323-336_TRE_095587.

qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 323

. . TRE

The status of the subject in the classroom community of inquiry

mar jan s i m e n c
Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana
a b s t rac t
This article deals with the issue of how to establish an authentic community of inquiry. I propose the introduction of a distinction between two stages of the community of inquiry: the stage of an emergent community of inquiry and the stage of an established community of inquiry. Further on, I propose an analysis of the structure of intentions and goals in the community of inquiry using Elsters concept of states that are essentially by-products. I suggest that the position of the subject be defined on the basis of the aforementioned two stages of the community: in the first stage, there is a community consisting of equal individuals who voluntarily engage in dialogue, whereas in the second stage there is a subject who is not engaged in dialogue, but arises in it at a certain point. It seems that it is the internalised dialogical community, in which the participants are equal and strive for clarity and transparency, that generates the necessary space for the particular foundation of the subject to show itself the particular foundation that is not yet captured in reflection and that defies articulation in dialogue. k e y w o r d s authenticity, community of inquiry, philosophy for children, subject, states that are essentially by-products

The Symposium on Philosophy for Children in the November 2007 issue of this journal provides a good overview of the current state of development of the philosophy for children movement.The author of the editorial notes that contributions to the symposium are marked by a certain duality and defines this duality by linking it to two major authorities in the field of children encountering philosophy, Matthew Lipman and Gareth B. Matthews.The first two articles are related to Lipman, the rest are more closely related to Matthews approach.The first two articles (Splitter, 2007; Laverty and Gregory, Theory and Research in Education
Copyright 2008, sage publications, www.sagepublications.com vol 6(3) 323336 ISSN 1477-8785 DOI: 10.1177/1477878508095587

[323]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 324

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) 2007) extend the scope of philosophy for children and present its core the community of inquiry (COI) as a general working method in the classroom. This is the result of the development of the movement during the last 30 years, in the course of which it has become clear that youngsters engaging in philosophy in a community of inquiry can have numerous positive effects that schools are striving for, e.g. in the field of moral education, democracy education and citizenship education. The development of the philosophy for children agenda has thus resulted in a broader understanding of the community of inquiry and applications of it beyond pure philosophy.1 The employment of the community of inquiry as a response to a growing number of issues faced in contemporary education can give rise to the belief that the COI can do almost anything.This belief is particularly strong because its wide use and multitude of effects go hand in hand with more general discussions of the COI, and the concept is consequently becoming increasingly void of substance. On the one hand, this is legitimate since numerous articles have been devoted to its content in the past, but on the other hand it seems that, owing to the broader scope of application, special attention should be paid to how extension of the COI to new fields and purposes affects its content and functioning. Laurance Splitters article Do the groups to which I belong make me me? Reflections on community and identity, focuses on yet another application of the COI using the COI to help youngsters in search of their personal identity. In pursuing this topic, Splitter raises an important conceptual issue: what is the status of the subject in the community of inquiry? The basic thesis of the article is that the COI can be a place for reflections on the emergent sense of identity (Splitter, 2007: 263), which in the article is related to an individuals membership in different groups. However, Splitter stresses that the COI serves as a vital means to an end, and that end is the personal development of its members (Splitter, 2007: 273), which means that the COI is not just about getting to know oneself and reflecting on the consequences of membership in various groups; it is also about changing and forming oneself. The COI is in this sense all about the subject.2 In this article I will attempt a further analysis of this dimension of the COI.

t h e t e ac h e r , t h e s t u d e n t s a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y
When considering the relation between the community and the individual, the starting point has traditionally been the fact that a class consists of the students and the teacher.The aim of establishing a community of inquiry is to achieve a dual shift of focus: not only the shift from the teacher to the students, but another one namely the shift from the individual to the community. [324]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 325

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry When observing a discussion in a community of inquiry it sometimes truly seems as if it is not an isolated individual, but rather the whole group that is doing the thinking, so that each individual has a hard time keeping up with what has evolved in the group. This is true with respect to both values and reflection.Values are given and slowly recognized by each individual student as part of the basic framework of the community of inquiry. Reflection in a sense takes place at the level of the Other of the group, so that both the individual and the group as a whole have yet to reflectively capture it retrospectively. And it is perhaps this very emergent dynamic unity of heterogeneous elements which makes the programme so effective: the story and the argumentation, the group and the individual, the equality and non-equality, the uncritical acceptance and the critical reflection, etc. Reading more theoretically oriented texts, it may seem that the position of the teacher in the community of inquiry is quite blurred, whereas other discussions suggest that in the community of inquiry the teacher can assume different positions, play various roles and perform a number of functions. Marianne Cane distinguishes between three levels of the COI: the cognitive, the emotional and the social level. She analyses the social level in terms of the roles the members of the community can assume. This is nothing unusual, since the basic distinction between the roles of facilitator and inquirer is a common feature of most texts on the formation of the COI. However, the author emphasizes the element of internal differentiation in the community and additionally introduces a series of distinct roles, such as five productive roles that all group members should eventually master (Cane, 2003: 12): facilitator, proposer, supporter, critic and recorder. During the interaction, participants might assume informal roles such as information giver, encourager, information blocker. Expectations of other group members might give rise to dramaturgical roles such as protagonist, antagonist, auxiliary, team member, audience. Different stages of the problem solving process might give rise to corresponding roles. Other sets of roles might also evolve, such as the critic, the innovator, the second helper, the cautionary (Cane, 2003: 14).These roles may stem from aspects of the work process as such or they may be the result of the personality and personal preferences of the individuals involved in the community. An exhaustive list of roles is largely a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless, Cane stresses that, as a rule, particular roles appear in particular contexts. It even seems that, in order for the group to be effective, it has to successfully perform certain tasks, regardless of whether special team roles for performing these tasks are explicitly established or not. It may well be that the group is able to function more successfully if the roles are clearly defined and if the members receive assistance in becoming aware of the role they are playing without knowing and consciously adopting it. The position of the [325]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 326

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) participants is even more complicated owing to the fact that the group functions at several levels, i.e. at the intellectual, social and emotional level. Roles emerge to meet the demands of all dimensions, resulting in a complex interplay of conflicting roles (Cane, 2003: 16). The community is thus not simply a community of equal members, but at least potentially a structured entirety of different roles. It is simultaneously structured in a number of different ways that sometimes coincide or partly overlap, or, as is often the case, conflict.The transformation of a class into a community of inquiry tends to result in the formation of various structures, perhaps even a hierarchy of roles, which the participants may not even be aware of.This process actually encompasses three aspects: the production of a system of roles, the casting of roles formed this way, and the process of learning and playing these roles. This means that the COI is not immune to the internal hierarchy of roles and the identification with the roles.The COI is thus not merely a realm of free inquiry, but also a realm of expectation for the individual to assume or continue playing a certain role and to internalize a set of qualities inherent to the role along with a corresponding image of oneself.The COI, if not conducted carefully, may turn out to be not only a realm of free inquiry, but also a realm of pressure and alienation. Such a community of inquiry might be considered deviant, but that hardly makes a difference.We must admit that this kind of deviance is something that may well ensue from the process of establishing a COI.

t h e s p e c i f i c r o l e o f t h e t e ac h e r
This of course does not mean that all expectations in the community are suspect or that determining the position of participants in a community of inquiry should be avoided at all cost. The crucial role the teacher plays in it consists not only in facilitating the inquiry, but also in making sure the community is formed in such a way that it is about inquiry and that it becomes a true community of inquiry.The teacher therefore does not aim to remain invisible in the group, but rather takes on an active role in getting the community to develop a specific structure. Nobody makes this point better than Susan Gardner in her article Inquiry is no mere conversation. Her concern is that moving from teacher-centred towards child-centred education might lead to the view that youngsters ought to be encouraged to develop their natural interests and talent and hence that it is important to allow children to do the talking and that adults listen (Gardner, 1995: 38). However, all the teachers skills in leading the dialogue are worthless, unless a process is established that is structured around the truth.The truth has to be the regulative idea that guides the process.The community of inquiry is therefore not a community. In the beginning it is actually almost a dictatorship: [326]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 327

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry The novice facilitator must always keep in mind that her long-term goal is to be much more than a facilitator. She must be a model in her passion for truth, a dictator in her demands for excellence in reasoning, a philosophical sensitizer in demonstrating a capacity to focus on the philosophically fruitful, and a leader in ensuring that direction is maintained. We will do novices no small favour by letting them know at the outset that inquiry is no mere conversation, and that facilitation of inquiry is hard work! (Gardner, 1995: 47). A community can function at different levels, but it is the level of inquiry that must establish itself as the essential level. Everyone in the community can be equal, yet the position of the teacher is very specific: it is up to her to make sure that the COI is structured the way it needs to be. The structure, the expectations and the roles as pertaining to inquiry are therefore not a source of alienation, but rather a prerequisite for free inquiry in the established COI. In this respect, Ross Phillips notes that the specific position of the teacher may lead to conflicts which prevent the community from achieving all the goals it is believed to be achieving. In his article,Motivation and the goal of inquiry, he sets out three types of intentions:

your goals as a teacher in introducing and sustaining philosophy in your classroom your students goals in doing philosophy the goal(s) of your classroom community of inquiry (Phillips, 1997: 22).

When introducing philosophy for children, the teacher has various positive effects in mind. She introduces philosophy for the sake of the children and thus uses it in an instrumental way.The goal of the students should consist in finding examples, giving reasons, defining concepts, etc.These two sets of goals are generally known, but according to Phillips not enough attention is paid to the idea that the community of inquiry might have its own goals and interests separable from those of its members (Phillips, 1997: 22).The goal of the COI is just what Susan Gardner identifies: discovering the truth. Another thing needs to be added here. For the community to aim for this goal, the teacher must have this goal in view in leading the community.Yet, first and foremost this goal must be pursued by the students, for otherwise all the aforementioned intellectual skills have no meaning for them. The COI offers almost the only moment in the curriculum when what is being undertaken is authentic investigation (Phillips, 1997: 23), and the key strength of authenticity is its ability to motivate students. Without the dimension of authentic investigation, which also makes the position of the students authentic, students in class would just be observers to COI lessons rather than participants. How can we go about considering the relations within the plurality of intentions described above? The aforementioned intentions of students i.e. [327]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 328

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) finding examples, giving reasons, defining concepts, etc. can be viewed as sub-intentions of a broader intention to search for the truth.What about the intentions of the teacher? What is the relation between those intentions and the goal of classroom community of inquiry (Phillips, 1997: 22)? Certain aspects of the teachers position and intentions can be explained with the concept of states that are essentially by-products.

s tat e s t h at a r e e s s e n t i a l ly b y - p r o d u c t s
The concept of states that are essentially by-products is introduced by Jon Elster in his book Sour Grapes (1985). Using this concept, he tries to highlight the effects of our actions that cannot be achieved intentionally because, as soon as we set them out as goals to be achieved, our very wish to achieve them prevents us from doing so. It is, for example, impossible to willingly forget an unpleasant event, because the very wish to forget it keeps bringing the event back to our mind. The same goes for spontaneity, sleep, etc. This problem is not limited to states marked by an absence of something (a plan, memory, attention). By way of example, let us consider La Fontaines fable. A father confides in his lazy sons that a treasure is buried in the field. The sons dig through the entire field but find nothing.When they have almost given up and concluded that their father had lied to them and that there was no treasure, it occurs to them that, since they have already dug through the field, they might as well plant something.That is what they do.They sell the produce and earn a fortune. Finally, they understand their fathers message: there truly was a treasure buried in the field. The point of the story is that, in order for the sons to get the treasure, they needed faith that the treasure was really there. If their father had told them that working the field would earn them a fortune, the sons would have laughed at his advice.They acquired the treasure owing to the very fact that they (mistakenly) believed the treasure already existed. If the father had set working the field as the immediate goal for them, they would never have made the fortune, because the fortune could only arise as a by-product of their efforts. And their insight that there is in fact a treasure in the field is the result of the process they were engaged in. Renata Salecl connects Elsters theory, that goals that can only be achieved indirectly while pursuing other goals, to the field of education. She points out that it is also not possible to teach children values in a direct manner by simply explaining a certain value and asking them to accept it and act in accordance with it. What is possible in conveying (a part of) knowledge is not possible in imparting values, so it would be wrong to see a connection between the two and consider the

[328]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 329

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry formation of values and the communication of knowledge as parts of a whole:
The paradox of this connection is that the purpose or aim of a certain activity can only be transmission of knowledge but definitely not formation of values. Only the educational purposes of school which are directly realized through the curriculum, the way subject matter is introduced, repetition, examination . . . can have formation of values as a by-product. It is therefore absurd to say that the aim of school is formation of values the aim of school can only be related to knowledge. Without this external aim (knowledge) there actually cannot be any formation of values. (Salecl, 1991: 136)

Naturally Salecls words should not be interpreted to mean that formation of values must simply be separated from transmission of knowledge; the key point of her reasoning is that, owing to its specific nature, formation of values cannot be the aim of school at the same level and in the same way as transmission of knowledge.The teacher cannot simply walk into a classroom and tell the students that they will be dealing with this and that value that day, whereas she can certainly do that when it comes to (certain) topics from the cognitive field. And that is exactly what the job of the teacher in the COI consists in. Students simply focus on an issue they are interested in at a certain point in time, and the effects of the programme will come by themselves.They do not, however, come by themselves to the teacher, who has to lead the discussion so that the students also learn what they cannot directly intend to learn. This distribution of intentions defines the position of the teacher in the COI. On the one hand, the teacher identifies herself with the student who is interested in the problem under discussion. On the other hand, she must also identify with the structure of the COI and must create an environment in which the real community can come as close as possible to the ideal community. In doing so, the teacher must also indirectly keep in mind the by-products of the community, which are laid down in the programming documents but are as such not an immediate goal of the COI.3 The effectiveness of philosophy for children can in part be attributed to the fact that it establishes a structure which produces intentionally unintended results. The effectiveness of the programme also attests to the fact that knowledge (at least part of it) is in its nature essentially a by-product.And this is in fact a unique irony: a programme that declares itself as following the principles of clarity, explicitness and reflection is in fact based on a certain vital ignorance.

two com mun i t i e s : th e e m e rg e nt and th e e s ta b l i s h e d c o m m u n i t y

A community can include a plurality of intentions, yet the multitude of intentions is structured and has a certain order. In the community as a structure of

[329]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 330

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) intentions, one intention is superior and determines the position of all other intentions.We can call it the intention of the community.The supremacy of this intention is not given in advance, it needs to establish itself in the community, yet on the other hand it is given in advance at least to the teacher trying to establish a classroom COI.This gives rise to a certain duality in the community as a structure of intentions: there is one structure known to the teacher and given in advance and there is another one seen by external observers which is established in the course of the actual process in the classroom.4 This yields a distinction between two communities: the community as an ideal we strive for and the community as an actual state of affairs in which the ideal is partially realized. From the point of view of community dynamic this is a distinction between the emergent and the established COI.The emergent community includes the beginning, the gradual formulation and implementation of working rules, the learning of various skills and the process of their internalization. The established community coincides with the community which is generally meant when the COI is referred to in theoretical and programme texts. If texts about philosophy for children are not of a descriptive nature, if they do not report on concrete developments in communities, they typically describe a community which as it becomes clear in the course of classroom work is actually an ideal. In the emergent COI, the teacher plays a central role and an extraordinary effort on her part is required. The teacher makes sure that students gradually begin to respect the rules that are constitutive of the COI. It therefore makes sense to try to describe the community in terms of the rules that need to be followed, the questions the teacher needs to ask, as well as the skills and relations that need to be developed and the aims the community must strive for.The community is described in terms of rules that will later mostly be replaced by feeling and intuition. In this first phase of the COI the teachers job is to guarantee that what is happening is philosophically relevant. Empirically speaking, the discussion in the beginning resembles a presentation of different opinions and it is up to the teacher to facilitate progress toward knowledge and a disentangling of the relevant from the irrelevant.The teacher must ensure that the process, however chaotic it may seem at times, is headed towards a goal the teacher assures the participants that what is happening makes sense. When Kennedy emphasizes the dynamic and dialectical nature of the community and says,The structure of the inquiry is chaotic, emergent, self-correcting, and self-organizing (2004: 216), he has in mind is the established COI. In the beginning, the transformation of individuals into a community, and the transition from chaos to order (and sometimes also from order to chaos), is the teachers responsibility. When it comes to the status of the subject, the emphasis is initially on including all the students in the community and making sure they internalize [330]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 331

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry the rules and procedures of the joint quest for truth, which for them are represented by and embodied in the teacher/facilitator. Any deviation from the rules and lack of cooperation is a disturbance because it shows that a student has not yet become a subject in the community or a subject of the community. But when the dialogue in the community runs smoothly, the participants are fully integrated in the community and have internalized its rules so that the rules have become second nature. They have become a part of the community just as the community has become a part of them. This is actually one of the key points of the philosophy for children programme: the subject in the community establishes itself as a dialogical subject when external dialogue also becomes his internal dialogue. However, it seems that a subject who is fully integrated into the community and automatically follows the rules has himself become devoid of all particular substance.5 He seems to be entirely absorbed in the intersubjective relations in the community and flawlessly follows the rules that establish the community as a community. Such a subject is hardly an individual any more, but much more a part of a collective rationality that functions in accordance with the rules of the community. In a sense, this is the ideal the community strives for: pure investigation, conducted without any interruptions and barriers, which the participants are all actively involved in and fully committed to. When these conditions are met, the community becomes a collective subject the individual is fully absorbed into. Such a role for the subject can only be an ideal for the emergent COI. Once the community has been established, the position of the subject is different.What had previously been an external disturbance that hindered the establishment of the basic conditions for the functioning of the community has now become an internal feature which is no longer a disturbance but rather a motor of the community. However, subjectivity as a productive disturbance can only establish itself once the constitutive rules have been adopted and the space has thus been created to clarify the realm of reflection and to arrive, through the process of reflection, at the internal border of understanding. At this stage, the investigation really does progress through continual disruptions, so it can be said that at this stage a crisis is a sign that true investigation has begun. Only at this stage does the radical position hold true, that the COI is a place apart, where we have come together to experience this crisis of meaning (Kennedy, 2004: 778).

th e i ne f fab i l i ty of th e sub j e c t
In Do the groups to which I belong make me me? Splitter (2007) considers personal identity mostly in terms of membership in different groups. Certain [331]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 332

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) groups are more of a burden on the subject because they come with plenty of baggage. The community of inquiry, however, is said not to impose any baggage. At a certain level this is true, but the COI nevertheless has a strong impact on the subject. The subject is to turn into a critical thinker, and this may potentially engender a radical personal transformation. It can be said that the COI merely equips the subject with skills and habits or enables him to become what is already implicit in his nature, but this does not change the fact that from the point of view of certain communities the COI equips the subject with baggage that becomes a way of being. Splitters analysis of membership focuses on the element of participation in different groups that brings with it certain baggage the subject is not aware of. The COI provides the subject with an opportunity to reflect on these memberships and thus opens up an additional dimension of the subject. The subject is not only a member of a group, but can also be thoroughly committed and internally devoted to the group of which he is a member membership in large groups gives his world a structure and meaning. Membership produces a surplus that grants the subject depth. This is how the subject is viewed by Charles Taylor. According to Taylor, it is characteristic of a subject that he is engaged in dialogue with others, yet what defines a person is also the fact that he is able to question whether he really wants to be what he is at that point in time. Therefore, the evaluation of our desires is essential to our notion of the self (Taylor, 1976: 287). The evaluation of our fundamental desires and the specification of criteria used to evaluate those desires is no easy task, since fundamental criteria defy specification. Our evaluation is based on an unstructured feeling and not so much on clear criteria. Regarding this evaluation that essentially defines the subject,6 Taylor notes the following:
This radical evaluation is a deep reflection, and a self-reflection in a special sense: it is a reflection about the self, its most fundamental issues, and a reflection which engages the self most wholly and deeply. Because it engages the whole self without a fixed yardstick it can be called a personal reflection . . .; and what emerges from it is a self-resolution in a strong sense, for in this reflection the self is in question; what is at stake is the definition of those inchoate evaluations which are sensed to be essential to our identity. (Taylor, 1976: 299)

The depth of the subject is thus only partly accessible to the subject himself. He can approach it, but can never reflectively capture it in its entirety.Taylor notes that, in the era of the ethics of authenticity, an individuals identity is inextricably linked to others:My discovering my identity doesnt mean that I work it out in isolation but that I negotiate it through dialogue, partly overt, partly internalised, with others (Taylor, 1991: 47). But the subject is never entirely absorbed in dialogue. There is a part of the subject that may be the [332]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 333

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry basis of dialogue, but nevertheless defies and evades it.The foundation of the subject in itself is neither dialogical nor is it part of a community. There is of course a certain boundary limiting the extent to which the personal experience of an individual can become the centre of a dialogue. It is not the aim of COI to be therapeutic. Yet there are also limits to the exclusion of subjectivity in the form of internal experiences of individuals.To students, the investigation of a problem comes in the form of an investigation of their world, and the investigation of their world comes in the form of an investigation of them in the world and of the world in them.The membrane that separates the internal experience of an individual from the world is very permeable. If the purpose of philosophical inquiry for students is to confront and overcome discrepancies in their own thinking and living (Laverty, 2003: 35), then the reference to the experience and subjective perception of the individual is indispensable. In the transition from abstract language formulations to the concrete experiences of an individual, experience exhibits a dual nature. On the one hand it provides speech with content and it stimulates reflection, yet on the other hand it defies articulation, halts dialogue, and hinders the progress of the community. The subject in his core is particular. In order for him to get to know himself, he needs space to express himself, to feel his way around, to experience moments when he surprises himself when he discovers the alienness within him. The subjects space thus appears to be a disturbance in the process of reflection. Based on the dichotomy of the emergent/established community of inquiry, the position of the subject can be defined as follows: in the beginning, when the key task is to establish a community and engage the subject in it, the particularity of the subject is disturbing. But in the established community the appearance of the subjects particularity is a sign of authentic dialogue and of an authentic community of inquiry.7

c o n c lu s i o n
The duality of the contributions to the Symposium on Philosophy for Children is representative of the philosophy for children movement. The role of the subject and the rules established in the first two articles8 touch upon the dimension of the programme that has seen widespread use, reflecting the success of the philosophy for children movement and the use of the COI as a method in other school subjects.This wider scope of application has produced a tendency for the COI to become void of substance. As a result, there is a pressing need for more research into the mechanisms of establishing a COI and the role of the subject in it.And in order to ensure the authenticity of the COI, it is of particular importance that the mediation between the general [333]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 334

Theory and Research in Education 6(3) framework of the method and the concrete experience in the classroom featured in the second part of the symposium be conducted in the different fields that the COI is used in. The discussion of the dynamic of subjectivity shows that the authenticity of the dialogue in a COI is related to the position of the subject in the community. If the subject in the COI is not given but rather arises in the process, an authentic COI is also not something a teacher can establish.The teacher can provide the conditions for it, but authentic investigation will only be established once a subject has arisen in the process. In a sense, the articles in the second part highlight the moments in the experiences of the teachers/facilitators of the COI that show that authentic investigation had occurred. Because the development of the subject occurs in the realm of the concrete, a description of the unique logic of the concrete is of great importance to teachers preparing for the role of a facilitator in a community of inquiry. As the COI becomes the answer to a growing number of questions that teachers ask themselves, the analysis of the internal workings of the COI is gaining ground.Without an analysis of the structure and dynamic of the COI, future practitioners will have an idealized image of it, making them ill-prepared for the reality of leading a dialogue in a COI.The key issues here seem to be how the different aspects of the community come together to form a single community and how to combine the different roles of the (vanishing) teacher. The more tasks the community takes on, the greater is the likelihood of tension and conflict in the community and the greater is the possibility that the participants may not be involved in the investigation to the extent required for it to be authentic investigation. Reading articles about the benefits of the COI, the teacher might get the impression that the COI is the solution to all problems and that it comes into existence almost on its own. It is therefore only right to draw her attention to the other side of the coin: the COI can have a number of extraordinary effects, but in using the COI the myriad of problems in class will be replaced by a single one how to establish and maintain the authenticity of the COI.
note s
1. Gregory (2007) thus presents a framework he himself uses for facilitating philosophical dialogues with children, but he considers this six-level model of inquiry to be of very general application and suitable for structuring group discussions across the disciplines as well as in non-pedagogical contexts such as peer mediation, and across a range of ages and levels of expertise (Gregory, 2007: 60). 2. David Kennedy and Pavel Lushyn also follow a similar line when analysing the community of inquiry in terms of the position of the subject. They consider

[334]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 335

Simenc:The subject in the classroom community of inquiry

the community as advancing from an individual subject to an intersubject (a subject who has entered the realm of intersubjectivity) and a collective subject the unitary identity of the group as a whole (Lushyn and Kennedy, 2000: 14). 3. Lushyn (2002) tries to consider this complex role of the teacher in terms of a distinction between an ordinary participant and a meta-participant, the teacher as the facilitator in the COI being not merely a meta-participant but both an ordinary and a meta-participant. 4. A number of authors have entertained the idea that the community of inquiry is not homogeneous or that there is in fact more than one single community. Splitter and Sharp were definitely right in their extensive study on the classroom community of inquiry when they refused to give a precise definition of the community and referred to the COI as an open concept that will change and advance in the course of development: We shall not try to give a precise definition of community of inquiry. It is one of those key concepts which takes on new aspects and dimensions (Splitter and Sharp, 1995: 17). Several other authors point out the complex structure and the elaborate internal dynamic of the community. Kennedy (1997) thus specifies five communities: the community of gesture, the community of language, the community of mind, the community of love, and the community of interest.What he has in mind are five dimensions of the same community, which raises the question of how these dimensions overlap and influence one another, and how, if at all, they come together to form a single community. Lushyn (2002) focuses on the analysis of the processual nature of the community and views it as a dynamic whole in which nothing is permanent except for change, opposition and contradiction. 5. In Teaching for Better Thinking Splitter and Sharp introduce the equality condition and when it comes to personal characteristics of the participants, they point out that those must in a sense stand outside the dialogue itself . In addition,the point of this condition is not to dehumanise dialogue or to invalidate personal perspectives, but to avoid unwarranted discrimination (Splitter and Sharp, 1995; 367). 6. These evaluations are so essential to the subject that Taylor says: For it is precisely the deepest evaluations which are least clear, least articulated, most easily subject to illusion and distortion. It is those which are closest to what I am as a subject, in the sense that shorn of them I would break down as a person, which are among the hardest for me to be clear about (Taylor, 1976: 296). In a sense, the depth of the subject is what the subject really is in his authenticity. And this depth is what Socrates is referring to in his tenet that the unexamined life is not worth living. 7. It can be said of the established COI that the individual does not have ideas; at least when it comes to fundamental ideas, it is rather the ideas that have the individual.At this stage, the community of inquiry comes close to a hermeneutic community in which the foundations of the community that the subject is integrated into are such that they cannot be exhaustively articulated.

[335]

323-336_TRE_095587.qxd

6/8/08

12:05 PM

Page 336

Theory and Research in Education 6(3)

8. In their contribution to the Symposium on Philosophy for Children, Maughn Gregory and Megan Laverty present a formal instrument for the evaluation of classroom dialogue which can be used for any dialogue in the classroom, not only for dialogue in the field of philosophy for children.

re ferences
Cane, M. (2003) Group roles in community of inquiry, Thinking 16(3): 1216. Curren, R. (2007) Editorial, Theory and Research in Education 5(3): 25960. Elster, J. (1985) Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, S. (1995) Inquiry is no mere conversation, Critical and Creative Thinking 3(2): 3849. Gregory, M. (2007) A Framework for Facilitating Classroom Dialogue, Teaching Philosophy 30(1): 5984. Kennedy, D. (1997) The five communities, Inquiry 16(4): 6686. Kennedy, D. (2004) Communal philosophical dialogue and the intersubject, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18(2): 20318. Laverty, M. (2003) The role of confession in community of inquiry: Self-revelation as self-justification, Thinking 16(3): 3035. Laverty, M. and Gregory, M. (2007) Evaluating classroom dialogue: Reconciling internal and external accountability, Theory and Research in Education 5(3): 281308. Lushyn, P. (2002) The paradoxical nature of ecofacilitation in the community of inquiry, Thinking 16(1): 817. Lushyn, P. and Kennedy, D. (2000) The psychodynamics of community of inquiry and educational reform: A cross-cultural perspective, Thinking 15(3): 916. Phillips, R. (1997) Motivation and the goal of inquiry, in H. Palsson, B. Sigurdardottir and B. Nelson (eds) Philosophy for Children on the Top of the World, pp. 205. Iceland: University of Akureyri. Salecl, R. (1991) Disciplina kot pogoj svobode. Ljubljana: Krt. Splitter, L. (2007) Do the groups to which I belong make me me? Reflections on community and identity, Theory and Research in Education 5(3): 26180. Splitter, L. and Sharp, A. (1995) Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne: ACER Press. Taylor, C. (1976) Responsibility for self , in A.O. Rorty (ed.) The Identities of Persons, pp. 281300. Berkeley: University of California Press. Taylor, C. (1991) The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

b i o g ra p h i ca l n o t e
m a r j a n s i m e n c is a researcher at the Educational Research Institute in Ljubljana and an assistant professor of didactics of philosophy at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. He publishes in the areas of teaching philosophy, citizenship education and philosophy of education. [email: marjan.simenc@pei.si]

[336]