2013/2014 Report
Philosophy for Children in Saskatchewan
Since the outset of the Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement in the 1970s, a great body of evidence
has accrued demonstrating the cognitive, emotional, and social benefits of introducing Philosophy to
children, with particular benefits to middle-years students (grades five through eight), and with regard to
readying high school students who are about to embark on adult life (Garcia-Moriyon, Robello, & Colom,
2005; Gregory, 2007; Jopling, 2002; Topping & Trickey, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Topping & Trickey,
2004; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2007a, 2007b). In our current,
local, educational landscape, however, Philosophy is seldom encountered outside of the university despite
its deep connection to critical thinking (e.g., logical and ethical reasoning) and inquiry-based learning
(e.g., the Socratic Method). Since September 2012, Philosophy for Children at the University of
Saskatchewan has sought to make explicit that connection, demonstrating the value of Philosophy within
our wider community by collaboratively exploring the role the discipline plays throughout the educative
process. Indeed, some progress toward that aim has been made, as evidenced, for instance, by the fact that
the Saskatoon Public School Division has celebrated the excellence of the U of S P4C program at a recent
board meeting, and continues working with us as a strong partner to ensure that more students throughout
the city and province are exposed to the experience of doing Philosophy with Philosophers in the years to
come.
Why Philosophy in the Schools?
Given that one of the biggest barriers to postsecondary education is the gap students must traverse from
one institution‟s set of norms to another, pedagogical connections – like the ones already forged through
Philosophy for Children in Saskatchewan – are vital to our shared educational landscape, and ultimately
to the quality of public education in our province. In order to address this gap as an educative challenge,
rather than a barrier, the university and local school divisions must work together. Working more closely
with the schools to better understand, assess, and address the challenges of education requires reciprocal
outreach and engagement, and Philosophy for Children reifies reciprocity.
A.
Pedagogical Connections
Inquiry-Based Learning is a key focus of the current provincial K-12 curriculum,1 and the core of P4C is
the development of Communities of Inquiry. A community of inquiry is one in which “students listen to
each other with respect, build on one another‟s ideas, challenge one another to supply reasons for
otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each other in drawing inferences from what has been said, and
seek to identify one another‟s assumptions” (Lipman, 2003). When communities of inquiry are formed
among children and university students for the purpose of philosophical discovery, all participants gain
insight. For children, new ways of respectfully questioning and discussing their own beliefs and
assumptions open up when exposed to philosophical dialogue for the first time; for university students,
1 Perhaps best articulated by the Ministry of Education‟s 2010 Saskatchewan Curriculum document: Renewed Curricula:
Understanding Outcomes, where one finds an emphasis on “constructing understanding through inquiry,” noting that “big ideas
evoke inquiry questions...[which] are important in developing a deep understanding of the discipline, … do not have obvious
answers, and foster higher-order thinking” (Ministry, 2010).
1
the challenge of interpreting philosophical ideas and thought experiments in language that children use
often deepens their own understanding of many of the core problems in Philosophy. Likewise, the
benefits to high school students exposed to philosophical ideas, and to aspiring philosophers, offer great
promise for improving readiness, not only for university, but for adult life more generally.2
Since the beginning of the P4C program at the U of S, marked by a public lecture and workshop
facilitated by a visiting speaker from the Northwest Centre for Philosophy for Children, University of
Washington, Dr. Sara Goering; we‟ve learned that there are already at least two collegiates that have been
offering philosophy classes to grades eleven and twelve students in Saskatoon since 2011. In addition,
we‟ve heard that philosophy clubs have been growing in popularity as co-curricular endeavors in other
collegiates in the city. Furthermore, since the first offering of the Philosophy for Children course in term
two of 2012/13, three Saskatoon Public primary schools have embraced Philosophy for Children for its
capacity to build inquiry into the existing middle-years curricula, and more deeply explore questions that
have a particularly strong grip on young people. In the 2013/14 academic year, we‟ve worked closely
with six teachers in the K-12 system, three of whom graduated with Philosophy degrees from the U of S.
We‟ve also facilitated a teacher workshop for an additional eleven (pre-K – 8) teachers in term two of the
2013/14 academic year. From these experiences, the idea that philosophical inquiry as professional
development for teachers might strengthen the pedagogical connections between and among educators,
has found some support.
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
One learning outcome articulated for the experiential learning course, Introduction to Philosophy for
Children (PHIL 267), is for the class to develop communities of philosophical inquiry among peers in the
university classroom, and likewise among young people in public schools. This experiential approach to
introducing people to Philosophy has its roots in the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for
Children founded in 1974 by Matthew Lipman, and ultimately, in the American pragmatist tradition.3
Since the 1970s P4C has taken hold around the world and has been reshaped over time with remarkable
levels of success in more than 60 countries, including Canada. Many of those successes have thereby
strengthened and affirmed an historical theoretical trajectory, from which current advancements in
educational theory and research around experiential learning has emerged (e.g., Dewey, 1938; Kolb,
1984; Kuh, 2008). The successes of the P4C Alberta program (U of A), the Vancouver Institute of
Philosophy for Children (UBC and Capilano University), Philosophie pour enfants (Université Laval),
and the successful inclusion of Philosophy at the Secondary level in Ontario Public Schools, have
inspired and shaped the implementation of the first pilot Philosophy in Education experiential learning
course at the U of S; its unfolding into Philosophy 267: Introduction to P4C; and several P4C workshops
offered within the broader community of Saskatoon over the past two years.
Unlike most humanities courses offered at the U of S, PHIL 267 enables students to experience – first
hand – the social impact that philosophical dialogue can have. Undergraduate and graduate students who
have been involved in facilitating P4C discussions in the schools have also gained new skills that suggest
better preparation for teaching (whether at the University or elsewhere), and a broader sense of possibility
in light of the demonstrated usefulness that the study of Philosophy can yield.
2
For instance, one of the two Philosophy courses designed for Ontario high school students is aimed at exposing students who
are not university-bound to Philosophy, and both have proven extremely popular among youth in that province (Jopling, 2002;
Cunningham, 2012).
3
Classic Pragmatists John Dewey, William James, and C.S. Peirce all held the view that we are always in some measure fallible
about our beliefs, that clarity is arrived at collaboratively (through community), and that “we clarify a hypothesis by identifying
its practical consequences” (Hookway, 2010). We thus suggest that the experimental spirit of pragmatism informs not only
educational philosophy (practice), but also philosophical education (theory).
2
A PATH TO PROFESSIONALISM
Informed by the study of the Philosophy for Children movement, its roots in the American pragmatist
tradition, and issues in the Philosophy of Education, University of Saskatchewan students committed to
advancing philosophical discourse in Saskatchewan have, in addition to taking the course, been
volunteering to facilitate philosophical discussions with public school students between grades five and
twelve since October 2012. Some of these U of S students have been introduced to this volunteer
opportunity through the Philosophy for Children course, and thus draw on their experiences of having
developed communities of philosophical inquiry among small groups of grades five, six and seven
students at Hugh Cairns Victoria Cross School.
In the 2014/15 academic year, we anticipate that students who enroll in the Philosophy for Children
course will work with two middle-years classes at Caswell Community School. Given our experience and
evidence which demonstrates the engaging nature of P4C among university students (not to mention
among children), our group of volunteer facilitators will very likely grow over the course of term one,
2014/15. Thus, one aim for the year ahead, fueled by the experience before us, is to advance outreach and
engagement by assisting with the development of philosophical discourse at the middle-years level in
term one, at the high school level in term two, and among teachers interested in introducing Philosophy
into their classrooms throughout the year. In addition, we hope to establish a credential associated with
the course that aligns P4C volunteer experiences with those professional development experiences that
about 40% of students who have taken the course have embraced (some of whom are for the first time
considering pursuing a B.Ed. in the College of Education as a next step after completing their B.A.s in the
College of Arts and Science, and all of whom have expressed a strong commitment to supporting the
introduction of Philosophy as a teachable4 subject in Saskatchewan.)
B.
P4C as an Educative Challenge
At least part of the reason why students become invested in facilitating philosophical discussions with the
wider community is because they find such value and personal meaning in their own study of
philosophical issues and problems; students often want to share the captivating nature of Philosophy by
engaging not just with the subject matter, but with persons who are likewise engaged by philosophical
questions. Children and youth are notoriously likewise engaged by philosophical questions (Jopling,
2002, Matthews 1984; Matthews 1994; Mohr Lone, 2012; Wartenberg, 2009). Thus, there is great
demand for growing the P4C program to include more opportunities for university students to help
advance philosophical education beyond the university. That said, there are many challenges to growing
P4C, including growing the number of university students interested in studying and practicing
Philosophy.
In Ontario, a subject is “teachable” in the schools if “1. ..university students with a degree in philosophy are eligible to apply for admission to
one of the Provinces 30 faculties of education on the strength of this degree alone (whereas before those who wanted to work toward a B.Ed.
would need a major in another, already “teachable,” subject such as History or Mathematics); 2. ..most faculties of education … offer courses on
teaching philosophy; and 3. ..the faculties will also offer courses (called “Advanced Qualification” courses) to those already teaching in
secondary schools to qualify themselves to teach philosophy” (Cunningham, 2012).
4
In Saskatchewan, this translates somewhat differently given our requirements for entrance into our Colleges of Education. Nevertheless, the
concept of „teachability‟ is useful to our project. We hope that the two years of university education currently required for entry into the College
of Education at the U of S, for instance, might include Philosophy courses; that Educational Foundation courses (like the new Inquiry course at
the U of S) will encourage philosophical education not only among prospective teachers, but also among those young people they are preparing to
teach; that Philosophy classes will be offered at the High School level to more students, regardless of their likelihood to pursue post-secondary
education, and that Philosophy classes might be taught at the High School level as Philosophy classes (rather than as English classes or as part of
international, academically elite programs like IB).
3
In the remainder of this report, I make a case for the idea that the challenges that justify the program –
productive, educative challenges – intersect with the challenges of growing the program, and thus both
must be, to a high degree, philosophically educative. To do this, I will draw on objective data, anecdotal
reports, and inferential information collected thus far, which highlight the educational value of P4C for (i)
university students, (ii) public school students, (iii) public school teachers, and (iv), the University of
Saskatchewan and Saskatoon Public Schools Division. In the final part of the report (section C below),
I‟ll suggest a plan for (I) assessing the impact of P4C as inquiry-based learning, (II) addressing the
challenges of educational and institutional transitions, and thus (III) growing the program.
(i)
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Students interested in discussing issues around knowledge, identity, reality, morality, freedom, etc. are
generally also interested in education. They are curious learners, and indeed, often make great teachers.
The educational value for university students involved in P4C can be derived in three main ways: (1) the
number of students taking the class and facilitating workshops, (2) the subjective value of the experience,
and (3) the larger communal benefits of the practice.
(1) NUMBER OF STUDENTS
PHIL 398/267
undergraduate
graduate
Volunteers
undergraduate
graduate
Total University Students
2012/13
7
1
2012/13
0
8
16
2013/14
5
1
2013/14
3
11
14
sum
30
(2) SUBJECTIVE VALUE OF THE EXPERIENCE
From PHIL 398 course evaluation:
“I'd love to see [the P4C course] offered to Education students and Arts & Science students.
This class is so valuable and I would love to see it offered regularly. I think that both the
University students and the middle-school students benefited enormously.”
Undergraduate U of S student
From PHIL 267 course evaluation:
“Many of us express a desire to make this class run for both fall and winter terms, as we are
eager to be a positive influence on the children we met through the course. I hope that future
students taking this class will enjoy it as much as I and my classmates have.”
Undergraduate U of S student
From November 27th, 2014 Star Phoenix Article, Saskatoon Students Embrace Philosophy Class:
“I‟m really idealistic about this [P4C]; I feel like I‟m doing something good.”
Ryan Mitchel, 4th year Philosophy Major
Such comments indicate that working with children enhances students‟ sense of social responsibility and
community, and is thereby valued by university students. From these kinds of first person reports, we
4
anticipate developing a deeper understanding of the social significance of facilitating communities of
inquiry in the classroom. We project that as the number of students opting to take the course increases,
anecdotal information will increasingly suggest institutionally significant information. That is, as those
numbers increase, we aim to more accurately measure the impact of P4C on university students. The
larger social scientific study we envision will thus be shaped by reflections about the educational value of
the program offered by university students who‟ve thus far engaged. This method of participatory
research has already been experimented with in the pilot phase of the program.
Toward the end of the pilot P4C course (PHIL 398), undergraduate students suggested that we design a
short survey for the grade 5/6 teacher at Hugh Cairns with whom we‟d worked, in order to gather
feedback on his observed impact of the eight P4C discussions they facilitated. As the course instructor, I
then re-worked the survey such that the results might show how the perceived outcomes for university
students mirrored the observed outcomes for children. For the purpose of methodological illustration,
below are some results.
Questions written by university students; answers written by grade 5/6 teacher
(post eight week P4C experience, April 2013)
Question: Has there been any marked difference in your [grade 5/6] students‟ ability to offer judgments
about the material they study in other subjects (e.g., language arts, social studies, etc.)?
“Some are going „deeper‟ into questioning and with their responses in their
writing. They are more open to possibilities, which do not fit with previously held
beliefs… students listen more closely, and are less closed minded on their
stance.”
Brad Will, Grade 5/6 Teacher, Hugh Cairns V.C. School
Question: Have you noticed any difference in [grade 5/6] students becoming more actively engaged in
classroom discussions?
“Some students are showing an increased confidence in speaking, and also
supporting their responses more thoughtfully.”
Brad Will, Grade 5/6 Teacher, Hugh Cairns V.C. School
Questions re-worked by university instructor; answered by university students
(Post eight week P4C experience, April 2013)
Question: Have you noticed any difference in your own engagement in classroom discussions?
“I find it easier to articulate my ideas.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
“My ability to act in a critical and reflective manner has been enhanced by the
classroom discussion.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
“I find myself interjecting more often when it sheds light on the discussion.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
5
Question: Has there been any marked difference in your ability to question or offer judgments about the
material you study in other university courses?
“This has helped to make explicit the criteria and judgments I am making.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
“I am better able to recognize what good arguments are versus bad ones.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
“I now seek reasons and look to inquire more. It has really helped me to stop
taking things at face value.”
Undergraduate U of S Student
The students who volunteered with the program – even if only for one or two workshops – seemed to
derive value from the experience as well. All workshops that we‟ve offered required two to four hours of
co-planning so that volunteers participated in P4C curriculum design, in addition to facilitation. These
experiences exposed (particularly undergraduate) university students to a new dimension of the educative
process. Many found this challenge to be rewarding.
In the 2013/14 academic year, we administered a survey to the thirteen volunteer undergraduate and
graduate Philosophy students who collaboratively designed and co-facilitated a philosophy workshop for
the Second Annual Theory of Knowledge Conference for Saskatchewan International Baccalaureate
students. From the feedback we received, we learned that the university students gained: a sense of being
a role model and a teacher, practice with public speaking, and explaining complicated ideas clearly. One
senior undergraduate student noted that the most important outcome of the workshop for his own
professional growth was that “a demonstration of just how hard it can be to teach well teaches some
important humility.” Another facilitator noted that the workshop satisfied “a personal obligation to not let
[his] philosophical education go to waste.” He added that “working together towards a philosophical end
with a number of other individuals with a wide range of philosophical experiences and interests… was
very educational.”
(3) COMMUNAL BENEFITS OF THE PRACTICE
Both the 398 and 267 iterations of the Philosophy for Children course resulted in a high degree of social
cohesion among the university students in the class. Indeed, observed levels of cohesion amongst almost
all small groups of students engaged in sustained philosophical inquiry is a fascinating, democratic, result
of P4C. Expressions of democracy that yield productive results like building shared identity,
understandings, and group norms are often noted in reflective work completed by university students
involved in the course. From these observations, the hypothesis we continue to work from as the program
scales is that the skills acquired in building shared identity, understandings, and norms in small yet
diverse groups, are transferable to larger communal contexts (e.g., larger classes, communities, and
societies).
In the 2014/15 academic year, one undergraduate student who took PHIL 267, hopes to begin to test this
hypothesis as a research project for his Social Sciences Internship course with the SSRL.5 This studentdriven project proposes to examine the connection between hypothetical, analogical, and ethical
reasoning, on the one hand; and democracy in the larger classroom and playground environments, on the
other. Our hope is that undergraduate research into the impact of P4C will continue to generate student
5
SSRL = Social Sciences Research Laboratories, University of Saskatchewan.
6
engagement and academic challenge, while assisting in collecting information which might justify the
continuation of the P4C program.
(ii)
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
It is clear that children who are encouraged to think philosophically and engage in discussions about the
nature of the universe, the limits of our knowledge, and the meanings of our lives, do value the experience
tremendously. For instance, when our first class of middle years students were asked if they wanted to
continue doing philosophy in the following year, the whole grade 5/6 class at Hugh Cairns
enthusiastically raised their hands. Students‟ enthusiasm for the subject led to expanding P4C sessions to
include two classrooms at Hugh Cairns (Mr. Brad Will‟s grade 6 class and Ms. Jenine Tan‟s grade 7
class) in the 2013/14 academic year. With the help of volunteers from the pilot course and interested
graduate students, in addition to a small but dedicated community of students enrolled in PHIL 267, we
successfully expanded the number of middle-years students exposed to philosophical thinking at Hugh
Cairns in 2013/14.
The level of engagement among public school students who participate in philosophical inquiry can be
demonstrated in three main ways: (1) the sheer number of students exposed, (2) the subjective value of
the experience, and (3) the communal benefits of the ongoing practice.
(1) NUMBER OF STUDENTS
Hugh Cairns
Grade 5/6
Grade 6
Grade 7
Academically Talented
Caswell Hill and
Greystone Heights
(grades 5 – 8)
Alvin Buckwold
Grade 6
Grade 7
International Baccalaureate
Province-wide high schools
SEDA
Grades 5 – 12 (Saskatoon)
Total Public School Students
2012/13
27
NA
NA
2012/13
28
2013/14
NA
28
26
2013/14
41
NA
NA
NA
2012/13
93
NA
NA
148
2013/14
23
7
2013/14
85
2013/14
28
238
sum
386
(2) SUBJECTIVE VALUE
One grade six student from Hugh Cairns who spoke on behalf of her whole grade six class at the
Saskatoon Public Schools‟ Celebration of Excellence, board of trustees meeting (May, 2013), said that
P4C gave her classmates “time to think deeper about interesting subjects [they] hadn‟t thought of before.”
She went on to say that Philosophy “was a challenge sometimes, but very fun,” and that
“If I had suggestions for making Philosophy for children better, I would say that we should do it
more often. Maybe we could meet two times a week instead. Each session went by very
quickly. I hope that we can continue to practice philosophy next year at Hugh Cairns.”
Grade Six Student, Hugh Cairns VC School
7
Likewise, high school students who participated in the second annual Theory of Knowledge Conference
(September, 2013) offered positive feedback on the sessions facilitated by university Philosophy students.
For instance, one Saskatchewan high school student noted that
“My top moment of the conference was the [philosophy] discussion on the last day. I felt that it
was the most interactive part of the two days and I enjoyed having the ability to talk to the other
IB students. It was very thought provoking and really defined the attitude of the event.”
Grade Twelve, IB Student
(3) COMMUNAL BENEFITS
Saskatoon‟s schools are facing a number of challenges as the city grows in both size and diversity.
Classes are growing, teachers are stretched, and learning is (by necessity) increasingly measured by the
use of standardized tests. Much of the educational literature suggests that such conditions can result in
teaching to the test methodologies, which often encourage habits that become increasingly
counterproductive to deep, meaningful, learning (Boardman & Woodruff, 2004; Popham, 1999). P4C
provides some relief from these conditions for public school students, and at the same time, might
improve performance outcomes on standardized exams (Topping & Trickey, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).
Many of the teachers we‟ve worked with have commented on the value of P4C for providing an
opportunity for students who often don‟t participate in classroom discussions to do so, given the small
size of groups and exposure to university students. In addition, comments about increased confidence
among some children who participate in P4C discussions often come up. This feedback suggests that
there are good reasons to continue to work with a model that encourages the formation of small
communities of inquiry facilitated by university students within the schools. Communities of inquiry,
when composed of eight to twelve students (including facilitators) are often still constituted by diversity
of opinions vast enough to result in larger, more sophisticated philosophical views than any single student
could likely construct on his or her own. Yet small communities of inquiry still allow for each student to
fully participate in a way larger social contexts (and larger learning environments) prohibit when
confidence is low or highly sensitive to ongoing development. Given the kind of community of inquiry
model we‟ve worked with, which places two university students with eight to ten children (or youth), the
scaling potential of the P4C program is nevertheless highly promising, especially over the long term (i.e.,
in five years the first grade six students we worked with at Hugh Cairns in 2012/13 will graduate high
school).
In addition to the scaling potential of P4C, transferable skills (which are expressive of student
engagement and thereby persistence) that are strengthened as a result of P4C must also be accounted for.
For instance, the pilot participatory surveys referred to above included the following question (again,
written by undergraduate students invested in P4C):
From both of the above surveys (university students = 8, grade 6/7 teacher = 1)
(Post eight week P4C experience, April 2013)
Question: Have you observed any difference in how you/ your students listen to, and respect the views
of peers in the context of classroom discussions?
Answers: 100% yes
Question: How would you characterize that difference? (circle all that apply)
Answers (based on Lipman‟s criteria for assessing caring thinking):
8
Appreciative
8 responses
Active
2 responses
Normative
1 response
Affective
1 response
Empathic
6 responses
Other
3 responses
“Critical”, “Charitable”, “Open”
In all of the ways listening skills have been characterized above, agreement on observed differences due
to introducing philosophical discourse, seem to amount to improvements to students‟ ability to
respectfully listen to the views of their peers. Furthermore, insofar as listening skills are strengthened
among students, so too, I suggest, is student engagement. As such, these kinds of transferrable skills are a
key communal benefit of P4C.
(iii) PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
“Philosophical discussions could enhance any subject area. I think it would work particularly
well in Science, Math, Language Arts, and Health. Since critical thinking is recognized as a
cross-curricular competency, it follows that engaging students in philosophical discussions in
any and all subject areas would enhance their learning in that area, as well as their ability to
learn in general.”
Rachel Cossette BA (Philosophy), BEd
Grade 7 Teacher, Ecole Alvin Buckwold School
The teachers we‟ve worked with have participated in P4C to varying degrees, with varying levels of
interest in Philosophy. Some have degrees in Philosophy from the U of S, others remain unsure about
what exactly Philosophy is (which is a metaphilosophical problem of interest to many). Nevertheless, the
discussions we‟ve had with teachers have been very insightful, and mutually beneficial. We‟ve learned
that teachers appreciate the opportunity to observe their students struggle with big questions, contradict
their previously held beliefs, and often change their minds in the light of reasons. Students‟ capacities for
“flexible” and “deep” thinking have elicited surprise from many teachers after observing how their
students interact in philosophical discussions with university students.
Likewise, adaptive thinking skills have been demonstrated by the teachers at Hugh Cairns who
participated in a workshop designed to inspire the use of P4C materials and methodologies. Sparked by a
reading of the picture book, Henry Hikes to Fitchburg, discussions around the purpose of education, what
really matters most in life, how we measure success, etc. demonstrated what doing philosophy is all
about, how the discipline can relate to and connect any area of inquiry, and how a forum for philosophical
discussion among peers can yield new insights which inform the practice of teaching and learning.
(1) NUMBER OF TEACHERS
SPSD Teachers
Primary
Secondary
2012/13
2
2
2013/14
17
3
sum
9
Total teachers
4
20
24
(2) SUBJECTIVE VALUE
Among the teachers we‟ve thus far worked with, most feedback on P4C has not yet been formally
collected, for sensitivity to workload looms large in the shared experience of educators. We were,
however, able to work with a high school teacher in the planning process for the 2013 Theory of
Knowledge Conference workshop, and his feedback on the process offers great promise:
“As a practicing teacher at the secondary level, it was actually the planning process that was most
beneficial, as it allotted me the rare and immeasurably valuable opportunity to share and coconstruct a vision with specialists in the particular discipline of interest. The planning sessions were
challenging, formative, and above all deeply affirming of the importance of seeking ways to build
bridges between our work in the public education system, and the work of post-secondary
institutions.”
Richard Cossette, BA (Philosophy), BEd
IB Teacher, Bedford Road Collegiate
In addition, in 2013/14, a satisfaction survey was administered to teachers at Ecole Alvin Buckwold
School after a pair of P4C discussions on the distribution of goods and power and authority for a grade
six/ seven Social Studies class, designed and facilitated by a group of volunteer undergraduate students.
Responses from both teachers involved suggest how P4C could continue to enhance the overall quality of
education at the middle-years level, not only for students, but for teachers as life-long learners as well.
For instance, one teacher commented:
“Having someone else ask probing questions to get more out of students was fantastic to watch
from the outside… Students were able to take their prior knowledge and share their thoughts and
opinions in a different way than they are used to. Sharing with someone they are not familiar
with, I found, helped build confidence in some students who do not normally share during
discussions.”
“It was great to see how some students were able to expand their thinking. I enjoyed listening to
students who normally do not work as hard as they could in class, talk about how they believe the
distribution of goods should be based on work ethic.”
Jennifer Robertson, Grade 6/7 Teacher,
Ecole Alvin Buckwold School
Both Jennifer Robertson and Rachel Cossette agreed that P4C professional development opportunities for
teachers would be useful, suggesting that:
“Philosophy discussions created good topics for follow up questions… It [Philosophy] fits very
well into our power and authority curriculum. I would love to learn how to add it into my units.”
Jennifer Robertson, Grade 6/7 Teacher
And
“I‟m particularly interested to see what we could do with [P4C] in my math classes.”
Rachel Cossette, Grade 7 Teacher
10
(3) COMMUNAL BENEFITS
Our plan is to continue to offer and develop regular opportunities for teachers to come together around
shared interests in bringing Philosophy into their classrooms, and into their own lives. In Canada the
precedent has been set, and indeed, the Ontario Philosophy Teachers Association serves as a model that
we hope to draw on here in Saskatchewan.
To date, 24 Saskatoon Public School teachers have either observed P4C discussions with their own
students, or worked with U of S students to develop opportunities to bring Philosophy into their own
classrooms. Students from five different schools (Alvin Buckwold, Bedford Road, Caswell Hill,
Greystone Heights, and Hugh Cairns) have had the chance to explore philosophical topics with university
students and staff, and we look forward to working more closely with Mr. Brad Gibault at Marion
Graham Collegiate, who has been teaching a grade 12 philosophy class (under the heading English 30B)
for the past three years. We‟ve also introduced P4C to a group of teacher candidates in the context of an
Education in Society (Ed 303) class, and we anticipate steady growth in the area of professional
development for teachers/teacher candidates, in light of great interest in opening new avenues through the
College of Education to inspire inquiry-based teaching and learning through a new Inquiry course offered
in the coming year.
The communal benefit of philosophical inquiry to our teaching community extends beyond the small
group of those who choose to study philosophy in concert with education (in university). Through a lifelong commitment to and love of wisdom, the discipline quite naturally extends to those teachers‟ peer
colleagues (through, for instance “inquiry teams”) who together build bridges between the Saskatoon
Public Schools Division and the University of Saskatchewan.
(iv)
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN & SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
The Department of Philosophy‟s partnership with the SPSD began with the support of the Vice-Dean of
Humanities and Fine Arts, David Parkinson, who reached out to an administrator, Lisa Fleming,
Superintendent of Education, and invited her to meet with us to discuss the idea of P4C early in 2012. At
the meeting we extended an invitation for Ms. Fleming to attend our visiting speaker‟s public lecture in
September 2012: Making a Place for Philosophy in Schools: How? And Why?. What‟s since transpired is
a strong partnership in light of the benefit that Lisa Fleming has witnessed herself (having visited Hugh
Cairns twice to observe P4C discussions with university students and grades five, six, and seven
students), and endorsed in a letter of support for the program:
“Through story, legends, creative thinking and imagination, the U of S students allowed the SPS
students to create their own perceptions of philosophical questions. Wonders such as – “What is
beauty? If you could be invisible, would you use this power for good or evil? and How do you
know a decision is right?” evoked rich and complex responses. I was notably impressed with the
advancement of the learning objectives.”
Lisa Fleming, Superintendent, Saskatoon Public School Division
Remaining enthusiastic about the P4C program, and advocating for its value in connection with higher
order thinking skills and inquiry-based learning, Ms. Fleming has truly made a place for Philosophy in
our schools, and continues to help advance its growth by encouraging other schools to experiment with
our university class.
11
(1) NUMBER OF PERSONS INVOLVED
Involvement in P4C
University Students
Public School Students (SK)
Teachers
Administrators and Staff
Total
2012/13
16
148
4
2013/14
14
238
20
168
272
sum
30
386
24
4
440
(2) INSTITUTIONAL VALUES
Philosophy for Children grew alongside the Critical Thinking movement of the 1970s in Education.
Matthew Lipman played a large role in both movements, which can only appear to be distinct movements
looking back from here. Despite the fact that the historical relationship between „philosophy‟ and „critical
thinking‟ seems at times to diverge somewhat from its substantive relationship, the latter nevertheless
remains.6 As such, Philosophers are often puzzled by just what is meant by the term “critical thinking”
when it appears as a prominent institutional value or educational goal. Nevertheless, we know that critical
thinking is a shared, stated, value prominently listed by both the University of Saskatchewan and the
Saskatoon Public Schools Division. We also know that „creative thinking‟ is tightly associated with
„critical thinking‟ in both sets of stated institutional goals. Lastly, we can cite Lipman‟s multifaceted
approach to P4C in terms of its aim to promote critical, creative, and caring thinking among children
through philosophical discourse (Lipman, 2003). Together, we can see that to the extent that P4C
successfully improves those thinking skills requisite for reaching the standards of education represented
by the institutional values our public institutions are responsible for upholding, the program is mutually
valued.
In addition, both equality of opportunity and acceptance of diversity figure prominently in both the U of S
and the SPSD‟s stated educational values. And while shared values often serve as regulative ideals, as
educators it is incumbent upon us to enact them, and as learners they guide our actions. Making a place
for Philosophy in our schools (and in our lives) opens up a space wherein subjective values become
shared values that serve as ideals which we aspire to enact, and thereby become ideas that guide our
actions. By practicing giving and asking for reasons – examining those assumptions which underlie what
often seem like harmless, obvious, true, beliefs – by practicing philosophical dialogue in communities of
inquiry, we are in pursuit of truth. “Excellence,” according to the SPSD, is defined by “the pursuit of
truth.” And I can think of no better educational, nor philosophical aim.
For Philosophy for Children, then, our objectives look the same. We believe that university students
involved in P4C are well prepared to “recognize and think through moral and ethical issues in a variety of
contexts,” and “recognize the limits to their knowledge” (Learning Charter, U of S). Likewise, for public
school students we believe that P4C enacts “ethical conduct harmonious with the ideals of a democratic
society and consistent with the values of respect, responsibility, excellence and joy;” as well as elicits “the
desire to participate in the democratic decision-making process” (Student Learning Goals, SPSD).
6
See Philosophy 140: Critical Thinking offered at the U of S, and analogous courses offered by every other Department of Philosophy in Canada
and the US.
12
(3) SOCIETAL BENEFITS
Extrinsic
Although most of the analyses of the effects of intensively studying Philosophy on standardized exams
(most notably on the LSAT7 and GRE8), have been conducted on students in the United States, the
Canadian educational system might be comparable on many dimensions. In any case, the measured
effects are often significant. For instance, several analyses show that those who study philosophy do
significantly better across the array of (a) disciplinary major and (b) quantitative reasoning, analytic
writing, and verbal reasoning benchmarks.9 Furthermore, it strikes me that to the extent that preprofessional training has an impact on the industry of education; we aim for a knowledge economy.
Therefore, studying Philosophy (e.g., epistemology) helps prepare citizens for such economies.
Intrinsic
Indeed, theories of knowledge are indispensable for strong knowledge economies, but why should
Philosophy be? The suggestion here has been that practicing philosophical discourse in everyday life
strengthens our community‟s (and thereby society‟s) capacity to create, to criticize, and to work together
toward new knowledge. The aims of Philosophy may at times be as elusive as our regulative ideals, and
yet when we strive after truth in what counts as knowledge, the intrinsic benefits include shared identity,
common understandings, and ultimately, self-knowledge.
Indeed, the challenges that justify the P4C program, intersect with the challenges of growing the program,
and thus both must be philosophically educative.
C.
P4C Reifies Reciprocity
(I)
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF P4C AS INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING
Several studies on the impact of P4C on improved cognitive ability and reasoning about norms, offer
sound, reciprocally beneficial reasons for adding to the P4C research literature. To do so in a way that,
over the long run, contributes to the globally relevant body of educational research on P4C, both requires
and enables reciprocity between institutions. Continuing to develop a more robust P4C program in
Saskatchewan on the one hand, and establishing a more robust program assessment on the other, rely on
the sort of growth we can only achieve by working in concert with multiple institutions. Thus, our local
programmatic assessment aims must focus on examining the benefits of P4C that together we might agree
best serve the communities we might reach, given the resources we are able acquire. Furthermore, given
our proposed participatory approach to assessing the impact of P4C as inquiry-based learning, in order to
ensure that P4C continues to nurture partnerships between the University of Saskatchewan and
Saskatchewan‟s schools, a certain degree of flexibility must be built into our core research program,
allowing flux as we reach for our shared aims (i.e., institutional goals and values, enacted by student
learning outcomes). We thus aim to continue to work in concert with the Saskatoon Public Schools
Division, and we hope to replicate some of the results indicating improved educational outcomes for
young people in other parts of the world due to the introduction of P4C, such that justifying the program
grows it, and growing the program likewise justifies it.
7
See: http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/LSATtable.html
See: http://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalPhilosophy/files/UserFiles/Files/PreDrupal/SiteSections/Resources/GRE_Scores_by_Intended_Major.pdf and http://pleasandexcuses.com/2012/09/06/philosophy-major/
9
See: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mathematical-aptitude-in-academics/#.U6iTsSg5vhU
8
13
Over the long term it would be beneficial to examine Canadian Achievement Test scores of public school
students exposed to P4C, to aim to replicate gains found in, for instance, Topping and Trickey‟s 2007
study of improved cognitive ability among P4C participants aged 10, 11, and 12 years old in Scotland.10
In the shorter term, however, our more modest aim is to conduct a survey of secondary students in
Saskatoon who have taken a philosophy course in a local high school – either through the International
Baccalaureate program offered at Bedford Road, or via a special interest English 30B Philosophy course
that has been offered at Marion Graham for the past three years. We hope to better understand why
Philosophy seems to be so highly engaging for young people, and what impact studying Philosophy in
high school has on the transition from secondary to post-secondary education, with an eye to addressing a
the common challenge of educational transitions from primary to secondary education in the following
year (2015/16).
(II)
ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF EDUCATIONAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL TRANSITIONS
One of the dangers, of course, is the possibility that Philosophy won‟t be as engaging for certain students
already often marginalized by our systems. However, there are several small scale American and
Canadian projects emerging, which seek to examine the impact of P4C on marginalized persons.11 I‟ve
suggested that the engaging nature of Philosophy has a great deal to do with its subject matter (and that‟s
what we hope to test this year). And while some hold that the method of P4C might be substantively
distinct from the subject matters of Philosophy; where substantively philosophical issues are treated as
educative and thereby tested through engaged inquiry, we suggest that adaptive, deep, thinking improves
transitions. Furthermore, if the subject matters of Philosophy are as widely appealing to very young
children as many have suggested is intuitively sound, introducing P4C to marginalized persons will assist
in our aiming for equality, justice, and ultimately, truth (regardless the direction one‟s education might
take).
In my experience with the P4C course at Hugh Cairns, occasionally agreement on larger, common views
which emerge from small groups runs dangerously close to a tyranny of the majority situation. This seems
to occur when diversity of opinion within a community of inquiry, is low. Nevertheless, communities of
inquiry – whether composed of children, youth, or teachers, with philosophically trained university
students and faculty – have been most productive when each participant has been given the opportunity to
speak, and each has a chance to more closely observe how his or her peers and mentors respond to deep
questions. Smaller communities afford that possibility more readily than larger ones. Thus, the task of
growing P4C must be sensitive to the features of the program that make the experiences meaningful for
students involved (e.g., opportunity to participate).
In addition to an optimal size for an effective community of philosophical inquiry, diversity of opinion
among the community members typically results in a higher degree of philosophical fruitfulness. To test
this observation, in workshop settings we‟ve typically begun sessions with an “intuition sort,” asking a
large class of children to move to one area of the room or another based on initial intuitions about the
philosophical thought experiment, story, or problem we‟ve posed to stimulate discussion (e.g., would you
plug in to the experience machine for two years? Would you rather pre-program your own experiences, or
10
The Topping and Trickey study, which looked at 105 students (classes from 4 schools within one school district implementing P4C) and a
control group of 72 students (selected from 3 schools in the same district based on comparable student ability, size of school, and social
disadvantage), after 16 months (one hour/ week) of P4C discussions showed “significant measured gains in overall cognitive ability; significant
gains in measured verbal cognitive ability; and also in non-verbal and quantitative reasoning ability” (Topping & Trickey, 2007a). A follow-up
study after 2 years shows that the gains in cognitive ability were retained, while the control group showed deterioration in cognitive ability over
the same period of time (Topping & Trickey, 2007b).
11
For instance, Kym Maclaren at Ryerson University has piloted the Inside Out Prison Exchange program as an experiential learning Philosophy
course, and insights into systemic biases within our educational systems are often derived from such learning environments.
14
choose from a menu of options crated by someone else?). 12 From here, we are able to create discussion
groups composed of students who hold divergent views, which tends to result in more sophisticated,
articulated, reasons, and a stronger understanding of diversity of opinion, in a fairly short space of time.
Our suggestion is that achieving the goals of P4C – viz., personally meaningful experiences, clearly
articulated reasons, strengthened understanding (and thereby acceptance) of diverse views – in a short
space of time might result in smoother transitions between our schools and universities and social
situations and working environments, and so on. Furthermore, we anticipate that where we are able to test
this theory may result in wider socio-economic implications which align with institutional goals, such as
Aboriginal engagement.
(III) GROWING THE PROGRAM, EXPANDING THE LEARNING
To continue our work, additional funding specifically designated for graduate and undergraduate student
research is key. Our aim for the 2014/15 year, should we be successful in our funding applications,13 is to
focus on our Philosophy in High Schools Project, such that we are able to (1) place a senior Graduate
Student of Philosophy, and/ or Emeritus Philosophy Professor, as Philosophers in Residence, into the two
Saskatoon collegiates we‟ve identified (Bedford Road Collegiate, Marion Graham Collegiate) that already
offer Philosophy classes; (2) conduct a survey open to all of the students who have taken high school
Philosophy classes in Saskatoon; and (3) continue to participate in the IB Theory of Knowledge
Conference. Given the enthusiasm for this project, we‟ve no doubt that we will make great headway
toward our longer-term goal of establishing Philosophy as a teachable subject in Saskatchewan,
enhancing the education of future U of S students, and inspiring our wider community to see value in the
discipline at the heart of doctoral work at universities; viz., Philosophy.
Our reasons for taking this approach are focused on growth. Philosophy, like other humanities disciplines,
has seen a decline in majors across Canada and the US since the 1970s. We suggest that this decline is
related to a wider misconception about the value of doing Philosophy, the usefulness of its study, and a
bias in academic program selection which places Philosophy majors at an advantage academically.
Indeed, the educative challenges that justify Philosophy programs intersect with the educative challenges
of growing such programs, and thus the effort must begin from an earlier age. P4C carries the potential to
result in higher achievement across the vast array of subjects and persons who practice philosophical
inquiry, and in light of our results, we remain hopeful for continued support.
Erin DeLathouwer
Philosophy for Children Program Coordinator
Department of Philosophy
University of Saskatchewan
Works Cited
Boardman, A. G., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high stakes” assessment: What happens to
professional development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 20(6), 545-557.
Cam, P. (2001). Pragmatism and the Community of Inquiry. Childhood & Philosophy, 7(13), 103 -119.
Cunningham, F. (2012). Philosophy in the secondary schools: An account of new developments and the
opportunities and challenges they represent for Ontario University Philosophy Departments. Unpublished report
(revised from a 2009 account).
12
This example is derived from Robert Nozick‟s Experience Machine.
13
See Appendix I for list of funds received and applied for.
15
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Garcia-Moriyon, F., Robello, I., & Colom, R. (2005). Evaluating philosophy for children: A meta
analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), 14–22.
Gregory, M. (2007). Etats-Unis d'Amérique: Thirty years of philosophical and empirical research in
philosophy for children: An overview. Diotime: Revue Internationale de Didactique de la
Philosophie, 34.
Hookway, C. (2010). Pragmatism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N.
Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/pragmatism/
Johnson, D.B. (2000) Henry hikes to Fitchburg. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Jopling, D. (2002) "The coolest subject on the planet": How philosophy made its way in Ontario's high
schools. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 21(2), 131.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://academic.regis.edu/ed205/Kolb.pdf
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why
they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
http://www.neasc.org/downloads/aacu_high_impact_2008_final.pdf
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, G. (1984). Dialogues with children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matthews, G. (1994). The philosophy of childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McEwen, N. (1995). Accountability in education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 20, 1-17.
Mohr Lone, J. (2012). The philosophical child. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefeild Publishers,
Inc.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests don‟t measure educational quality. Educational
Leadership, 56(6), 8-15
Saskatchewan. Ministry of Education. (2010) Renewed curricula: understanding outcomes. Regina, SK:
Ministry of Education: 2010 Saskatchewan Curriculum.
Saskatoon Public School Division. (2013). Inspiring Learning: Vision and values.
http://www.spsd.sk.ca/division/visionandvalues/Pages/default.aspx
Topping K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive
effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 271–288.
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007b). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive
gains at two-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 787–796.
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007c). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students‟ interactive
behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 73–84.
Trickey, S., & Topping K. J. (2004). “Philosophy for children”: A systematic review. Research Papers in
Education, 19(3), 365–380.
16
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2007a). La philosophie dans le monde
niveaux préscolaire et primaire. Etat des lieux, questions vives et recommandations.
http://www.ovc.ulaval.ca/ms/forum/UNESCOTOZZI.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2007b). Philosophy. A school of
freedom. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001541/154173e.pdf
University of Saskatchewan. (2010). Learning charter.
http://www.usask.ca/secretariat/documents/LearningCharter.pdf
Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big ideas for little kids: Teaching philosophy through children‟s literature.
Lanham, MD: Rowmand and Littlefield.
Appendix I: Funding Contributions and Applications
2012/13
University Learning Centre
In-Kind Contributions:
$6,500 sessional stipend (PHIL 398)
$300 audio/video recording (Sara Goering‟s talk)
Division of Humanities and Fine Arts/ Department of Philosophy
Contribution:
$1,000 visiting speaker (travel, accommodations, and stipend)
Experiential Learning Fund
Awarded:
$400 travel expenses (for 398 students to and from Hugh Cairns)
K-12 Outreach Fund
Applied: Unsuccessful
2013/14
Division of Humanities and Fine Arts
Contribution:
$38,000 Philosophy for Children Program Coordinator (.6 position)
Experiential Learning Fund
Awarded:
$8,000 half GTF, Undergraduate honouraria, and travel for children to UofS
K-12 Outreach Fund
Applied: Awaiting results of competition
SSHRC Partnership Grant LOI
Applied as Partner: Building a Canadian Engaged Inquiry Network
17