This study critically examines the role of the facilitator in the Philosophy for Children program, deconstructing its current limitations and proposing a reconstruction through the lens of the human agency approach, thereby introducing the concept of the "intellectual coach." In the conventional P4C framework, the facilitator is primarily confined to procedural roles, such as organizing Community of inquiry and ensuring the flow of dialogue. However, these roles lack a substantive impact on fostering children's thinking processes and fail to adequately address content regulation. This limitation reduces the facilitator to a passive observer, inadvertently fostering superficial, rhetorical exchanges among children.In contrast, drawing on the human agency approach, the intellectual coach assumes educational and developmental responsibilities toward both the child and the community. By establishing the three foundational pillars of thoughtful action—namely, knowledge, motivation, and volition—the intellectual coach enables and actualizes independent thinking in children. While maintaining an asymmetrical interaction with learners, the intellectual coach not only organizes and facilitates dialogue but also provides authentic, contextually relevant content aligned with children's Lifeworld and guides intellectual discussions.This approach creates a robust framework for practicing reflective thinking and cultivating independent thought, with a central focus on the pursuit and adherence to truth.
Keywords: human agency, reconstruction, P4C, facilitator, independent thinking, intellectual coach.
Introduction
The Philosophy for Children (P4C) program has significantly shaped contemporary educational discourse by positioning classroom dialogue as a vehicle for intellectual development. However, its implementation reveals a fundamental and unresolved tension regarding the facilitator's role. Oscillating between a passive, procedural moderator and an active educational guide, this role suffers from theoretical ambiguity that directly impacts pedagogical efficacy. Predominant interpretations, heavily influenced by child-centric and strictly pragmatist paradigms, often constrain the facilitator to a method-centric function—orchestrating discussion while deliberately withholding substantive intellectual guidance to preserve children's epistemic autonomy. This study contends that such a constraint, while well-intentioned, inadvertently leads to a facilitative model that is insufficient for cultivating genuinely independent, rigorous, and truth-sensitive thinking. It creates a facilitator who is a spectator to, rather than a shaper of, cognitive development.
To address this core problem, this research turns to the framework of human agency as a robust theoretical lens. This approach reconceives the educator not as a neutral process manager, but as an agent endowed with explicit epistemic, inclinational, and volitional responsibilities. From this vantage point, the study's primary objective is to execute a critical deconstruction of the conventional P4C facilitator role, exposing its inherent limitations, and to subsequently engage in a philosophical reconstruction. This reconstruction proposes the alternative paradigm of the " intellectual coach" (Rahyar-e Fekri). This model is fundamentally predicated on a relationship of asymmetric interaction, where the Guide consciously employs their greater knowledge and experience to scaffold and direct the intellectual inquiry. The Guide's mission is to actively secure the threefold prerequisites for autonomous thought—cognition, inclination, and volition—within the community of inquiry. Thus, this research aims to resolve the persistent ambiguity in P4C practice by offering a reconceptualized role that balances the imperative for child-led dialogue with the necessary responsibility for substantive intellectual guidance.
Materials and Methods
This research employs a qualitative and philosophical methodology, utilizing deconstructive analysis as its primary analytical lens. The subject of this analysis is the established role of the facilitator within the foundational discourse of the Philosophy for Children (P4C) program. The process begins by identifying this role as the central "text." The analysis then reveals the core binary opposition structuring this text: the dominant pole of the  method-centric P4C facilitator, who prioritizes procedural neutrality and symmetrical interaction, versus the marginalized pole of the substantive agent-teacher derived from the human agency approach. A key step involves demonstrating the inherent "contamination" between these poles, showing how, in practice, the facilitator must often assume agential responsibilities that the official model marginalizes. This deconstruction is situated within the broader context of P4C's pragmatist philosophical heritage. By theoretically reversing this hierarchy, the study places the concept of the educator as an active agent at the forefront. This critical procedure culminates in the generation of a new conceptual paradigm—the intellectual coach . The entire process facilitates a constructive reconstruction of the facilitator’s role, informed by the principles of human agency.
Discussion & Results
The application of this deconstructive methodology yields a critical finding: the traditional P4C model is fundamentally structured by a hierarchy that valorizes a facilitator limited to methodological oversight and symmetrical dialogue, while systematically marginalizing the educator's essential role as a guide responsible for epistemic content and intellectual formation. This results in a figure often rendered passive, unable to reliably scaffold children’s reasoning toward logical rigor or truth-oriented outcomes. The reconstruction, therefore, necessitates a paradigm shift. The proposed intellectual coach operates from a position of asymmetric interaction, consciously leveraging greater cultural and epistemic resources to responsibly steward the inquiry. The Guide’s primary function is to cultivate the threefold prerequisites for autonomous thought. This involves, firstly, establishing cognitive foundations by introducing valid content, logical tools, and intervening to correct fallacies, thus moving beyond mere procedural management. Secondly, it requires nurturing inclinational foundations by fostering a genuine love for truth, curiosity, and the motivational drive to engage deeply with complex problems. Thirdly, it entails strengthening volitional foundations by developing the child’s capacity for intellectual commitment, reasoned decision-making, and the will to pursue arguments to their conclusion. Consequently, the intellectual coach transcends the conventional role of a discussion coordinator to become an accountable agent who actively secures the necessary conditions for the child’s transition from nascent reasoning to authentic, independent thinking.
Conclusion
This study concludes that a paradigm shift from a neutral facilitator to an agential intellectual coach  is essential for realizing the full promise of P4C. By embracing asymmetric interaction and responsibility for the cognitive, inclinational, and volitional dimensions of thought, the Guide proactively cultivates the grounds for independent judgment. This reconstruction addresses the critical gaps in the prevailing model, offering a more coherent and effective framework for philosophy with children. It recommends integrating this reconceptualized role into facilitator training programs and curriculum design. Future empirical research is needed to assess the practical impact of this model on the quality of children's philosophical inquiry and cognitive development