On October 3, 2018, twenty-four people explored themes from one of the most important thought experiments in the history of philosophy: the Allegory of the Cave from Book VII of Plato’s Republic. Of these twenty-four people, thirteen were in first and second grade, one was in third grade, seven were in fourth and fifth grade, and three were philosophy students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: one undergraduate student (named Joe Venuta) and two graduate students (Dani Clevenger and myself).
The first through fifth graders were regular participants in Odyssey Junior: an innovative program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that supports young people “in self-discovery, literacy, and expression through a variety of forms, including writing, speaking, visual arts, music, movement, and theatre.” In addition to being philosophy students, Joe, Dani, and I are dialogue facilitators from Madison Public Philosophy (MPP): a public philosophy organization that shares philosophy throughout the Madison, WI community through Philosophy for Children (P4C) programs and public performances. I co-founded MPP in the Fall of 2016, and I have been its director ever since.
We began our exploration with an activity that Dani designed, during which the thirteen first and second graders cycled, in small groups, among three interactive illusions. The illusions, facilitated by Joe, Dani, and myself, consisted of a stick that looked bent in water (it was straight), a tall/skinny cup that appeared to hold more water than a short/wide cup (the volumes of water were identical), and a big plate that appeared to hold fewer pieces of candy than a small plate (the quantities of candy were identical). After all of the students had experienced the illusions and discussed them in their small groups, Dani facilitated a whole-class dialogue about the illusions. She helped the students identify and articulate the methods they used to see through the illusions, encouraging them to build upon each other’s observations in a collaborative process.
We then transitioned to an activity for the third through fifth graders. We began by having them read an age-appropriate adaptation of the Allegory of the Cave I wrote based on an outline that Grace Gecewicz–another one of MPP’s facilitators–and I had put together a few days earlier during a planning meeting. In the story, a group of young people have been living inside a movie theater for as long as they can remember. A girl named Ari leaves the theater room to explore the rest of the building and sees things she had only seen previously on the theater screen. When she returns to tell the others, they struggle to understand what she is saying. She needs their help, though, because she is not able to make it all the way outside the building in which the theater is housed without the collaborative efforts of her whole community (NB: this plot choice was an obvious nod to the American Pragmatist roots of the P4C movement).
After reading the story as a group, we split up into smaller groups that were each tasked with coming up with questions to ask based on the story. We then selected one of these questions through a voting procedure and worked collaboratively to come up with the most reasonable answer to it. The question was, “Is it better to take risks or play it safe?” and, after about 15 minutes of exploration, the students reached the conclusion that it is good to take small risks (in order to learn from new experiences) but avoid big ones (in order to not get hurt). I facilitated the inquiry, and my job was to gently guide everyone so that we would engage in caring thinking for each other and for the inquiry (e.g., by taking turns while speaking and focusing on only the selected question), creative thinking (e.g., by offering new ideas, examples, and perspectives), and critical thinking (e.g., by offering reasons and arguments for positions).
When I reflect on these experiences, two aspects stand out. First, facilitating dialogues with young people is difficult, and it is clear to me that Joe, Dani, and I were only able to accomplish what we did because of our regular commitment to improving. Everyone in MPP works hard to acquire facilitation skills by attending weekly meetings, guest presentations by pedagogy experts, lengthy debriefings following each of our facilitation sessions, and, in my case, the intensive Summer Seminar of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
Second, the payoff was undoubtedly worth the effort. Whenever I participate in a successful inquiry about a philosophical question with a group of young people, I am surprised and humbled by both the honesty and the depth of their engagement. MPP’s collaboration with the Odyssey Junior students was a particularly notable instance of this: they offered interesting and creative examples to challenge the positions of their peers while, at the same time, staying on task and showing respect for each other. Moreover, the Odyssey Junior staff were impressed with how highly engaged all of the students were with our activities; in particular, Chris Wagner, the Co-Coordinator of Odyssey Junior, reported to me that “students who had previously not been easy to engage in activities were some of the ones who showed the greatest interest.” Furthermore, the students themselves expressed that they enjoyed having an opportunity to reflect together on their experiences of fun illusions and an entertaining story (in the case of the story, the students wanted to know when they could read Part 2).
Aaron J. Yarmel
Aaron Yarmel is currently writing a dissertation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison about civic education. His research interests span political philosophy, philosophy of education, applied ethics, and normative ethics. He is also the Director of Madison Public Philosophy, which shares philosophy with the Madison community through public performances and Philosophy for Children programs.
What a remarkable experience for everyone involved. The experience with the optical illusions, the recasting of Plato’s cave as a movie theater, and the pragmatist twist of relying on community — all brilliant. Thanks for the tag to IAPC and thanks for sharing the powerful work you’re doing!
A well-written account of an excellent lesson! Well done! (I know- I was there! Chris
Sounds like a fun way to explore the Allegory of the Cave with children of various ages. I’m curious about the mixed-age factor and intergenerational inquiry. It wasn’t clear to me whether the activities involved all of the participants or if it was sequence of distinct themed lessons. Regardless, the reflection about the ‘payoff’ makes me wonder whether the author was moved into unexpected philosophical territory (What, if anything, did the children or group offer that shifted the philosopher’s understanding of the ideas?) or if the experience was more akin to the Odyssey Junior staff’s (What assumptions, if any, about children were challenged?). That second question, about our assumptions about children’s capabilities, might be worth investigating further, since the ‘illusions’ activity resembled some of Piaget’s experiments (and especially since it was these which P4C pioneer Gareth Matthews directly challenged).
Thank you Maughn! I have learned a lot about how to inquire and how to facilitate inquiries from you, so I’m really honored to read such kind comments!
Thank you Chris! I’ve enjoyed our collaborations, and I’m looking forward to future ones.
Thanks Abram for your thoughtful comments and questions (and for being a good friend)! I’ll start by clarifying that MPP offered one activity for the younger group (the illusions) and another activity for the older group (the story). I am interested, as are you, in intergenerational inquiry, but I didn’t think that it would have been feasible in this particular setting for the following reasons: we had no pre-existing relationship with the students; the differences between first and fifth grade are huge; and there were enough people that it seemed like a good idea to split them up into two separate groups.
To answer your other question, I did learn some new things through this process. The main thing was that I gained a greater appreciation of how hungry young people are for the opportunity to participate in inquiries. I also gained a deeper understanding of some of the things Pavel Lushyn and David Kennedy talk about in their (2004) “Power, Manipulation, and Control in a Community of Inquiry” (e.g., we should never impose fully on our students, and clashes between the facilitator’s model and the student’s model are opportunities for productive crises that push both models to greater adequacy).
To be honest, I don’t think I learned anything new about the ideas that we were discussing (sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t) or about Piaget’s developmental theory (e.g., in the water illusion, what we did wasn’t precise or rigorous enough to tell us anything about whether the students had conservation or reversibility; moreover, Piaget would have classified all of the younger students as either being in the concrete operations stage or the very end of the pre-operational stage anyway).
I can’t wait to hear how part #2 of the story and inquiry goes! I’d also love to see the other questions students generated from the first story. Did you gain insights on helpful questions generation techniques?