Philosophy for Children (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Cite this entry Search the SEP • Advanced Search • Tools • RSS FeedTable of Contents• What's New• Archives• Projected ContentsEditorial Information• About the SEP• Editorial Board• How to Cite the SEP• Special CharactersSupport the SEPContact the SEP ©Metaphysics Research Lab,CSLI,Stanford University  Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative. Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia FreePhilosophy for ChildrenFirst published Thu May 2, 2002; substantive revision Tue May 30, 2006In the United States, philosophy typically makes its formal entry intothe curriculum at the college level. A growing number of high schoolsoffer some introduction to philosophy, often in special literaturecourses for college bound students. In Europe and many othercountries, it is much more common to find philosophy in the highschool curriculum. However, philosophy prior to high school seemsrelatively uncommon around the world. This may suggest that seriousphilosophical thinking is not for pre-adolescents. Two reasons mightbe offered for accepting this view. First, philosophical thinkingrequires a level of cognitive development that, one may believe, isbeyond the reach of pre-adolescents. Second, the school curriculum isalready crowded; and introducing a subject like philosophy will notonly distract students from what they need to learn, it may encouragethem to become skeptics rather than learners. However, both of thesereasons can be challenged. They will be addressed in turn.1. Are Children Capable of Philosophical Thinking?2. Philosophy in a Crowded Curriculum3. The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC)4. Philosophizing With Others?5. Philosophy For Children Around The WorldBibliography Books and Articles Periodicals Other Internet ResourcesRelated Entries1. Are Children Capable of Philosophical Thinking?Jean Piaget's (1933 ) well-known theory of cognitive developmentsuggests that prior to age 11 or 12, most children are not capable ofphilosophical thinking. This is because, prior to this time, childrenare not capable of “thinking about thinking,” the sort ofmeta-level thinking that characterizes philosophical thinking. This“formal operational” level of cognitive developmentincludes analogical reasoning about relationships, such as:“Bicycle is to handlebars as ship is to rudder, with“steering mechanism” being the similarrelationship.” (Goswami, p. xxi). However, there is a growingbody of psychological research suggesting that Piaget's accountseriously underestimates children's cognitive abilities. (Astington,1993; Gopnik, et.al.)Philosopher Gareth Matthews goes further and argues at length thatPiaget failed to see the philosophical thinking manifest in the verychildren he studied. Matthews (1980) provides a number of delightfulexamples of very young children's philosophical puzzlement. Forexample:TIM (about six years), while busily engaged in licking a pot,asked, “Papa, how can we be sure that everything is not adream?” (P. 1)JORDAN (five years), going to bed at eight one evening, asked,“If I go to bed at eight and get up at seven in the morning, howdo I really know that the little hand of the clock has gone around onlyonce? Do I have to stay up all night to watch it? If I look away evenfor a short time, maybe the small hand will go around twice.” (P.3)One day JOHN EDGAR (four years), who had seen airplanes take off,rise, and gradually disappear into the distance, took his first planeride. When the plane stopped ascending and the seat-belt sign went out,John Edgar turned to his father and said in a rather relieved, but stillpuzzled, tone of voice, “Things don't really get smaller uphere.” (P. 4)Matthews acquired many of his anecdotes from friends who knew of hisinterest in the philosophical thinking of children. It is not uncommonfor attentive adults to encounter such examples.However, it might be objected that more than such anecdotes are neededto show that children are capable of serious philosophicalthinking. What is needed is evidence that children are capable ofsustained philosophical discussion. Matthews (1984) providesillustrations of this, too. Meeting with a group of 8-11 year olds, heused the following example to develop a story for discussion:Ian (six year old) found to his chagrin that the threechildren of his parents' friends monopolized the television; they kepthim from watching his favorite program. “Mother,” he askedin frustration, “why is it better for three children to beselfish than one?” (Pp. 92-3)This generated a lively discussion in which children commented on theinconsiderateness of the three visiting children, the desirability ofworking out a solution that would satisfy all four children, theimportance of respecting people's rights, and how one might feel if heor she were in Ian's place. Matthews then posed a possible utilitarianapproach: “What about this argument, that if we let the threevisitors have their way, three people will be made happy instead ofjust one?” One reply was that it would not be fair for threepeople to get what they want at the expense of a fourth. Thistriggered a discussion of fairness that addressed more specificconcerns about the relative ages of the children, whether they arefriends, siblings, or strangers—and what types of televisionprograms are involved.No doubt, part of the explanation of the children's ability andwillingness to carry on an extended discussion of Ian's circumstanceis that they have faced similar challenges. Still, the childrenexhibited a rather sophisticated conceptual grasp of the issues athand, which is what one might expect from children once they areinvited to reflect on their own experiences.Stories about those roughly their own age can provide opportunitiesfor children to discuss ideas that are most important tothem. Consider this example from Matthew Lipman's novel Lisa(1983 ). Harry and his friend Timmy go to a stamp club to tradestamps. Afterward they stop for ice cream cones, but Timmy discovershe has no money. Harry offers to buy him one, and Timmy says he willbuy Harry a cone next time. As they are leaving the store, one oftheir classmates trips Timmy. Timmy then knocks the tripper's booksoff the table. After running away from the scene, Timmy and Harry talkabout what has happened:“I couldn't let them get away with it,” Timmyremarked when they saw that they weren't being pursued and could slowdown to a walk. “He didn't have to stick his foot out.”Then he added, “Of course, I didn't have to do what I did either.But, like I said before, turnabout is fair play.” “Somehow,” Harry thought, “it isn't quite the samething.” But he couldn't figure out why. “I don'tknow,” he said finally to Timmy. “The purpose of yourstamp club is to exchange stamps. So when you give someone stamps,you're supposed to give something back. Just like if someone lends memoney, I'm supposed to give it back. But if someone pulls a dirtytrick on you, should you do the same thing to him? I'm not sosure.”“But I had to get even,” Timmy protested. “Icouldn't let him get away with it, tripping me like that for noreason.”A bit later they met Lisa and Laura. Harry told the girls what hadhappened and why he was puzzled. “It reminds me,” remarkedLisa, “of last year when we were learning about how somesentences could be turned around and would stay true, while others,when you turned them around, would become false.”“Yeah,” Harry agreed, “but there we found a rule.What's the rule here?” Lisa tossed her long hair so that it hungover her right shoulder. “It looks like there are times when itis right to give back what we got and other times when it iswrong. But how do we tell which is which?” (Lisa,pp. 23-4) This passage is an invitation to explore the moral nuances ofreciprocity, or “returning in kind.” What might a group of10-11 year-olds have to say about this? Here is a sampling from a 30minute discussion of the Lisa passage by a group of fifthgraders. (Pritchard 1996) Although the group had been discussingphilosophical ideas once a week after school for the past severalmonths, this was an impromptu discussion of this passage. With littleprompting from the teacher, the students raised and vigorously pursuedthe following questions:What is likely to happen when we retaliate? Will this simply starta long chain of trying to “get things even” that no one(other than perhaps the initiator) wants?Can retaliating really “get things even”? Can we evenmake sense of “getting things even”?Is it really right to respond to a wrong by returning in kind? Isthis trying to make a right out of two wrongs?What alternatives to trying to “get things even” mightthere be? What would happen if you just ignore someone who is trying toget a rise out of you?When is self-defense the best strategy?Is there a difference between trying to “get thingseven” and trying to “teach someone a lesson”?How is hitting back different from: a) exchanging goods; b) payingback a debt; c) returning a favor; d) offering a favor; e) not doingsomeone a favor unless they do one for you?Can the Golden Rule help us here? What does the Golden Rulemean? Is it a good rule?Thoughtful and insightful discussions like this are not unusual forchildren who are given the opportunity to have them. This discussionwas prompted by a children's novel. However, students' regularclassroom materials, works of art, thought experiments, or even thedaily newspaper can be used to trigger philosophical discussions ofmoral concerns.Even if one concedes that children are quite capable of engaging inextended discussions of moral concepts related to their ownexperiences, what about philosophical ideas less related to theirpractical affairs? Here is an illustration that begins with logic andends up in metaphysics.The true sentence, “All oaks are trees” becomes false whenreversed. So does, “All carrots are vegetables.” Can wesay that every true sentence beginning with ‘all’becomes false when reversed?At least as early as the 3rd grade, children easily findexceptions. What about “All tigers are tigers”, many willask. Others may respond that this is a “boring” sentence,offering something like “All rabbits are hares,” or“All mothers have children” as alternatives. Withrelatively little encouragement, they can come up with gooddefinitions of geometric figures and differentiate them from proposeddefinitions that cannot be reversed. For example, “All squaresare rectangles” is true, but it becomes false when reversed.“All squares are rectangles with equal sides,” however,can be reversed.Although the study of logic is traditionally regarded as a part ofphilosophy, skeptics might not find the reflections of children onrules of logic terribly interesting philosophically. (Of course, somemight say this about elementary logic in the college classroom, aswell.) It is not that different from basic math and grammar, theymight object. Whether or not this is a fair assessment, for manychildren it is but a short step from logic to metaphysics. Here is anexample from a 4th grade class that had just been askedwhether true sentences beginning with ‘all’ always becomefalse when reversed. (Pritchard 1996) After the usual “Alltigers are tigers” and “All rabbits are hares” weresuggested, a student asked, “How about ‘All answers havequestions’ and ‘All questions have answers’?”Fortunately, the teacher paused to explore this with the class.“Do all answers have questions?” he asked. Of course,replied the students, otherwise we would not say that we have ananswer.The teacher continued, “How about the other sentence? Do youthink that all questions have answers?” What followed was aflood of responses:Student #1: “Is there life in the center of thesun?”Student #2: “Even though we can't go there to find out, thequestion still has an answer.”Student #3: “How many grains of sand are there onearth?”Student #4: “There's a definite number even though we don'tknow what it is.”Student #3: “The wind will blow them all around, and we'llcount some more than once.”Student #5: “There are too many to count.”Student #6: “How many grains of sand are there on all theplanets?”Student #7: “How many trees are there on earth?”Student #4: “That's easier than grains of sand. We couldcount them.”Student #7: “By the time you finish counting them, some wouldhave fallen down and others would have started to grow.”Student #8: “Did God make time begin?”Student #9: “You mean, if there is a God, did hemake time begin?”Student #7: “Does space have limits?”Student #5: “Yeah, what would happen if you got to the end ofspace and tried to put your hand out? If you couldn't, what would beholding it back on the outside?”Student #6: “Maybe what would hold your hand back is onthe inside. There wouldn't be any outside.”During the course of discussing these questions, the students seemedto be struggling to move from questions that are difficult, if notimpossible, to answer because of our practical limitations(e.g., not being certain that a particular grain of sand has notalready been counted) to questions that in principle areunanswerable. Finally, with a mischievous grin on his face, one of thestudents asked, “Will time end?” The problem, heexplained, is that if time did end, no one would be able later toconfirm that this was so.Here is another illustration of how quickly a discussion of logic canmove to a discussion of deep philosophical issues. (Pritchard, 1985)This is a group of 5th graders considering the sentence,“All people are animals.” One of the students offered thisas another example of a true sentence that becomes false whenreversed. Jeff objected that “All people are animals” isnot true. Chip proceeded to develop a taxonomy that relegated people,along with elephants and tigers, under the heading of mammals, mammalsunder animals, and animals under living things. Jeff continued toobject.Chip: “Jeff, what are people? Just tell me, what are people?You can't answer that, can you?”Jeff: “Yes, I can.”Chip: “What are you?”Jeff: “A person.”Chip: “What's a person?”Jeff: “A living somebody.”Chip: “A living somebody could be a whale.”Jeff: “I said, somebody, not ananimal….”Chip: “You can check every single book out there in thelibrary—well, every one that's about us….”Larry: “I want to know why everyone's getting so huffy about alittle subject.”Rich: “We're thinking! That's what we're herefor.”Amy: “Does anyone have an encyclopedia in here so we can look upeither animals, mammals, or persons?”Jeff: “We're all humans. So, if this Mars guy saw us, he wouldsay, ‘Hey, look, there's some human beings.’ He wouldn'tsay, “Hey, look, there's some animals downthere.’”Mike: “Martians, if there are any, would say, ‘Hey, lookat those weird looking creatures,’ or something like that. Theywouldn't know what we are. They don't know anything about us.[Returning now to Jeff's original distinction, Mike continues.] Ifit's a person, you say, ‘somebody.’ If it's ananimal you say, ‘something.’ Somebody is a humanbody.”Chip: “There's living life, okay? Then you branch off fromthere. You have animals, plants, and whatever the other stuffis—you know, molecules and things like that. Now you go to theanimals and you branch off—mammals, amphibians, reptiles, andwhatever there is. Then you branch off and you have all these specialhumans. Is that right so far, Jeff?”Jeff: “Just go on.”Chip: “Well, I just want to know if you agree so far.”Jeff: “Just go on. Go on. I'm not going to change my mind.That's all…. I'm not an animal. I'm a person, and I'm going tostay that way.”Chip: “You're a type of animal.”Jeff: “I'm not going to walk up to Dr. Jekyl and say,‘Hey, change me into an animal’….”Amy: “People are a type of animal, like a bird is. That'sdifferent than like an elephant is. A bird's different than anelephant. And we're different than a bird. Mike says we don't call ourdog a person or somebody. But someone might be real close to their petand consider it part of the family.” The discussion continued for several more minutes. As the groupdispersed, one student remarked to another, “If we want to, wecould argue for hours!” “For days,” replied thesecond. Meeting weekly after school in the local public library, thisgroup of children returned the next week with an encyclopedia tosettle the matter. After several minutes of discussion, the teacherasked the students if they thought everything in the encyclopedia istrue.Emily: “Some things we're not sure of; and the encyclopediacould put down every word about how the solar system was formed, andit would probably say there was big dust that spun around like atop. But we're not sure about that. And, so, that could bewrong.” The teacher asked whether, in such cases, the encyclopedia says,“We're not sure?”Mike: “It'll say ‘hypothesis’—which is aguess.”Kurt: “It'll say we're not sure yet.” So, the discussion retained its philosophical vitality. Thisparticular group continued to meet for the entire school year,discussing a wide range of philosophical topics, including: therelationship between the mind and the brain, differences (andsimilarities) between dreams and reality, knowledge of other minds,self-knowledge, and relationships between evidence and knowledge.2. Philosophy in a Crowded CurriculumGiven an already crowded curriculum and growing pressure to providequantifiable evidence of student mastery of the standard subjects ofhistory, literature, math, and science, teachers may question thesuitability of adding philosophy to the curriculum. Where is time tobe found for the give-and-take of philosophical discussions? Addingphilosophy to the mix, they might object, only makes mattersworse. Not only is it yet another subject, it is one that isunfamiliar to most teachers, and they may fear that bringing inphilosophy, with its continual questioning, will actually interferewith students' mastery of the subjects already in thecurriculum. Given the unsettling nature of much philosophical inquiry,they may feel vulnerable as teachers because they are not confident oftheir own answers to the questions posed.Adding to this problem is increasing pressure on teachers todemonstrate that their students are performing at satisfactory levelsin the standard subjects. Standardized tests are commonly used as themeasure of student achievement. Marked by definitive, unambiguousquestions and answers, these tests do not place a premium onphilosophical reflection. Since student performance is typicallylinked to school funding, this is not something teachers can takelightly, however skeptical they might be about the educational valueof preparing their students to perform well on standardized tests.In response, Matthew Lipman (1991) and others who advocate bringingphilosophy into the schools emphasize ways in which philosophy canenhance the entire educational experience of students. The aim is morethan simply the introduction of one more subject in the schools. Byinviting students to reflect on relationships among different areas ofinquiry and to make sense of their educational experiences as a whole,philosophy can add to the meaningfulness of students' education as awhole. In addition, philosophy can make important contributions toanother area of concern that cuts across the curriculum, criticalthinking.As the Vietnam War escalated in the mid-1960's, so did heatedarguments about the wisdom and morality of the war and society's illsin general. Matthew Lipman became dismayed at the quality ofargumentation employed by presumably well-educated citizens. Convincedthat the teaching of logic should begin long before college, he triedto figure out a way to do this that would stimulate the interest of10-11 year olds. Leaving Columbia University for Montclair StateCollege, he launched his efforts with his first children's novel,Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery(1974). Lipman's concerns aboutthe level of critical thinking in society in general, and the schoolsin particular, were not his alone. By the 1970's the hue and cry forteaching critical thinking in the schools was, if not clear, at leastloud; and it has continued largely unabated to the present.What is meant by ‘critical thinking’? Characterizationsrange in complexity from Robert Ennis's admirably brief,“reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding whatto believe or do” (Ennis) to a complex statement by group of 46panelists convened by the American Philosophical Association'sCommittee on Pre-College Philosophy to employ the Delphi Method ofstriving for consensus:We understand critical thinking to be purposeful,self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis,evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential,conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextualconsiderations upon which that judgment is based…. The idealcritical thinking is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful ofreason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest infacing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing toreconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent inseeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria,focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as thesubject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. (Facione1989)Lipman was a member of this panel, and it is clear that his novels andteacher's manuals all strive to meet these objectives. His brieferdepiction of critical thinking is that it involves judgments based oncriteria, or reasons. Criteria, he says, can be appraised in terms of“megacriteria” such as reliability, relevance, strength,coherence, and consistency. (Lipman 1991, p. 119) Critical thinking,he adds, is characterized as “thinking that (1) facilitatesjudgment because it (2) relies on criteria, (3) is self-correcting,and (4) is sensitive to context.” (Lipman 1991, p. 116)Picking up on the idea that critical thinking is sensitive to context,critics challenge the notion that critical thinking can be usefullytaught independently of specific disciplinary areas. (McPeck) Whileconceding that there are some generic features of critical thinkingthat cut across disciplines, they maintain that even these featuresacquire their meanings only in specific contexts that vary acrossdisciplines (such as history, sociology, biology, chemistry).However, unless the different disciplines ask questions about theirown basic assumptions and their relationships to one another, criticalthinking within those disciplines will overlook important questionsthat need attention. Philosophy does ask such questions about otherdisciplines, as well as about itself.Lipman's hope is that philosophy will acquire a central place in theK-12 curriculum, thus enabling students to develop their criticalthinking skills through philosophical questioning. At the same time,he claims, philosophy can help students make better sense of theireducational experiences. By seeking to develop comprehensiveperspectives, philosophy attempts to understand connections. Acurriculum that divides students's education into discrete,self-contained disciplines without encouraging philosophical questionsabout the nature of those disciplines and their relationships to oneanother invites a fragmented view of education.Short of the ambitious program Lipman has in mind for the schools,there are more modest, but worthwhile, ways of bringing philosophicalinquiry into the already existing disciplinary structure in theschools. Teachers can invite their students to reflect onphilosophical aspects of their subjects of study. At the same timethey study history, students can take some time to ask questions aboutthe extent to which historical accounts can be objective—andquestions about what ‘objectivity’ might mean, and why itis or is not important to seek it. Similar questions can be askedabout the natural and social sciences, including questions about theextent to which science is, or ought to be, “value-free.”(see Goldfarb and Pritchard, in the Other Internet Resources sectionbelow). In fact, if room for such questions is not encouraged, onemight well ask to what extent critical thinking itself isencouraged.3. The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC)The educational movement known as Philosophy for Children got itsstart in the early 1970s with the publication of Matthew Lipman'sphilosophical novel for children, Harry Stottlemeier'sDiscovery. In 1970 Harry made its entry into theMontclair Public Schools in New Jersey. By the mid-70s the Institutefor the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) was formally inplace at Montclair State College (now Montclair State University). Themedia quickly picked up on reports of significant improvements in thereading and critical thinking skills of middle school children whowere involved in IAPC programs. Subsequently, IAPC has producedmaterials consisting of children's novels with accompanying teachers'workbooks for the entire K-12 curriculum. Thousands of children in NewJersey, across the United States, and even around the world have beenintroduced to IAPC educational programs.An unassuming 96 page novel for middle-school children, HarryStottlemeier's Discovery features Harry and his 5thgrade classmates. Adults occasionally enter in, but the primaryphilosophical work is the children's. Harry and his friends discoverseveral basic concepts and rules of Aristotelean logic; and theypuzzle over questions about the nature of thought, mind, causality,reality, knowledge and belief, right and wrong, and fairness andunfairness. The story does not introduce any of the special vocabularyof philosophy (not even the word ‘philosophy’ itself makesan appearance). Philosophical inquiry is initiated by the children inthe story rather than adults.“What is Harry Stottlemeier's discovery?”Harry's readers might ask. This question is not directlyanswered. However, one candidate stands out among the many things thatHarry discovers in the course of exploring questions about logic,knowledge, reality, and the mind. Harry and his classmates are askedto write a paper on the topic, “The Most Interesting Thing inthe World.” Entitled Thinking, Harry's essaybegins:To me, the most interesting thing in the whole world isthinking. I know that lots of other things are also very important andwonderful, like electricity, and magnetism and gravitation. Butalthough we understand them, they can't understand us. So thinking mustbe something very special.After writing several more paragraphs, Harry puts his paper aside.Later he thinks, “In school, we think about math, and we thinkabout spelling, and we think about grammar. But who every heard ofthinking about thinking?” So, he adds one more sentence to hispaper: “If we think about electricity, we can understand itbetter, but when we think about thinking, we seem to understandourselves better.”Without using the word ‘philosophy,’ either here oranywhere else in Harry, Lipman shows Harry engaged in seriousphilosophical thought, “thinking about thinking.” This, wemight say, reveals Harry's discovery of the joys of philosophicalthinking. But there is more. Harry also notices that, as interestingand important as thinking about thinking is, it seems to have nospecial place in school. Finally, although his paper begins in thefirst person, it quickly moves to ‘we’ and focuses on whatmight be accomplished with others in the classroom.One of the more attractive features of Philosophy for Children formany teachers is that it promotes the idea of the classroom as a“community of inquiry” in which students openly andrespectfully exchange ideas. Each student is regarded as having thepotential to make valuable contributions to the topics underconsideration. Students are encouraged to develop good listeningskills, responsiveness to what others say, willingness to try tosupports one's own ideas with good reasons, and openness to thepossibility that one should modify one's beliefs in light of newconsiderations. In short, the classroom is designed to reinforce thestudent's potential for reasonableness. This involves morethan being able to engage in skillful reasoning. As Laurance J.Splitter and Ann M. Sharp put it (Splitter and Sharp, p. 6):Reasonableness is primarily a social disposition: thereasonable person respects others and is prepared to take into accounttheir views and their feelings, to the extent of changing her own mindabout issues of significance, and consciously allowing her ownperspective to be changed by others. She is, in other words, willing tobe reasoned with.Teachers who look favorably on the idea that the classroom should be a“community of inquiry” nevertheless may resist the ideathat philosophy should be the centerpiece for discussion.Other subjects, they might contend, lend themselves well to formingthe sort of collaborative learning environment that can fairly becalled a “community of inquiry.” Philosophy for Childrenadvocates need not deny this; however, they can point to the successIAPC has had in showing how well suited philosophy is for promotingthe reasonableness of children in a “community ofinquiry.”One reason for resistance is that it may be thought that philosophyis, at best, a suitable subject for relatively few students at thepre-college level. Since philosophy traditionally has been taught onlyat the college level in the United States, it might be thought that itcan be suitable for only a small segment of students at pre-collegelevels—the two percent of students who are classified as“gifted and talented.” However, Philosophy for Childrenprograms have shown themselves to be remarkably successful in drawingvirtually all students in the classroom together in inquiry. Teachersare often surprised, and pleased, to see many of their most reticent,“underachieving” students actively join in the discussionof philosophical ideas.Nevertheless, because they lack background in the formal study ofphilosophy, many teachers are reluctant to encourage the philosophicalthinking of their students. Their fears, however, are exaggerated.Familiarity with some of the standard philosophical literature mightbe desirable, but it is not necessary for bringing Philosophy forChildren into the classroom. What is required is the ability tofacilitate philosophical discussion. For this, it is much moreimportant that teachers have some philosophical curiosity themselvesthan a familiarity with academic philosophical literature. Like theirstudents, teachers unfamiliar with the discipline of philosophy maynevertheless have an aptitude for philosophical thinking—or atleast a knack for recognizing when others are engaged in philosophicalthought.Facilitating a Philosophy for Children discussion does not meandominating it; it is important for teachers to allow their students todevelop their own ideas. Teachers are not expected to provide, or evenhave, answers to all the questions. They can share puzzlement withtheir students, be open to unexpected but suggestive responses to thequestions they and their students pose, and take pleasure in observingthe exchanges students have with each other. This means shedding thetraditional role of teacher as lecturer and answer-giver. Especiallyfor teachers who are uncertain about what this entails, workshops likethose offered by IAPC provide a good introduction to the pedagogy ofPhilosophy for Children.IAPC's approach has been to prepare a set of novels with accompanyingteacher's workbooks, and to prepare teachers to use these materials byconducting intensive workshops that themselves illustrate the proposedpedagogy. It is emphasized that the teacher's role in the classroom isto facilitate discussion rather than to present philosophical ideasdidactically. The novels provide a stimulus for children to come upwith their own questions and ideas. Typically, students first readaloud a few paragraphs of a novel. Then they suggest ideas prompted bytheir reading that they would find it interesting to exploretogether. The teacher's workbook contains hundreds of thinkingexercises and activities that can help the students advance theirinquiry. The teacher's aim should be to foster a “community ofinquiry” in which students, insofar as possible, themselvesinitiate discussion and exchange ideas with each other rather thansimply respond to teacher prompts. A robust discussion will findstudents not only stating their own ideas, but also supporting themwith reasons and responding to the similarities and differencesbetween their ideas and those of their classmates. This“community of inquiry” is intended to foster a respect forthe ideas of others, as well as a respect for one's own.4. Philosophizing With Others?Philosophy for Children encourages children to think forthemselves at the same time that it encourages them to thinkwith others. However, philosophy is often viewed as more amatter of solitary reflection, perhaps involving exchanges between afew other solitary thinkers—something to which the“masses” are neither privy nor attracted. Perhaps manywould claim that this is philosophy at its best; like physics ormathematics, “philosophy for everyone” is watered down.There is no need for Philosophy for Children to challenge thisanalogy. In fact, it can turn it in its favor. However esotericphysics and mathematics at their best may be, the schools neverthelessrecognize the importance of making these subjects available to allstudents. Similarly, Philosophy for Children advocates can counterthat there should be a place for the entire classroom—including“gifted and talented,” “underachieving,” and“ordinary” students— pursuing philosophicalquestions together.For this to work, it must be possible for children in the classroom toengage in sustained philosophical discussion with others. As alreadynoted, Gareth Matthew's writings provide ample evidence that manychildren of capable of having interesting, if not profound,philosophical thoughts. Less obvious, however, is children's abilityto sustain and develop this with others. Anecdotes of young childrenspontaneously sharing a philosophical thought with an observant adultare not sufficient. Matthews' Dialogues With Childrenprovides good evidence that children can go well beyondthis. Transcripts of lengthy philosophical conversations of childrenfound in Pritchard (1985, 1996) and issues of Thinking andAnalytic Teaching should leave little doubt that childrenhave this ability.Admittedly, this is quite different from the approach of JosteinGaarder's popular novel, Sophie's World, which introducesyoung readers to philosophy in a dialectical, but neverthelessdidactic manner. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994) AlthoughSophie is certainly an apt philosophy student, her older mentorclearly leads the way by introducing Sophie to the history ofphilosophy, which in turn is used to illuminate philosophicalquestions that confront her. As its subtitle A Novel About theHistory of Philosophy suggests, Sophie's World aims asmuch at acquainting its young (and older) readers with a workingfamiliarity with the history of philosophy as at encouragingphilosophical reflection itself. Philosophy for Children aimsprimarily at the latter, however much IAPC materials themselves mightindirectly be informed by the history of philosophy. In any case, IAPCsupporters might argue, the mentor/apprentice approach of Sophie'sWorld tends to reinforce the idea that philosophy is primarilysomething passed down from adults rather than, as Gareth Matthewssuggests, an important aspect of children's natural curiosity.5. Philosophy For Children Around The WorldIn 1985, as a reflection of the rapidly expanding international impactof philosophy for children, educators from around the worldestablished the International Council for Philosophical Inquiry withChildren (ICPIC). ICPIC sponsors an international conference everyother year, with hosts including Australia, Austria, Brazil, England,Mexico, Spain, and Taiwan. Although retaining strong ties with IAPC,ICPIC members have established their own institutional structures andthey have developed centers, associations, and programs independentlyof IAPC. In North America, there is the North American Association ofCommunity of Inquiry, which meets every other year (years when ICPICis not meeting). Australia and New Zealand are organized under theFederation of Australasian Philosophy for Children Associations(FAPCA), which meets annually. Philosophy for children endeavors canbe found in colleges, universities, and associations in more than 20countries around the world. (Sasseville)In addition to IAPC materials, there is a great deal of children'sliterature with rich enough content to be used to facilitateinteresting philosophical discussions. (See Matthews, 1980, 1984, 1994and his regular contributions to IAPC's journal, Thinking.)There is also a growing body of philosophy for children educationalmaterials being developed outside of IAPC. (See, e.g., Cam; DeHaan,MacColl, and McCutcheon; Fisher; Keen; Murris; Sprod, and White.)Thinking, Analytical Teaching, and Critical& Creative Thinking are three longstanding journals that arespecifically devoted to the philosophical thinking of children. Arelatively new periodical, sponsored by the American PhilosophicalAssociation's Pre-College Philosophy Committee, is Questions:Philosophy for Young People, which features young people'swritings on special philosophical topics. The first issue(Spring 2001) focused on children's rights.Fortunately, the internet makes it possible to keep up with the latestdevelopments around the world and communicate quickly with othereducators interested in Philosophy for Children. Unfortunately, manyof these websites seem to be short-lived. However, see the OtherInternet Resources section below for a list of websites that arereliable and which provide links to other useful sites.BibliographyBooks and ArticlesAstington, Janet Wilde, The Child's Discovery of the Mind(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993).Cam, Philip, Thinking Together: Philosophical Inquiry for theClassroom (Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association and Hale& Iremonger, 1995).Cam, Philip, Thinking Stories 1, 2, and 3: PhilosophicalInquiry for Children (Sydney: Hare & Iremonger, 1993, 1994,and 1997).DeHaan, Chris; MacColl, San; and McCutcheon, Lucy, PhilosophyWith Kids, Books 1-4 (Melbourne: Longman, 1995).Dewey, John, Reconstruction in Philosophy in John Dewey, theMiddle Works, 1899-1924, vol. 12, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale:Southern Illinois Press, 1991).Ennis, Robert, “A Conception of Critical Thinking--With SomeCurriculum Suggestions,” Newsletter on TeachingPhilosophy, American Philosophical Association, University ofDelaware, Summer 1987, pp. 1-5.Facione, Peter, ed., “Report on Critical Thinking,”American Philosophical Association Subcommittee on Pre-CollegePhilosophy, University of Delaware, 1989.Figueroa, Robert and Goering, Sara, “The Summer PhilosophyInstitute of Colorado: Building Bridges,” TeachingPhilosophy, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 155-168.Fisher, Robert, Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Inquiry in theClassroom (Cassell, 1998).Gaarder, Jostein, Sophie's World: A Novel About theHistory of Philosophy (New York: Harper, Straus and Giroux,1994).Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory andWomen's Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1982).Gopnik, A., Kuhl, and Meltzoff, A., The Scientist in the Crib:What Early Learnig Tells us About the Mind (New York: PerennialBooks, 1999).Goswami, Usha, Cognition in Children (East Sussex, UK:Psychology Press, 1998).Gregory, Maughn, “Care as a Goal of DemocraticEducation,” Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 29, No. 4,2000, pp. 445-461.Kohlberg, Lawrence, The Philosophy of Moral Development: Essayson Moral Development, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: Harper & Row,1981).Keen, Judy, Brain Strain 1 & 2. (Melbourne: MacMillanEducation, 1997).Lipman, Matthew, Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery (UpperMontclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy forChildren, 1974). (Also the author of Kio and Gus, Pixie, Lisa,and other K-12 novels and accompanying teachers' manuals, all availablethrough IAPC.)–––, Philosophy Goes to School(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988).–––, Thinking in Education (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1991).Lipman, Matthew, ed. Thinking Children and Education(Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1993).Lipman, Matthew; Sharp, Ann M.; and Oscanyan, Frederick, eds.,Growing Up With Philosophy (Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress, 1978).Matthews, Gareth, Philosophy and the Young Child(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).–––, Dialogues With Children(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).–––, The Philosophy of Childhood(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994)–––, “The Ring of Gyges: Plato in GradeSchool,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol. 14:1, Spring 2000, pp. 3-11.McPeck, John, “Critical thinking and the ‘TrivialPursuit’ Theory of Knowledge,” TeachingPhilosophy, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1985, pp. 295-308.Murris, K., Teaching Philosophy With Picture Books(London: Infonet Publications, 1992).Partridge, F.; Dubuc, F.; Splitter, L.; and Sprod, T., Placesfor Thinking (Melbourne: Australian Council for EducationalResearch, 1999).Phillips, Christopher, The Socrates Cafe (New York: W.W.Norton, 2001).Piaget, Jean, “Children's Philosophies,” in AHandbook of Child Psychology, ed. Carl Murchison, 2nded. rev. (Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press, 1933).Pritchard, Michael S., On Becoming Responsible (Lawrence,KS: University Press of Kansas, 1991).–––, Philosophical Adventures WithChildren (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985).–––, Reasonable Children (Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas, 1996)–––, “Moral Philosophy for Children andCharacter Education,” International Journal of AppliedPhilosophy, Vol. 14:1, Spring 2000, pp. 13-26.Reed, Ronald, Talking With Children (Denver: Arden Press,1983).Reed, Ronald, and Sharp, Ann M., eds., Studies in Philosophyfor Children: Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992).Reed, Ronald, and Sharp, Ann M., Studies in Philosophy forChildren: Pixie (Madrid: Ediciones De La Torre, 1996).Sasseville, Michel, “The State of International Cooperationin Philosophy for Children,” UNESCO Meeting, Paris, March 1998,in Critical and Creative Thinking: The AustralasianJournal of Philosophy for Children, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1999, pp.57-79.Sharp, Ann M., “The Community of Inquiry: Education forDemocracy,” Thinking, 9(2), 1991, pp. 31-37.Sharp, Ann.M., ed., “Women, Feminism, and Philosophy forChildren,” Special Issue of Thinking, Vol. 11, Nos. 3& 4, 1994.Shipman, Virginia, New Jersey Reasoning Skills Test (UpperMontclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy forChildren, 1983).Splitter, Laurance and Sharp, Ann M., Teaching for Betterthinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry (Hawthorn, Vic.:Australian Council for Educational Research, 1995).Sprod, T., Books Into Ideas (Cheltenham, Vic.: HawkerBrownlow Education, 1993).Turner, Susan M. and Matthews, Gareth, eds., The Philosopher'sChild (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1998).Weinstein, Mark, “Critical Thinking and MoralEducation,” Thinking, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1989, pp.42-49.White, David A., Philosophy for Kids (Prufrock,2000).Wilks, S., Critical and Creative Thinking: Strategiesfor Classroom Inquiry (Armadale, Vic.: Eleanor Curtain,1995).PeriodicalsAnalytic Teaching: The Community of Inquiry Journal,Viterbo College, La Crosse, WI.Critical & Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal ofPhilosophy for Children, The Federation of Austrailian Philosophyfor Children Associations (FAPCA).Questions: Philosophy for Young People, published by thePhilosophy Documentation Center, Bowling Green State University.Inaugurated in Spring 2001 with the support of the AmericanPhilosophical Association and the Northwest Center for Philosophy forChildren.Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children,Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, MontclairState University, NJ.Other Internet ResourcesICPIC (International Council for Philosophical Inquiry With Children)Institute for Critical ThinkingRelated Entries childhood, the philosophy of Copyright © 2006 byMichael Pritchard<pritchard@wmich.edu> |
|
