Philosophical inquiry as a pedagogical approach develops higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Inquiry-based learning is an important approach for sustainable development, considering the fact that today’s societies has to deal with everyday challenges. Philosophical inquiry is a powerful educational approach that has cognitive, social and practical benefits. This study examined the challenges faced by the Nyadire Teachers’ College (NTC) student teachers in Mashonaland East Province in Zimbabwe in engaging pupils in philosophical inquiry and ways of overcoming them. The study employed the qualitative design because of its focus on participants’ perceptions and actions. The researcher viewed participants as reflective beings whose actions were influenced by their thoughts. The study sample comprised forty student teachers on campus who had just completed their Teaching Practice (TP), eight student teachers on TP and ten lecturers from various departments. The data were collected through individual interviews, focus group discussions, non-participant observation of lessons and document analysis. The evidence from literature indicates that philosophical discourse and pedagogy develop learners’ ability to be responsible and accountable for their actions. It has also indicated teachers’ inability to introduce children to thoughtful discussion as one of the barriers to the use of philosophical inquiry as a pedagogy. The findings of the study indicated that NTC student teachers lacked skills and dispositions to engage pupils in philosophical inquiry. This was attributed to lack of critical pedagogy in teacher education at NTC. The findings also indicated that there were challenges in practicing schools. The study established knowledge and competence gaps amongst NTC student teachers as one of the challenges. The study suggested that NTC teacher education should expose student teachers to theory and practice of critical pedagogy. It also suggested in-service education on mentoring for teachers in schools, as mentoring demands more skills and knowledge than mere teaching. / Educational Studies / D. Ed. (Philosophy of Education)

Malgré la complexité de la recherche de terrain sur les travaux concernant la résilience et particulièrement la résilience en contexte scolaire, nous nous sommes intéressés aux modalités et aux manifestations de celle-ci dans les établissements du secondaire en France, dans les lycées dits sensibles, au sein des lycées professionnels du bâtiment. Siège de tensions éducatives et sociales, les relations entre les acteurs sont empreintes de défiance, et traduisent des difficultés sociales et psychosociales complexifiant la réponse aux missions d’enseignement et d’éducation, et ternissant l’image des adolescents et des diplômes. Bien que l’origine et les facteurs de dysfonctionnement des adolescents s’enracinent initialement dans des problématiques dépassant l’école, leur prise en charge et leur remédiation relèvent de l’enseignement et de l’éducation, afin de préparer l’entrée en vie active et sociale. Le recours au diagnostic et aux solutions sont inscrites dans des heures aujourd’hui institutionnalisées, dont les objectifs portent sur le développement de l’élève. Mais lorsque le contact s’est défait depuis des années d’échec scolaire antérieur, lorsque le non-sens s’est installé malgré l’orientation, lorsque les comportements défient l’autorité et que le décrochage scolaire s’affiche comme une constante en progression dans ces établissements, comment penser une pratique pédagogique et éducative qui puisse réamorcer les bases des interactions de confiance entre adolescents et enseignants, tout en garantissant un cadre de bonne contenance aux affects en suspens, en créant des interactions qui permettent à l’élève de travailler et médiatiser le passé, pour l’inscrire dans un présent porteur de sens en le projetant dans l’avenir de manière harmonieuse ? Si cette technique pédagogique permet à l’enseignant et à l’éducateur de définir son action, elle est également une contingence éducative inscrite dans les théories de la résilience, qui est la faculté de rebondir suite à un traumatisme. Dans l’optique de contrecarrer l’échec scolaire, de permettre la création de destinées positives, hors champ de la reproduction de l’échec, en prenant appui sur les théories de la résilience à l’école, il est possible d’envisager une technique pédagogique de prise en charge du groupe classe d’adolescents qui mette en œuvre ces interactions entre élèves et enseignant selon une praxis de résilience. Et si cette résilience s’inscrit dans des pratiques collectives culturelles, s’appuyant sur les œuvres d’une culture et transmise par celle-ci, alors, elle est nommée résilience culturelle. Hors-champ du thérapeutique ou de la psychologie de groupe, la résilience culturelle répond à l’impératif cognitif de s’inscrire dans une pratique dialogique sécurisante et exigeante pour des élèves empêchés de penser, afin de combler les lacunes et les défauts de langage intérieurs et antérieurs. Les pratiques de discussion à visée philosophique démontrent qu’il est possible de créer ces espaces de médiation autour de la pensée rigoureuse afin de développer différentes capacités de penser garantissant la performance d’un discours exempt de facilité et d’échappatoires. Si cette discussion est étayée par des supports culturels de la littérature, comme les contes ou les mythes, alors, une double médiation chez l’élève est possible, depuis la médiation isolée et silencieuse en lien avec les théories du conte vers les médiations oralisées qui suivront la lecture selon une logique de questionnements philosophiques. Si le choix du support est ad-hoc, selon les recommandations de Matthew Lipman et que le conte parle de résilience, alors il est possible de conduire des discussions à visée philosophique dans une praxis de conduite en processus de résilience culturelle, qui seront matérialisées au travers des évolutions des discours des lycéens. Cette recherche [...] / In the spite of the complexity of the search for ground on the works concerning the resiliency and particularly resiliency in school context, we were interested in the modalities and in the demonstrations of this one in establishments of the secondary sector in France, in the sensitive said building’s high schools. Seat of educational and social tensions, the relations between the actors are printed mistrust and translate social and psychosocial difficulties complicating the answer to the missions of teaching and educational, and tarnishing the image of the teenagers and the diplomas. Although the origin and the factors of dysfunction of the teenagers take root initially in problems exceeding the school, their coverage and their mediation are a matter of the education, to prepare the school’s exit and the entrance alive active and social. The appeal to the diagnosis and the solutions are registered within today institutionalized hours the objectives of which concern the development of the pupil. But when the contact got rid for years of previous academic failure, when the not sense settled down in spite of the orientation, when the behavior challenges the authority and when the early school leaving displays as a constant in progress in these establishments, how to think of an educational practice which can revive the bases of the reliable interactions between teenagers and teacher, while guaranteeing a frame of good volume in the unsettled affects by creating interactions which allow the pupil to work and to mediatize the past, to register it in a meaningful present by throwing it in the future in a harmonious way? If this educational practice allows the teacher and the educator to define his share, it’s also an educational contingency registered in the theories of the resiliency which is the faculty to bounce further to a trauma. In this optics to thwart the academic failure, to allow the creation of positive fates, off-camera of the reproduction of the failure, by being supported on the theories of the resiliency at the school, it’s possible to envisage an educational practice of coverage of the group classy of teenagers which implements these interactions between pupils and teacher according to a praxis of resiliency. And if this resiliency joins a cultural collective practice, leaning on the works of a culture and passed on by this one, it’s named cultural resiliency. Except field of therapeutics or of the psychology of group, the cultural resiliency answers the cognitive imperative to join a dialogical practice reassuring and demanding for pupils prevented from thinking, to fill the gaps and the defects of inner and previous languages. The practices of discussion with philosophic aim demonstrate that’s possible to create these spaces of mediation around the rigorous thought to develop various capacities to think guaranteeing the performance of a speech exempt from ease and from excuses. If this discussion is supported by a cultural supports of the literature, as the tales or the myths, then, a double mediation at the pupil is possible, since the isolated and silent mediation in connection with the theories of the tae towards the orals mediations which will follow the reading according to logic of philosophic questionings. If the choice of the support is ad hoc according to the recommendations of Lipman and what the tales speaks about resiliency then, it’s possible to lead discussions with philosophic aim in a praxis of driving process of cultural resiliency, which will be realized through the evolutions of the speeches of the high school students. This search for comprehensive type leans on the analysis of the speeches and the interactions in a pragmatic prospect which allows the highlit of contents registered within the framework of the cultural resiliency through factors of implementation of the process which are the link, the sense and the law. The experiment of signing of eighteen sessions of discussions [...]

Plato thought that dialectic is the method of philosophical inquiry. Yet there is no agreement between scholars regarding Plato\'s view of dialectic. The dominant interpretation, dating back to Robinson\'s Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, which I call the \"discontinuous\" interpretation (DI), assumes a significant gap between Plato\'s account of dialectic as it is presented in the course of the dialogues. As such, although Plato considered dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry, the term \'Dialectic\' is just a façon de parler conveying the method he deemed most suitable at different moments. One should note that (DI) entails the following trilemma: Plato\'s dialectic, as the method of philosophical inquiry, must be identified with either Elenchus (E), Hypothesis (H) or Collection & Division (C&D). For example, Irwin (1988:7) argues that one should identify dialectic with (E) while Benson (2015:238) argues that one should identify dialectic with (H). In contrast with (DI), the goal of this dissertation is to defend a \"continuous\" interpretation (CI): Plato introduced a unified view of dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry in the Phaedrus. My argument supporting (CI) relies on three main premises: (1) The so-called three methods, (E), (H) and (C&D), are three different procedures of one διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) Plato\'s διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη is both a method of communication and a method of discovering truth; and (3) The Phaedrus (261a-266b) contains Plato\'s unified view of διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, conceived as an amalgam of (E), (H) and (C&D), and a method of communication and a method of discovering truth. / Platão pensou que a dialética é o método de investigação filosófica. No entanto, não há consenso entre os estudiosos a respeito da sua visão da dialética. A interpretação dominante, que se remonta ao trabalho de Robinson Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, que eu chamo de interpretação \"descontínua\" (ID), pressupõe que há uma ruptura na visão de Platão sobre a dialética no decorrer dos seus diálogos. Isto significa que ele considerou a dialética como o método de investigação filosófica, mas o termo \'dialética\' é apenas uma façon de parler para se referir ao método que considerou mais adequado em diferentes momentos. Portanto, (ID) implica o seguinte trilema: Devese identificar a visão de Platão sobre a dialética, enquanto o método de investigação filosófica, com o Elenchus (E), com a Hypotesis (H), ou com a Coleção & Divisão (C&D)? Por exemplo, Irwin (1988: 7) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (E), enquanto Benson (2015: 238) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (H). Em contraste com (ID), o objetivo do presente trabalho é defender uma interpretação \"contínua\" (IC): No Fedro Platão introduz uma visão unificada da dialética como método de investigação filosófica. Meu argumento para defender (IC) está baseado em três premissas: (1) os chamados três métodos, (E), (H) e (C&D) são realmente três procedimentos diferentes de uma διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) a τέχνη διαλεκτικὴ de Platão é o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade; e (3) o Fedro (261a-266b) contém a visão unificada de Platão sobre a διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, concebida como uma amálgama de (E), (H) e (C e D), e o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade.

Plato thought that dialectic is the method of philosophical inquiry. Yet there is no agreement between scholars regarding Plato\'s view of dialectic. The dominant interpretation, dating back to Robinson\'s Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, which I call the \"discontinuous\" interpretation (DI), assumes a significant gap between Plato\'s account of dialectic as it is presented in the course of the dialogues. As such, although Plato considered dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry, the term \'Dialectic\' is just a façon de parler conveying the method he deemed most suitable at different moments. One should note that (DI) entails the following trilemma: Plato\'s dialectic, as the method of philosophical inquiry, must be identified with either Elenchus (E), Hypothesis (H) or Collection & Division (C&D). For example, Irwin (1988:7) argues that one should identify dialectic with (E) while Benson (2015:238) argues that one should identify dialectic with (H). In contrast with (DI), the goal of this dissertation is to defend a \"continuous\" interpretation (CI): Plato introduced a unified view of dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry in the Phaedrus. My argument supporting (CI) relies on three main premises: (1) The so-called three methods, (E), (H) and (C&D), are three different procedures of one διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) Plato\'s διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη is both a method of communication and a method of discovering truth; and (3) The Phaedrus (261a-266b) contains Plato\'s unified view of διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, conceived as an amalgam of (E), (H) and (C&D), and a method of communication and a method of discovering truth. / Platão pensou que a dialética é o método de investigação filosófica. No entanto, não há consenso entre os estudiosos a respeito da sua visão da dialética. A interpretação dominante, que se remonta ao trabalho de Robinson Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, que eu chamo de interpretação \"descontínua\" (ID), pressupõe que há uma ruptura na visão de Platão sobre a dialética no decorrer dos seus diálogos. Isto significa que ele considerou a dialética como o método de investigação filosófica, mas o termo \'dialética\' é apenas uma façon de parler para se referir ao método que considerou mais adequado em diferentes momentos. Portanto, (ID) implica o seguinte trilema: Devese identificar a visão de Platão sobre a dialética, enquanto o método de investigação filosófica, com o Elenchus (E), com a Hypotesis (H), ou com a Coleção & Divisão (C&D)? Por exemplo, Irwin (1988: 7) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (E), enquanto Benson (2015: 238) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (H). Em contraste com (ID), o objetivo do presente trabalho é defender uma interpretação \"contínua\" (IC): No Fedro Platão introduz uma visão unificada da dialética como método de investigação filosófica. Meu argumento para defender (IC) está baseado em três premissas: (1) os chamados três métodos, (E), (H) e (C&D) são realmente três procedimentos diferentes de uma διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) a τέχνη διαλεκτικὴ de Platão é o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade; e (3) o Fedro (261a-266b) contém a visão unificada de Platão sobre a διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, concebida como uma amálgama de (E), (H) e (C e D), e o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade.