"Philosophy for Children is about a community of inquiry that provides a safe environment in which to think things never thought before."

I had only heard of the Philosophy for Children program recently and after browsing through some of their resources I was keen to find out what really happened in the classroom. I was particularly interested in how the program promoted a ‘community of inquiry’ – what it sounded like, looked like, felt like – and whether this could be adopted in other classrooms.

My own memory of philosophy at university was of reading texts by philosophers, then applying logic to see if their arguments really stood up, something which never quite satisfied me. Philosophy for Children is supposed to be different. Students are given a particular topic or story and then encouraged to think about it for themselves, sharing opinions and creating a rich dialogue based on reasoning. The purpose is to become clearer about one’s own thinking and values and to appreciate experience better.  The children are the philosophers rather than studying them. Or that is what the promotional material said. But what really happens?

What a class looks like, sounds like, feels like…

"What I like about Philosophy is that we get to share opinions and use our brains - something we don't do in our other classes."

Grade 5 boy

"I talk over the ideas in philosophy with my Mum. She likes it - she says it is the only time she gets to think."

Grade 5 girl

P4C encourages...

Mental Acts:

• doubting
• wondering
• hoping
• fearing 
• respecting
• believing

Reasoning Skills

• deductive
• inductive
• giving reasons
• formulating questions
• constructing definitions
• classifying
• seriating
• exemplifying
• formulating concepts

"There's two types of thinking - hard and soft. Philosophy is hard thinking."

Grade 5 girl

So here I was sitting in a small room with thirteen Grade 5 students who meet fortnightly with teacher, Jenny Morgan. They were one half of a regular grade 5 class and this was a compulsory subject for them. We were all sitting around one large table with a small whiteboard at the front. Jenny was saying that having been on holiday we needed to re-establish the rules of this classroom for the new term (Term 2), could anyone help her? Immediately some students shot their hands in the air and gradually Jenny teased out the following rules:

• No put downs

• Give your opinions – all opinions are valued

• Agree/disagree with idea not person

• You can change your mind

• Listen and take turns

• Ask questions

• Give reasons

• Keep on track

• You don’t have to share

At this stage it was clear that only some of the class was contributing and focused on the task while others were drawing or doodling and the two girls next to me were playing noughts and crosses. Hmmm, I thought.

Then Jenny wrote two words on the top of the board  - “Perceiving” and “Knowing” – and that was all she used as a teaser to get students thinking. “What do these mean?” she asked. Given that most the students had never heard of the word perceiving or perception I was astonished at how well they did, mainly as a result of careful questioning by Jenny, asking students to give reasons for their thoughts.  As each student offered a meaning she put it up on the board. Jenny wrote it up even if it was off target, but saying “Is this quite what we mean?” which would start a new flurry of ideas.  Very soon we had a list that was getting rich with meaning and the differences between the two words were becoming apparent  – ‘knowing’ was based on facts or information, whereas ‘perception’ was based on your own understanding and how you saw it .

This had been moving along gently but I felt that only a few students were participating. Jenny then asked, “How do we come to know things?” which led to the idea that we know through our senses. Then Jenny asked “Would we be able to know if we had no senses?” This turned out to be the key question for the whole session. But at this point you wouldn’t have spotted it. The discussion centered for a long time on what it might be like to have lost one sense, with different students giving examples, really putting themselves into the situation – projecting what it might be like not to be able to see or hear at this stage in their lives versus missing a sense from birth. They wondered if language was a sense or a gift and how we came to have language and how, even if we were missing one sense, we would still be able to have language and think.

Students gave their opinions, saying “I disagree with Natalie, because...” “I disagree with myself earlier… .”  Some students seemed very sure of themselves, whereas others were far more tentative, floundering a little as they tried to find the right words, often helped by the others or Jenny in a sometimes painstaking way. The conversation meandered, broke into different threads. I wondered where it was going and whether Jenny thought it was on track

“So what then happens if you have no senses at all?” Jenny asked. This was really hard for the students to grasp… they found it really difficult to take away every sense - whenever they tried they found they were still assuming something. The whole thing became a real challenge... something to solve.  More of them began participating and offering their opinions. Hands in the air waiting their turns. I was amazed at how some of them were determinedly pointing their hands upwards yet obviously listening intently to the next few speakers because now they were saying “I disagree with John because…, and Kate because… but agree with…” I was astonished at the rigor and thoughtfulness of the dialogue and the increasing fluency.

I then began to feel myself drawn into the whole debate... having an emotional need to come to some resolution.  I remembered 20 years ago studying Descarte, who tries to strip away everything he knows – eventually coming up with the famous “I think, therefore I am.” Our study of Descarte was to critique his argument, finding the flaws. I had never projected myself into his world – one in which every sense was taken away. But this was happening now. We weren’t just thinking about this in a detached logical way, we were living this separation from our senses and wondering who we would be. There was now real angst in the students’ voices.

The whole class exploded when we were asked to imagine we were aliens on a completely different planet and had no senses. What would we be, what would we know? Students sat up straight, eyes wide open, breaths sucked in - you could feel the electricity. And this is where the whole debate just flowed, cascading with its own momentum into unexpected depths. Students wondered whether they would exist, what existence was. “Would it be like how a door would feel or exist?” Then a student said “no, it would be more like a wall.” This fascinated the students – the difference between the quality of existence of a door versus a wall. All the meandering earlier - the different threads, the longwinded examples - now reappeared in the debate as students began to integrate and refer to earlier conversation, continually building. I began to notice some students taking the role of pulling things together, others giving concrete examples, others asking questions with angst, while others imagining new possibilities. Together they were creating a very rich discussion that spiralled into increasing understanding as they really tried the different ideas on. Each student played a valuable role and pushed the conversation to places where it couldn’t have gone if they were alone. It was like a dynamic system creating new emergent properties – in this case it was emergent understanding. So this was what a community of inquiry was all about, I thought.

But the class only was for an hour and had to be stopped at some time. Students still wanted to talk, hands were up. They were bitterly disappointed when Jenny said “We really need to wrap it up here. Can anyone help us summarise what we were discussing today?” One boy who had said nothing all lesson said, “It really all depends on your perception.”  I shook my head in amazement, unbelieving of such perspicuity.

What the students thought…

• Critical
• Creative
• Caring 
• Collaborative

Before they left, floating off the floor and buzzing with energy, I asked the students if some would stay behind and be interviewed - nearly all the hands shot up. I chose one of the girls who had played noughts and crosses and who had only spoken once, a boy who spent the whole time drawing and spoke once, another boy who only contributed a few times very tentatively and two of the girls who were extremely articulate. I had a list of questions.

What do you like about this class?

Given that three of the students were very quiet through the classroom discussion I was surprised at how they all wanted to give their opinions to me and how positive they all were about their experience. They told me they liked sharing ideas, and sharing opinions, listening to others, giving their own opinions, using their brains. The very quiet boy in particular valued being allowed to sit and listen to the range of ideas without necessarily having to say something.

What particularly grabbed you about this lesson?

All of them said it was the point when they had to think what life would be like without any senses. “If you had no senses, could you really know?” “Would you know you exist?”

How is this different from other classes?

In their normal class they said they had to listen to their teacher telling them stuff which you copy down, but in this class you got to talk yourself, you could disagree or comment and were allowed to think for yourself. Sometimes they really wanted to comment on what their grade teacher was saying, or to question it. The two articulate girls told me that once they had said “I disagree…” and tried to start a conversation but the teacher had said “Philosophy is over, girls.”

Do you continue to think or talk about the ideas after the lesson is over, for example at home?

All the students nodded. The quiet girl explained that she talked things over with herself and often to her dog, as well as her friend. She liked it best when she was helping her Mum’s boyfriend do puzzles and then they could talk the ideas over. “It is better when you have someone else.” All the students agreed. Another said she talked to her mouse. Another told how when it was interesting she talked to her Mum and asked her opinion. She said her Mum really liked it because “it is the only time she gets to think.” One boy said apart from Drama this class has been the only one he has talked about at home.

What have you noticed about how you think since you started – how has it changed?

One of the very articulate girls explained how she has learnt to think aloud. How she started off not being confident at all but now she is using her brain all the time and the thoughts come a lot easier. Another said how determined she is to solve the topic, just using your mind to work it out. All of them agreed that they had thinking skills now that they didn’t have before. The quiet girl then explained to me that doing philosophy was about ‘hard’ thinking. Soft thinking was remembering the two times table which she already knew. Hard thinking was like learning the eight times table which she is doing at the moment. She found it really difficult and wasn’t sure of a lot of things, yet it really made her think about things that she wouldn’t normally think about. When I asked whether they found themselves using these skills, like when they were looking at things on the street, they told me how it was better if someone else was there - “you really need others to discuss it.”

How has it affected the relationships with each other, how you see each other?

They all said how they have come to appreciate each other more “you know what they are thinking.” Even when they are drawing you know they are listening and thinking. You get a better sense of them. You get to talk with them about it afterwards.

What do you think of the rules, would you change anything?

Most of them said they were happy with them, but one girl said she would like to change the one on participation. She would like everyone to participate because then she could get to hear different opinions. I asked the quiet students what they thought and we had a whole discussion about what it means to participate. The quiet girl explained that she doesn’t say anything when she is not sure and she is not sure most of the time. The boys agreed, but it didn’t mean they weren’t listening. I asked why they drew pictures during the discussion… “it helps me listen and think.”

How do you feel after a Philosophy class?

Most of them said they felt happy because they have shared what they think. They go out still thinking. One said she often felt frustrated because she hadn’t got to the bottom of it yet.

What struck me about their answers was how articulate they all were in describing the process of the class, although Jenny had not asked any of them these sort of questions before – in fact she was surprised with some of their answers. They were more perceptive than me in picking that people were participating even when they appeared distracted – drawing, playing noughts and crosses. It reminded me that as a visual, rather than aural learner I too prefer to doodle during extended verbal activity… it helps me focus. They were very considerate of each other and their opinions as I debriefed them. The language they used to describe what they liked was about ‘sharing opinions’ not ‘telling my opinions’ – again and again they reinforced that it was important to have other people involved. The Philosophy for Children program is called P4C – the 4 C’s of philosophy – caring, critical, creative and collaborative. It was evident that all of these were happening and that the children valued them.

What the teacher thought…

So, I asked Jenny, how did she think the class went? Did she achieve what she had hoped? “This is one of those feel good lessons where the students run out bubbly.” She was smiling and upbeat. Did she have a particular goal or concept she wanted them to grasp? “My aim is to get the children to think beyond where they had before, and that happened! Reaching a specific goal isn’t important, it is all about process. In this lesson there were lots of possible leads and it could have gone in any direction. Sometimes going onto a different track ends up with something very interesting.”

Jenny believes that this ‘community of inquiry’ approach should be part of every classroom, not just limited to Philosophy classes. She couldn’t believe that a teacher would stop students discussing in a class and say “Philosophy is over.” Because, for her learning is about thinking, inquiring and being engaged in a dialogue. As she watches students over the course of the year, she sees them gaining in confidence, self assurance, respect, articulation, sense of self, well being, and being valued.  They learn how to listen and have greater self-control. “I am constantly amazed at how clearly children can think and communicate, when we give them the opportunity to do so.”

However, she sees this method as something the teacher has to work at.  “It is so important to establish the right environment – you have to be vigilant about it – continue to restate the rules so students get to understand what has been established.” Her grade 6 class, earlier that morning, had been a lot harder – after the holidays students had forgotten the rules and one boy was sent out. “The issue of discipline is a difficult one because you are trying to establish trust – so in disciplining and reinforcing appropriate collaborate behaviour you are trying not to upset fragile egos.” Jenny explained how one girl broke down in tears after one class because she felt so inadequate – she was so unsure about what was being discussed and felt really stupid. Jenny spoke with her afterwards, saying it was OK to be unsure and that she didn’t have to participate. Now, while she still doesn’t talk in class, she is a lot happier and talks to her friend after the class where she feels less on show.

So what are the things that starting out teachers need to be aware of? Until the students have built up a sense of trust and confidence, the sessions need a lot more direction and prompting from the teacher and it is harder to get a conversation flowing. Initially the children don’t want to listen to each other, want to all speak at once or are very hard to draw out. Many of the teacher’s questions go unanswered. As the students gain in confidence, however, the teacher almost disappears into the background, facilitating where needed – students even get up to write things on the board.

So what sort of attitude could assist a teacher? Jenny says being open minded, being secure in having your own ideas challenged, being flexible, being honest and prepared to respond authentically (“ haven’t thought of that before”,  “I think I’ll disagree with myself.”) Firm, yet subtle discipline is the key and she works hard at being nice and valuing each person. “It is important for the teacher not to feel threatened and not to panic if things get into a bit of a hole and you can’t see your way out.”

The Philosophy for Children program is supported by many teacher resources – stories and questions for the classroom, as well as background theories and guidelines to help the teacher establish a community of inquiry, and understand, look for and foster philosophical student-talk. This process can be applied in any sort of classroom, age group or topic – it doesn’t have to be limited to topics in Philosophy – it is a state of mind and being that can infuse the way we teach – if we have the courage to try.

Jenny runs training courses for teachers regularly and can be contacted at jenny.morgan@education.tas.gov.au

  Article by Sue Stack (who is available for other interviews and/or class visits)

Links:

Community of Inquiry Guidelines

P4C website