors explained that the same tools and techniques apply when we work with older children at the high school level.  Discussions can perhaps be more rich and deep, but the basic idea is the same.  These are the same ideas and structures we used in our own class, as adults, this summer.  The main idea is that philosophy is not just for university students.  We all think philosophically.  And students need to improve their ability to analyze and think critically.

Philosophy with Children - Final Paper

When we were done with our inquiry sessions and lectures, it was time to begin the final paper. Our instructors, Beate and Bo, created 11 topics and put them into a box. We each blindly selected an assignment for our final. In a later post, I will insert the list of all the other topics. This paper is the best way to show what I have learned from my class and how I plan to apply it to my school.  I am happy to report that I received an A.

* * *


Final Assessment:
5-day Philosophical Unit on Ethics
#3: Develop an exercise for philosophy with children from something you have read in Law or Nagel.  You can present two or three events (for instance a short story, a statement or a question).  Present also questions or statements that can help the students to deepen their inquiry.  Say something about your choice of philosopher or philosophical theme, and present a context for the exercise.  What kind of skills or themes do you want the students to work with and why.


Classroom Context:
This 5-day unit is designed for Juniors (11th grade students) attending a public school in a poor neighborhood of the Bronx, New York.  The median income is $20,000 per year, and 95% of our students qualify for free lunch programs, indicating that they are at a severe poverty level. 
Based on my experiences with parent-teacher conferences, students’ parents are often not involved. During the year, I only see parents for 10-15 out of my 100 students.  It is very clear that many of our students do not receive parental support for their education, and this lack of involvement may also apply to other areas such as ethics and morality. 
Due to the poverty, lack of parental involvement, and living in a very dangerous area, many of our students turn to the solidarity of a gang. They feel that the streets are dangerous, and the gang will be there to protect them. Yet gangs are not like college fraternities, simply focusing on brotherhood.  Gangs are violent, and are often characterized by high crime, random acts of terrorism, territorial rivalries with other gangs, and sometimes even murder. 
            Since my teenage students are so easily impressionable as they seek comfort and belonging, they are often tempted to follow the crowd in other ways besides gangs, such as drug usage, theft, vandalism, cutting school, unsafe sex and intentional teen pregnancy, and dropping out.  With many ethical dilemmas facing my students each day, it’s important to help them to think for themselves-- to develop sound, rational reasons for their decisions, rather than blindly following others. 
Why Philosophy?
Matthew Lipman is viewed as the father of Philosophy with Children.  He views reflective education as “an historical movement” and philosophy with children is an upsurge of that movement (373).   He wonders, “Why is it that the human mind is not a fit subject?” (Lipman  377).   We teach students the care of their body but not of their minds.  Just as it would be dangerous not to give sex education or hygiene, there are also very serious consequences for the lack of instruction in thinking.  “Children are treated as if they were incapable of philosophical deliberation” yet with their innate urge to ask ‘Why’ all the time, they are “more philosophically inclined than most adults!” (Lipman  378).  We need to utilize this inquisitiveness and keep it as a lifelong habit instead of squashing it.  Lipman began this upsurge in the 70s, and many others have been influenced by his thinking.
Throughout the course of the year, I wish to develop critical thinking in general.   I will not teach philosophy as a class, although Philip Cam does not say we need to do that.  Influenced by Lipman, he advocates that we incorporate philosophy as a way of thinking within the curriculum. In his book Thinking Together, Cam explains the importance of thinking in all classes.  He does not feel we should view philosophy as a separate subject, but rather it “has to do with the way we approach a topic or subject or engage in an activity.  It applies to all areas of the existing curriculum.  We want children to approach all their learning in a way that is productive and intelligent” (Cam Thinking 1).  He wants teachers to enhance what they already do in their teaching, utilizing the structure of philosophical inquiry.  He specifically recommends inquiry as something to build into the literacy program.  This is most likely because an inquiry begins with an event (stimulus) that can be a story, excerpt from a book, or a quote in addition to visual texts such as an object or photograph.
            According to Cam, we must “nurture good thinking in the classroom by encouraging children to inquire and reason together about things of significance” (Cam Thinking 2).   As a result of working together in this way, students will eventually internalize the routines, procedures and methods.  They will be able to think critically and evaluate their own ideas as well as those of others.  These skills are at the heart of critical analysis necessary for so much of literature, especially at the college level.  Unfortunately, so many of my colleagues tell my students what to think instead of asking them “what do you think?”  It’s an important distinction.
            Lipman says, “It is useless for us to complain that ours is a nation of sheep as long as we do not develop the capacity of independent judgment in children” (379).  If we train our children to follow the herd in the classroom, they will do the same in their real lives.  We must foster independent, critical thinking that students will take into adulthood.
11 years after writing Thinking Together, Cam wrote 20 Thinking Tools based on practical experience using his method in the classroom in Australia. Cam says,
there can be no doubt that the ability to think about the issues and problems that we face in our lives, to explore life’s possibilities, to appreciate alternative points of view, to critically evaluate what we read and hear, to make appropriate distinctions and needful connections, and generally to make reasonable judgments are among the attributes of anyone who has learnt to think effectively in life (Cam 20 1). 
My students need these vital skills in and out of school.  Unfortunately “virtually no attention is given to teaching people to think well in the context of their lives away from school, in those everyday social, familial and personal contexts in which the great bulk of decisions and actions take place” (Cam 20  2).  Through philosophical inquiry, I hope my students can gain the tools necessary to make important decisions in their lives.
            Throughout a classroom inquiry, it is important to develop skills such as “asking questions, giving reasons, sticking to the point, being fair-minded, listening to alternative points of view and exploring disagreement” (Cam Thinking 2). As a result of practicing these skills, thinking will eventually become routine as students internalize them, as suggested by Vygostky’s research and writing (5).
            An outstanding feature of philosophical inquiry is that it is not passive.  Students are  “more effective participants in the learning process” (Cam  Thinking 17).  They do not just sit there and copy notes while the teacher lectures.  Instead, they are talking, thinking, questioning and working with fellow students towards a resolution.
I wish to take a philosophical approach to my teaching of English throughout the year.  This does not mean that we will have a philosophical inquiry every day, but I do hope to have inquiries at least once or twice a week, and to use philosophical thinking to probe and analyze our texts whenever we work with literature.  I need to be more effective with my teaching of English.  Lipman says, “While reading and mathematics are disciplines that contribute usefully to good thinking, they cannot suffice to produce it” (374).  Just because students can do these things does not mean they can reason, think independently or judge on their own.  “Something more is needed (374).  Lipman also points out that teachers usually don’t teach “critical reading,” and when they do, it is not systematic.  I realize this in my own classroom.  I want my children to analyze a text, but how do I teach them how to analyze?  What does it mean to look closely and to think about the big issues?  I try to ask them questions to draw out those ideas, but it’s not enough.  I need structure.  I need to try to incorporate the philosophical model into my classroom as often as possible.
            Incorporating philosophy into my curriculum can help increase academic rigor.  Three years ago, when I began teaching at my school, it had a failing grade and—if it did not improve—it would be closed. While we have managed to raise our school’s score to a B, we still have many weaknesses and issues to address academically.  Our graduation rate is at about 70%, and our students receive mediocre scores on state exams.  Of the approximately 75% of students who enroll in a college, only about 60% attend and our retention rate is dismal.  By their third year, only 1/3 of these students stay in college.  We believe that part of the problem is inadequate preparation.  Our students lack the critical, independent thinking and complex analysis skills necessary for the college classroom.  Philosophy can help train students to internalize these vital skills.
            Before we can increase academic rigor, however, we need to improve basic discipline.  While things have greatly improved since when I first arrived at the school (where police offers would escort students out of the class in handcuffs after one of the frequent fights, and students would curse at the teacher and each other), students will still regularly talk throughout class and occasionally swear at the teacher.  It is my hope that philosophical inquiry, particularly about ethics, can help students reflect on their behavior and explore other options.
In her book Creating Enquiring Minds, British primary teacher Sara Stanley explains that children will learn to think for themselves and therefore “begin to understand more about themselves and the world in which they live” (2). She has found that “where persistent immersion in collaborative inquiry has been implemented throughout a school, we see significant improvements in both academic outcomes and social attitudes and behavior” (28).  If I want my students to improve in all classes, not just mine, philosophy can help.  This will also help with our school’s discipline issues

Ethics
I was inspired to work with ethics by information in works by Thomas Nagel and Stephen Law.  In What does it all mean? Nagel works with ethics in his chapter entitled “Right and Wrong,” presenting various ideas and viewpoints on ethics and raising several questions.  Nagel explains that “there are many disagreements among those who accept morality in general, about what in particular is right and what is wrong” (68).  Is morality universal or relative to the person and situation?  As a class, we can discuss and explore various perspectives, hopefully leading students to become reflective on their own.
            In his summary of the chapter, Nagel says “Moral argument tries to appeal to a capacity for impartial motivation which is supposed to be present in all of us.  Unfortunately, it may be deeply buried, and in some cases, it may not be present at all “(Nagel  75).  We need to think and reason in order to find out what our beliefs are and flush out this capacity.  This reason, according to Nagel,  “has to compete with powerful selfish motives and other personal motives that man not be so selfish, in its be for control of our behavior” (Nagel  75).   We have to help them overcoming this. Our society, and particularly the “mean streets of the Bronx” can cloud students’ views and create confused motives.  Hopefully we can help them to think to make better decision.
            Yet as I run our ethical dialogue, I have to be careful to avoid moral instruction, telling students what to do. They have heard it their whole lives, from teachers, parents, police, the media, their houses of worship and their peers. As Cam says, “Ethical inquiry is quite different from moral instruction.” (Cam Thinking  28).
            In ethical inquiry, you are not simply told.  Answers are not closed.  We are asked to think about these matters, to be more reflective instead of blindly following (or disobeying) a rule.  In ethical philosophy, “We might consider a range of ideas about what makes an action right or wrong – whether it’s the consequences which matter, or society’s approval, or how the action stands in regard to some system of moral law” (Cam Thinking  28).  We can find answers together through a dialogue and thus “contribute to their moral education [. . .] by helping them achieve a better understanding and awareness of such complex matters through inquiry” (Cam Thinking  58).  They will have a better view of the foundation and nature of moral decisions.
            In his chapter entitled “Moral Philosophy” Stephen Law describes morality as
“a guide to how we should live and act”  (102).   He presents various viewpoints that my students may touch upon in their analysis.  Utilitarianists believe that we should do what makes us happy.  Deontologists feel that we must obey duty when making moral decisions.  Kant claims that we must use reason to decide what to do, saying, “Morality, he claimed, is universal: a set of rules that are the same for everyone” (Law  105).  Aristotle claims that morality, grounded in virtue, is found as the means between the extremes. Finally, in Metaethics “philosophers debate whether there are universal moral truths, or whether morality is simply an expression of emotions or cultural customs” (Law  112).  With all the different viewpoints, we have to decide -- what is morality?
Sara Stanley reflects on morality, explaining how children deal with questions such as:
Are we born knowing what is right or wrong?  Do we choose to be good or bad?  Do we have a conscience?  Where does our conscience come from?  How do we know what is right and wrong?  Should people be punished?  Are everybody’s ideas of right and wrong the same?  Who decides what is right or wrong?  Is it ever OK to break the law?  Does doing the right thing make you truly happy?  Does doing the wrong thing make you a bad person?  Is there such a thing as pure evil or pure good?  (24).

It is important for my students to reflect on these questions and to give reasons for their beliefs. Hopefully--through philosophy--they can “learn responsibility for their actions and views, and the relationship between accountability and such responsibility” (Stanley  12).   They’ll realize and accept more responsibility for their behavior in class, in academics, in their relationships and other aspects of their lives. Since they are dealing with issues directly relevant to their lives, this is both practical and can help increase engagement, which is another struggle in my school.
            As students begin to internalize moral reflection as a result of inquiry, they will become self reflective, thinking about their own beliefs and ideas.  “This in turn validates for children the authority of their own experiences, so that they often develop a questioning nature, which can also provide a form of protection from abusers” (Stanley 12).  Many of my students have suffered physical and verbal abuse from guardians, bullying from other students, and threats from gangs. Moral philosophy can “help children understand their relationship with peers, parents, teachers and other adults”  (Stanley  12).   As they reflect, they can better seek out good, trustworthy mentors.  Ethical inquiry will hopefully lead my students to make wiser decisions.

Structure for the Inquiry
According to Cam, “there is no substitute for discussion” which should be “the primary means by which students learn to use the tools” (Cam 20  6).  To ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, yet nobody dominates the discussion, I plan to toss dice as we did in class.  Cam feels that inquiry should focus on class discussion mixed with small group activity, although students may not be ready for small group work until they have had some practice and internalized the procedures (34).   Therefore, I must not do small group work in this first unit until students are comfortable with the procedures. These class discussions must be student centered, not teacher centered.  Desks should be arranged in a circle so students converse with each other, rather than just stare at me.  In addition, Michael Whalley recommends that, except when writing on the board,  “the teacher should sit with the children as a member of the discussion group” (493).  While it should be the students’ discussion, the teacher shall ensure that students pay attention, that nobody monopolizes, and that comments are relevant and on-task.  (Whalley  493).
While we practiced philosophical inquiry at Oslo University College in “Philosophy with Children,” we only had 12 adult students.  I wondered if it would be effective in a large group of teenagers, since my classes are often 30-32 students.  Cam assures that “Even with 30 children, a well-run discussion will provide opportunities for everyone to speak” (Thinking  35).  This means that maybe I will have some difficulties in the beginning, but once I have some practice and learn to facilitate the discussion better, all students will have a chance.
            Eventually, I can move on to develop other tools with my students.  Once we have become comfortable with the basic procedures, we can move on to questioning.  At that time, children’s’ questions will set the agenda for the discussion plan.  But for this particular unit of lessons, we are focusing on two basic tools, reasoning and agreement/disagreement.  Once we have had ample time to practice these skills, we can move on to other tools.   
The structure of the class will follow suggestions from Cam and Stanley as well as the procedure we practiced at Oslo University College.  I will present an event, offer reflection time, and share ideas as I write student answers on the board. Next, we’ll engage in a dialogue (the inquiry) evaluating reasons and agreeing or disagreeing .  Finally, we have a reflection time before the meta talk, which is a concluding activity. 
*Event.  According to Stanley, “There should be some ambiguity in stories to give a range and depth to questions” (30).
*Thinking Time.  Sometimes this leads to questioning, although that is more advanced.  For my purposes, we will begin with comments and reasons.
*“Dialogue/enquiry” – According to Stanley, “the children build their argument through reasoning, explaining, agreeing and disagreeing.  The facilitator uses questing to bring out the philosophical dimension but does not steer the discussion” (30).  This is something that I will need to have a lot of practice with because as a teacher, I think I inherently steer the class, despite my intent not to – particularly with moral discussions.
*Closure:  To close the session, students share their thoughts during the final reflection time.  At this time, “The facilitator uses a range of strategies to close a session, for example, summing up, finding the next question, asking for comments, setting homework, and so on” (Stanley  30).
            In order to adequately plan for a rich and structured discussion, teachers may have to preplan questions to deepen inquiry.  Cam again suggests purpose-written materials, especially in the beginning.  Since this is my first attempt at inquiry, I have chosen to work with exercises closely modeled after things I did in class at “Philosophy in School,” exercises by Phil Cam, and finally, one of Lipman’s stories, Episode 21 featuring Lisa. Yet his work will just be a model.  He explains that some times call for structuring discussions while other times call for letting the dialogue flow.  A good teacher will know when to use which method.  This is something that I will improve over time.  
In the future, I can begin to create my own exercises and discussion plans after I have learned from the samples.  Cam explains that “the most valuable aid to learning about philosophical inquiry with children is doing it in the classroom” (100).  Once I begin to actually do philosophical inquiry with my students, I can devise better plans.   Whatever I plan, Whalley says, “The children’s response should always be taken as the main guide to the content and extent of the discussion” (492). 

Tools for this Unit
            Since my students are older, I would like to establish two introductory tools in this short 5-day lesson plan.  I have chosen reasoning and agreement/disagreement because they are fundamental tools for a good basic inquiry.  If I tried to have inquiry session without working on these from the toolkit, as Cam calls it, the discussion would most likely fall flat and I risk disillusioning my students when it comes to philosophy.  I want to hook them right from the beginning, so I must at least try.

REASONING
            Reasoning is vital for philosophy. In “Philosophy as Critical Thinking,” Maurice A. Finocchiaro says that “reasoning is used in all disciplines and in everyday life, but that what distinguishes the philosopher is his readiness and willingness always to engage in reasoning” (674).  I’d like my students to be more like philosophers, learning to habitually use reason when making judgments and decisions.
Before we have our first inquiry, I will spend a day working on reasoning skills with my students, utilizing an exercise inspired by Cam’s 20 Thinking Tools.  As he says, “Reasoning is an extensive topic that forms the matter of both formal and informal logic” yet it is “hardly touched upon in school education” (21).  These are vital thinking skills that students need not only for their classes but also their lives.  Cam says that this absence of formal education in reasoning “would not be such a disaster if poor reasoning skills did not get people into all sorts of difficulties in their lives” (21) 
            My students are certainly victim to poor or faulty reasoning in their lives, citing such actual reasons as “Everybody else is doing it,” “I can’t snitch [tell on someone] because it goes against the code,” “I don’t need to stay in school because I’m not going to be anything anyway,” “I have to buy these $200 sneakers because I won’t fit in otherwise,” “I must always do what the gang tells me to do, no matter what,” “She must be dating my boyfriend because I caught her looking at him; I’m going to beat her up.” Each of these real examples has very dire consequences for my students and others.
            Cam points out that “muddle-headed and fallacious reasoning, and such things as jumping to conclusions, acting on unwarranted assumptions, and failing to appreciate consequences, can be costly and dangerous “(Cam 20  21) as explained in my intro.
     Cam explains that students will work with reasoning in inquiry and will become more and more familiar with it as a tool.  They will acquire skills such as
learning to probe around in a situation where there may be more than one live possibility, rather than assuming that the most saliently possibility is the only one.  It involves learning to take the full range of circumstances into account, rather than focusing on a single aspect or looking at something from only one point of view.  It includes learning to trace out the likely consequences of different possibilities in order to properly compare and evaluate them. It involves learning to be critical rather than gullible in judging reasons and evidence that are proffered by sources that may not be reliable.  It extends to students learning to look for evidence in their own experience and that of their classmates, and not just to accept blindly what is handed down on authority from the adult world. (Cam Thinking  22-23)

My students need to realize there are different perspectives and different possibilities.  They need to consider consequences as they learn to effectively evaluate options.  As students practice their reasoning, “They will be less susceptible to manipulation and better able to judge the evidence for themselves.  In learning to explore reasons and evidence through collaborative inquiry, they will become both less dogmatic and more balanced in their judgments”(23).  He feels that it’s important to develop inquiring minds and active listeners.  Students can be fascinated and surprised by what others say and vice verse (43).  By sharing, listening and evaluating reasons, students will become better at reasoning on their own.
           
AGREE/DISAGREE
            The second important tool I wish to introduce and work with is agreement and disagreement.  We will do this as an exercise on the second day as a worksheet (students will agree or disagree with statements).  Then we can discuss students’ answers in our first classroom inquiry.  According to Cam, “disagreement plays an important role in inquiry.  It brings children into dialogue, while presenting an issue or problem in a lively, dramatic form which heightens their interest “ (Cam  Thinking  45)   Disagreement causes students to see and evaluate different perspectives.  It helps students to open their minds and to rethink things they once took for granted.  It can make them realize that what they previously thought may not actually be true.
            Throughout the session,  “in exploring a disagreement, children will also need to compare and evaluate the reasons that they give” (45).
·      Why do you say that?
·      Why do you think that you are right? 
·      What makes you think that she is wrong?
·      Can you justify your answer?
·      Why do you think that is a poor reason?
·      Can anyone think of a better reason?
·      Why is that a better reason?  (45)

I plan to use questions such as these to guide my students through the process of
agreement and disagreement.  This will help them to be “open-minded and flexible in their thinking.  This is vital to good thinking in almost any field” (Cam  Thinking  47).

Introduction to the Unit
            These exercises will take place in the beginning month of the year, when it’s important to build a community and emphasize correct rules for thinking, etc.  During the first week of school, we will have covered rules and expectations for the class as well as a few teambuilding activities. The second week, I will introduce students to the idea of purpose and idea of philosophy as well as set some ground rules for behavior.  I plan to build anticipation so when we finally dive into philosophy, students will hopefully be curious, eager, and excited. 
            The lesson plans follow a format that I have been instructed to use in my classroom, featuring an Essential Question (a larger goal that transcends the basic in-class work), Objective, New York State Standards, a Warm Up, and the steps throughout the lesson plan as well as notes for the instructor.  I have added an evaluation at the end of each lesson plan in order to present my thoughts and concerns about the lesson plan.  This helps me to be critical and reflective and to prepare for possible problems during the lesson. 



Ethics
Day 1 of 5

High School English – Bronx, NY
Grade Level:  Juniors (11th Grade)
Length of Lesson: 45 minutes

Essential Question:
1.     What is philosophy?
2.     Why is it important to provide reasons for our beliefs?


Objectives: 
1.  Students will learn to give thoughtful reasons for their answers.
2.  Students will practice speaking to each other in a group setting.

New York State English Standards: 
1.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for information and understanding.
2.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for critical analysis.
3.  Students will listen and speak for social interaction.

The Lesson Overview:
            The lesson is designed for students to learn and practice an introductory tool necessary for philosophical inquiry – reasoning.  The structure of the lesson will help guide students through he process so they feel more comfortable when giving reasons in philosophical inquiry.  Phil Cam uses a similar activity in 20 Thinking Tools where he asks students to provide reasons for or against the existence of Bunyips.  (40). 

            In all the lessons in this unit, I have tried to give approximate timings for certain activities. However, I had to leave timing open for other areas because I would have to see how it goes.  I will keep an eye on the clock and adjust accordingly – ensuring that we are where we are supposed to be at the conclusion of the 45-minute lesson.

Warm Up:  On the board, I will write the following assignment.  “What is your favorite place?  Why?”  Students will have 5 minutes to respond in detail.

Next Steps: 
1.  Students will count off to find their numbers for the day.  Then I will toss the dice to see who goes first.   The first student will share their response while I type it on the computer, which will project it on the screen so everyone can see.  This typed log will also be available on the school website later. 10 minutes
2.  If time permits, we will go around the room to collect answers from everyone.  If it looks very time consuming, we will continue tossing the dice.  I do think it’s important to see many perspectives, although this is something I will have to try out first to know how it will run.
3.  After everyone speaks, I will have a reflection time.  In their log books (which will be introduced the previous week), students will write any words they think students use when explain a “magic word” people use when they explain why something is their favorite. 2 minutes
4. Brief share out.  Hopefully the students will realize the word is “because,” although as they answer, I may try to emphasize it when writing it on the board if they are not getting it on their own.  10 minutes
5.  Say:  We have been “Giving reasons.”  It is important to give reasons in class, in our papers, in life and in philosophical inquiry.  Now we will try to give reasons for a belief.
6.  Project an image of an alien on the board, along with the question “Do aliens exist?”

 In Phil Cam’s exercise, he has students work in a group and then share out to everyone,   although I feel that it is important to work as a whole class at first, especially since many different perspectives in one group could cause chaos and arguments.  3 minutes
7. I will toss the dice and begin collecting reasons on the screen -- for or against the existence of aliens  Hopefully, this will naturally lead to students evaluating each other’s answers.  I will use guiding questions such as “Why do you feel that is a good answer?”  Or “How effective is this answer?”  Following ideas suggested by Cam and Stanley  10 minutes
8.  2 minute reflection time. What makes a good reason?
9.  Toss the dice to get a few answers then see if there are any pressing suggestions, and can all on a few students.

Homework:  What is your favorite food?  Why?  Try to give good, thoughtful reasons. 

Evaluation of Lesson Plan:

I am wondering if I should link it to ethics.  I chose to use something else to practice reasoning in order to keep students’ minds fresh about ethics tomorrow. I want the tool to be familiar but not the content.  Although students are practicing a skill, based on Phil Cam, it looks like it is becoming an inquiry.  I’m not sure whether or not this is a risk, since tomorrow’s lesson will lead into the first official inquiry.  Since this is all very new and unfamiliar for me, the only way to really see how things can run is to try it and adapt from there.  I try to make good decisions with my planning, although my inexperience with this material is evident.



Ethics
Day 2 of 5

High School English – Bronx, NY
Grade Level:  Juniors (11th Grade)
Length of Lesson: 45 minutes

Essential Question:
1.     How can we think critically about decisions?
2.     Why is it important to provide reasons? 
3.     What is philosophy?

Objectives: 
1.  Students will learn to agree or disagree and to give reasons for their position.
2.  Students will evaluate each others’ reasons.
2.  Students will practice speaking to each other in a group setting.

New York State English Standards: 
1.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for information and understanding.
2.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for critical analysis.
3.  Students will listen and speak for social interaction. 

The Lesson Overview:
            This lesson builds upon the previous lesson, where students practiced reasoning.  Now, they will decide whether they agree or disagree with a statement and be prepared to give good, solid reasons to support their belief.  I chose general ethical statements from Lipman’s lesson materials for the story with Lisa, “Episode 21.”  I will use the story as an event tomorrow, yet these overarching thematic questions can help stimulate their thinking and provide a point of entry for tomorrow’s discussion. 

As students share and evaluate their reasoning, they will begin to see which types of reasons are strongest and most sound.  Since this is the first inquiry, I do not want to rush students as they are getting used to procedures.  I want them to enjoy the inquiry, and therefore have decided to extend the lesson to two days.  Tomorrow we will continue with the Meta Talk.  It may even be necessary to continue the actual inquiry the following day if things felt unresolved. 

Warm Up:  Playing with opposites.  “Hands and Thumbs.”  This warm up will be the same as we did in “Philosophy with Children” with Bo on June 29, 2010.  10 minutes.

Next Steps: 
1. On each desk, students will have a sheet of paper featuring 5 statements about ethics (handout on following page).  Students will have to agree or disagree with each statement.  5 minutes
2.   We will go through each statement.  Students will rise if they agree.  I will record the answers.  Then students will rise if they disagree.  I will record the numbers on the board.
3.  7 minute reflection time.  Students will go back to their statements and give reasons for why they agree or disagree with the statement.
4.  Next, I will ask students to vote for the statement that was most difficult for them to answer.  Once we narrow it down, I will write that statement on the board and we will first collect all the reasons to agree with the statement.  I will record answers on the board next to students’ names. 
5. If there are too many students agreeing, I will use the dice to collect a sample.
6.  Next, I will ask students to evaluate the statements.  Is this a good statement?  Why not?  This kind of evaluating might be too advanced for the inquiry – although by questioning my students, I hope to lead them to this kind of thinking.
7.  We will do the same for disagree, although spending a bit less time.
8.  We will have a reflection time before the meta talk.  1.  What went well?  2.  What was difficult?  Also, any other questions or comments?  3 minutes.

Homework:  Continue reflections, questions and comments to prepare for tomorrow’s meta talk.

Evaluation of Lesson Plan:

This lesson plan is heavily based on our first inquiry with Beate and Bo in “Philosophy in School” at Oslo University College.   I thought it worked well to introduce us to the process as well as facilitate our thinking in a structured way.  I hope it can work the same with my students, even though they will be 16, not adults. 

I hope I chose good questions to stimulate thinking about ethics but I worry that discussion may fall flat or that students won’t be intrigued.  As is the case with philosophy lessons, much of the actual agenda cannot be pre-planned. I have to see how it goes as it begins. 



Log Sheet: Ethics

Warming Up: Playing with opposites.  “Hands and Thumbs.”
Event: Five statements about Ethics (Right and Wrong).
Reflection time: Take a stand to each statement.  Write whether you agree or disagree.

1.  If something feels good, it must be right.
2.  It can be right for one person to do something and wrong for another person to do the very same thing.
3. Something feels good because it’s right.
4.  Success is the criteria for what is right and failure is the criteria for what is wrong.
5.  Each person is entitled to live his own life the way he wants to as long as it doesn’t prevent other people from living the way they want.

Reflection Time:  What statement was most difficult to take a stand for?  Number ___, because ___________________________________________________________.
Choice of statement for inquiry:  We find out how many agree and disagree.  Then we choose the most important statement among those it was most difficult to decide upon.  Or we let the dice choose.
Reflection time:  Write down your reason for agreeing or disagreeing.  I agree/disagree with statement ___, because _______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________.
Conversation:  What is the right standpoint?  Which argument is best?
Meta Talk:
            Reflection time.
1.     What went well?
2.     What was difficult?
Conversation:  We seek good answers to question 1 and 2.


Ethics
Day 3 of 5

High School English – Bronx, NY
Grade Level:  Juniors (11th Grade)
Length of Lesson: 45 minutes

Essential Question:
1.     What is Philosophy
2.     Why should we think about thinking?

Objectives: 
1.  Students will learn to reflect on a philosophical session.
2.  Students will learn from others’ viewpoints.

New York State English Standards: 
1.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for information and understanding.
2.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for critical analysis.
3.  Students will listen and speak for social interaction.

The Lesson Overview:
            Today’s lesson is a continuation of yesterday’s philosophy session on ethics.  Students will have had the evening to continue thinking and reflecting, hopefully giving them plenty of time to think and process before today’s meta talk.  Extending the lesson to a second day also gives us the chance to continue the actual inquiry, if necessary. 

Warm Up:  Since we are continuing with yesterday’s lesson, I’ve decided to do a warm up that will help students to work well with each other, rather than any questions or images.  I will present the “stand up” game we did with Bo in “Philosophy with Children” on June 29, 2010.   The goal is for everyone to be standing, yet students must not speak to each other or make signals.  10 minutes.

Reflection time:  Questions or comments about this warm up. 2 minutes.   Then toss the dice to get 3-4 answers.  5 minutes.

Next Steps: 

1.  I will toss the dice and begin going around the room so every student can share their answer for what went well.   I will type answers on the screen (to be viewable online later).  I will do the same for steps 2 and 3.  10 minutes.
2.We will go around a second time for things that were difficult.  I will remind students not to share their answer if it’s already been shared.  10 minutes.
3.Everyone will have a chance to share comments or questions.  I will allow this to turn into a bit of an open, unstructured dialogue.  Although this could be risky, so I’ll have to use the Oscar Brenifier Police Man approach (as we used on July 7, 2010) to ensure that students don’t monopolize the conversation or go off task.  7 minutes.

Homework:  I would like to pick a question for students to reflect upon based on something for the discussion. If nothing comes up, however, I may ask students to pick one of the five statements and come up with a specific situation for how it is applied in life.

Evaluation of Lesson Plan:

It could be a bit difficult to continue a lesson from the day before, although extremely necessary for time purposes.  I am slightly worried that students might be bored of the topic, although I have to trust that they will be engaged and interested in each others’ feedback.  If necessary, I can guide them a bit through appropriate questioning.  I hope I can explain the warm-up effectively.  I also worry about the slightly unstructured plan for the meta talk dialogue.  I devote a large portion of the class to the meta talk so I have to be prepared if conversation falls flat.  I am not used to using a policeman approach, although I know I need to try it to enforce our rules for a good discussion.   
           


Ethics
Day 4 of 5

High School English – Bronx, NY
Grade Level:  Juniors (11th Grade)
Length of Lesson: 45 minutes

Essential Question:
1.     What is Philosophy
2.     What is the connection between philosophy and literature?

Objectives: 
1.  Students will learn how to think philosophically using literature as a stimulus.
2.  Students will learn from others’ viewpoints.
3.  Students will practice their reasoning skills.

New York State English Standards: 
1.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for information and understanding.
2.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for critical analysis.
3.  Students will listen and speak for social interaction. 
4. Students will read, write, listen, and speak for literary response and expression. 

(This lesson hits all 4 of the New York State standards).

The Lesson Overview:
            Today’s lesson utilizes a Lipman story as an event.   While much of his writing may seem to be too childish for my students, this particularly story seems like it would work well.  It’s not an advanced reading level, but it doesn’t have to be.  The content is a rich and appropriate framework to start ethical discussion.  Afterwards, discussion is centered around questions in his discussion plan. 

Warm Up:  I will distribute the story, Episode 21, to students.  We will first read it together as a choral reading.  7 minutes

Next Steps:

1.Next students will have 10 minutes to read it on their own, look over it and jot down any notes.  If there is something they don’t understand, they must write that down so we can explain and address it later.
2.Address any questions and clear up any confusion. 5-10 minutes
3.I will distribute a list of statements to agree or disagree with, based on the story.  Students will have 10 minutes to fill out the sheet, then a reflection time to write reasons for their opinion.
4.Part II of the lesson will continue tomorrow as we begin an inquiry based on students’ feedback.

Homework:  Continue writing reasons for your opinion about the statement.  Feel free to use real life and personal examples in your reasons.

Evaluation of Lesson Plan:

I am glad that I am using Lipman’s prepared materials, although I have only chosen pieces from his discussion guide.  I think it could work because the story may get students thinking.  However, it is always a risk that the students may not be interested in the story.  In this case, hopefully the log sheets will help flush out important information and ideas.  It’s about the philosophy, not the event.

In addition, I have decided to use the choral reading as the warm up and the independent reading as the event.  I’m not sure if this will work, but I wanted to maximize class time.



Ethics
Day 5 of 5

High School English – Bronx, NY
Grade Level:  Juniors (11th Grade)
Length of Lesson: 45 minutes

Essential Question:
3.     What is Philosophy
4.     Why should we think about thinking?

Objectives: 
1.  Students will practice their inquiry skills, including reasoning and agreement/disagreement as well as behavior.
2.  Students will learn from others’ viewpoints.

New York State English Standards: 
1.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for information and understanding.
2.  Students will read, write, listen and speak for critical analysis.
3.  Students will listen and speak for social interaction. 

The Lesson Overview:
            Today we conduct our second philosophical inquiry in part II of the Lipman lesson.   

Warm Up: To continue with familiarity, I will follow a similar structure utilizing a log sheet like we did for the previous inquiry.  I feel it will help students to follow along better.  Students will first reflect on which statement was most difficult to choose to agree or disagree with.  (Log sheet is on following page).  What statement was the most difficult in yesterday’s event?  Why?  5 minutes.

Next Steps: 

1.  I will call out the number of each statement.  Students will raise their hands if they have chosen that statement as the most difficult.  5 minutes.
2.Based on feedback, we will choose the statement to work with, the one that the most people found the most difficult. I will write that statement on the board.
            3.I will toss the dice and begin collecting reasons for agreeing, writing
answers on the board next to students’ names.  10 minutes
             4. Next, students will evaluate which reason is the best for agreeing.
            Then students will share out reasons for disagreeing, as I write answers on the             board next to students’ names.  10 minutes.
5.     Finally, we evaluate the best reason for disagreeing.
6.     Reflection time.  Based on these answers, which is the right answer, to agree or disagree?  2 minutes.
7.     Share out.  Toss the dice and collect answers.
8.     Questions for Meta talk.  What went well?  What was difficult?  3 minutes
9.     Toss the dice and collect answers for each of the meta questions.

Homework:  What did you learn about ethics as a result of this inquiry?

Evaluation of Lesson Plan:

I am glad that I am using Lipman’s prepared materials, although I have only chosen pieces from his discussion guide.  I think it could work because the story may get students thinking.  However, it is always a risk that the students may not be interested in the story.  In this case, hopefully the log sheets will help flush out important information and ideas.

The homework continues the discussion and could be used as a bridge to the next unit plan, depending on what that is. 



Log Sheet: Ethics and Lisa
Warming Up: Choral and then quiet reading of “Episode 21 – Lisa” – by Matthew Lipman
Event: Independent reading and reflections upon “Episode 21 – Lisa.”
Reflection time: Take a stand to each statement.  Write whether you agree or disagree.
1.      Benjamin said, “I enjoy my work in the soup kitchen, where we give food to people who are malnourished or starving.  But I don’t think it’s the right thing to do just because it feels good: it makes me feel good because it’s right.”
2.      Charles said, “I enjoy beating up on kids smaller than me.  I know it’s wrong to do so, so I would enjoy it even more if it were right.”
3.      Monica said, “Doing what’s right means to me doing my duty.  But I never enjoy doing my duty.  So nothing ever feels good to me because it’s right, although lots of things seem right because they feel good to me.
4.      Hope said, “There’s no connection between what’s right to do and what feels good to do.”
5.      Felicia said, “The sort of person I want to be is a good person.  A good person is one who always tries to do the right thin and who is satisfied only if he or she succeeds in doing the right thing.  So in my opinion, feeling good is the result of being good, not the cause or the criterion.
Reflection Time:  What statement was most difficult to take a stand for?  Number ___, because ___________________________________________________________.
Choice of statement for inquiry:  We find out how many agree and disagree.  Then we choose the most important statement among those it was most difficult to decide upon.  Or we let the dice choose.
Reflection time:  Write down your reason for agreeing or disagreeing.  I agree/disagree with statement ___, because _______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________.
Conversation:  What is the right standpoint?  Which argument is best?
Meta Talk:
                  Reflection time.
1.      What went well?
2.      What was difficult?
Conversation:  We seek good answers to question 1 and 2.

Reflections on Unit as a Whole:

Although I have been making lesson plans for three years, I felt it was very difficult to make lesson plans for philosophy with children because it was so new to me.  I know a lot of the skills will come from experience, although I do need to plan before I begin.  While the lessons themselves could certainly be improved, I hope they will provide a good framework to introduce my students to philosophical inquiry.  I am ready and excited to begin.  As Beate quoted Lipman in one of our sessions, “Bad philosophy is better than no philosophy at all.”


Works Cited

BØrresen, Beate and Malmhester, Bo. “Philosophy with Children.”  Class at Oslo
University College International Summer School.  Oslo, Norway.   29 June,  30
June, 2 July and 7 July , 2010.
Cam, Philip.  Thinking Together: Philosophical Inquiry for the Classroom.  Camberwell
Victoria Australia: Acer Press, 1995.
Cam, Philip.  20 Thinking Tools.  Camberwell Victoria Australia: Acer Press, 2006.
Law, Stephen.  Philosophy: History, Ideas, Theories.  How to Think.  London: Darling
            Kindersley Ld, 2007.
Lipman, Matthew.  “Philosophy for Children.”  From Thinking Children and Education,
(Ed. Lipman M.) Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Nagel, Thomas.  What does it all mean?  New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Stanley, Sara.  Creating Enquiring Minds. London: PocketPAL Network Continuum,
2006.
Whalley, Michael J.  “The Practice of Philosophy in the Elementary School Classroom.” 
From Thinking Children in Education, (Ed. Lipman M.).  Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.