Philosophy for Children (P4C): a dialogic pedagogy for creative conversations

by Fufy Demissie (Sheffield Hallam University) and Anna Pujol (Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya)

1. Dialogue

Dialogue is a fundamental human need that is also key to how we come to learn about each other and the world around us. But effective dialogue is often absent in the wider society, between individuals and families, and in our educational institutions. According to Osborn and Canfor-Dumas, creative conversation is an approach to talk that “creates something of value…” and has the capacity to “change the world” (2018, p. 8). Our students often lack confidence to express themselves and seem reluctant to discuss ideas to construct new knowledge and understanding. Instead, they prefer the teacher to tell them the answer and do all the thinking for them. Consequently, curiosity is quashed and learning becomes monotonous and more school-like and less like higher education. This has serious consequences; by not engaging in dialogue and discussion, students miss out on hearing multiple perspectives, develop critical thinking and good judgement.

It was this shared concern that led to the collaboration between the University of Vic and Sheffield Hallam University. We were concerned about the impact on students’ ability to listen to each other, give reasoned views, recognise and challenge others’ and their own assumptions and biases, see other’s perspectives (even if they don’t agree) and build new and better informed understandings. But more significantly, we had a shared interest in the internationally recognised P4C pedagogy. Anna Pujol through her Masters dissertation, and Fufy Demissie, as a P4C trainer and with experience in using P4C in higher education contexts. Following Fufy’s visit to University of Vic, where lecturers and students participated in P4C enquiries, we became more curious about P4C pedagogy: Can P4C work in different cultural/political contexts? Can it be used to foster dialogue of transformation and understanding in other higher education contexts? Is good pedagogy such as P4C universal or does it depend on participants’ age?

In this post we outline the key features of P4C, the facilitator’s role, potential issues that might arise in P4C enquiries and examples to illustrate P4C in action. We conclude by showing some of the ways we hope to extend this collaboration.

2. P4C as a dialogic pedagogy

The term dialogic simply means “relating to dialogue”, and refers to any interaction that involves communication between two or more individuals with a shared goal of mutual understanding. Dialogue is more than mere conversation; participants are not merely exchanging information or opinions (e.g., about the day’s weather or the news). Instead, the aim is something deeper and more meaningful: a mutual understanding of each other so as to arrive at the truth of the matter. Indeed, when teachers adopt dialogic teaching approaches, such as encouraging authentic questions, dialogue and knowledge co-construction between students and teachers, students learn better.

In addition to the educational benefits of dialogue, there are also societal reasons for adopting dialogic teaching and learning approaches. Classrooms, according to Dewey, are a microcosm of society; that is, a space to learn to reason and listen to different perspectives and if necessary and modify and change one’s views (Dewey, 1916). In the current climate of fake news and misinformation, a dialogic approach to learning is needed to educate pupils about evaluating evidence and making reasonable judgements. These skills and dispositions are essential for democratic societies and important educational objectives in higher education curricula. But the evidence shows that teachers prefer traditional didactic approaches, such as IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) that limit opportunities for thinking, inquiry and dialogue.

The Philosophy for childen (P4C) pedagogy is an example of a dialogic pedagogy. P4C is a thinking skills programme that began in the 1970s. Its originators, Matthew Lipman and Ann-Margaret Sharpe, were concerned about school curricula in the US that was dominated by academic outcomes. They devised P4C to develop pupils’ thinking and in particular their ability to listen without judgement, put forward reasoned arguments, and recognise their own and others’ assumptions. It is now practised in over 60 countries, because many recognise its potential to develop cognitive outcomes (e.g., critical thinking), and social skills such as empathy, tolerance, self-confidence and collaboration.

The P in Philosophy for Children highlights two important aspects of P4C. It refers to what we think/talk about and how we think about it. What we talk about in P4C generally involves philosophical concepts such as justice, equality, etc. Philosophical concepts are common to our experiences, but they are also important in our lives and are contestable (SAPERE, 2019).   For instance, even for very young children, concepts such as friendship are important and relevant. The other dimension of philosophy relates to how we think about these philosophical concepts. When thinking philosophically we clarify definitions, give reasons for what we think, prepare to question our own and others’ assumptions, and evaluate the quality of thinking. Thus, individuals can make progress about the concepts; e.g., a better understanding of the different forms of friendship, but also about the quality of the thinking process. Even if there is no agreed answer to the question, students can still progress in their ability to ask questions, evaluate opinions, recognise assumptions and listen to others’ perspectives.

3. Critical, caring, collaborative and creative thinking (the 4Cs)

Thinking is key to the P4C pedagogy. In his book Thinking in education, Lipman argued that critical thinking on its own is “narrow and skimpy” and that it lacked creative thinking, which would engage “imaginative thinking” that helped us to consider alternative perspectives and implications (Lipman, 2003, p. 5). Instead, fruitful dialogue also requires caring thinking.  Caring thinking is driven by emotions, because without emotions, “thinking would be flat and uninteresting” (Lipman, 1980, p. 260). But caring thinking involves two senses:  thinking/caring about the subject matter, but also about the quality of our reasoning, such as being careful about the distinctions we make and the reasons we give and the assumptions behind reasons. Ann Margaret Sharpe takes this further. For her, developing caring thinking is fundamental for a community of inquiry because the practice of these attitudes (see Table 1) creates the ideal conditions for more effective and reasonable thinking (Gregory & Laverty, 2017).   In SAPERE’s training materials collaborative thinking was added to emphasise the idea of building on each other’s ideas as a key component of dialogue and deliberation. Thus, the 4Cs are now known as the underpinning foundation of a community of enquiry.  Individuals learn how to be critical and creative, but in a caring and collaborative context.

Table 1:  The 4 dimensions of thinking (adapted from www.sapere.org)

 4. The P4C methodology

The P4C methodology reflects the principles of inquiry and dialogue and caring, critical, collaborative and creative thinking (Tables 2 and 3). That is the teacher/facilitator’s role and P4C structure conveys these principles. After getting participants to sit in a circle (without any desks in front of them), the facilitator and students establish and agree on the behaviour rules for the dialogue. These often include being respectful, listening and building on each other’s ideas.

Table 2:  The P4C methodology

Table 3: Getting set for a P4C enquiry (www.sapere.org)

A variety of stimuli are used to create a provocation for the dialogue. In the original P4C programme, Lipman wrote a series of children’s books. Characters in the story encountered puzzling and problematic scenarios that they attempted to resolve through reasoning. This provided an opportunity for pupils to question and interrogate the characters motives, assumptions and reasoning. These series of books were the standard curriculum of P4C for many years, and even translated into other languages. More recently, however, facilitators use films, photos, artefacts and story books as a starting point for inquiry and discussions. The best stimuli often contain big ideas or concepts that are contestable. Examples of stimuli/provocations can include:

• A story, e.g., Harry Potter contains dilemmas and concepts such as: good, bad, loyalty, love, revenge etc.
• A photograph/image of environmental damage
• A news video about a climate change demonstration/protest

As shown in Table 2, the stimuli is presented to participants to discuss the stimulus, (e.g. what they liked or didn’t, and the ideas it made them think about), before they go on in groups to formulate a discussible question. This is followed by a vote to choose the most popular question and for participants to share their first thoughts about the question. In the building stage, they are encouraged to build one each other ideas by questioning, thinking creatively, critically, collaboratively and caringly (Table 1). The dialogue concludes with participants sharing their last thoughts about the question or the process. This last stage may result in further questions that can be discussed at an enquiry, or written reflections about the question/enquiry. Table 4 includes an example of a stimuli and how the facilitator supported the participants’ thinking.

Table 4: an example of an enquiry following the P4C methodology

5. The role of the facilitator

Lipman’s ideas about P4C were strongly influenced by John Dewey’s notion of a community of enquiry as a space where individuals are open-minded and respectful, but also ready to question and challenge each other in the pursuit of truth. Thus, the facilitator is central to the success of this pedagogical approach. For example, by getting participants to sit in a circle, establishing and monitoring the ground rules and giving participants ownership of the discussion, the facilitator attempts to create the best conditions for dialogue and discussion.  Having established these conditions, the facilitator’s other role is to model and encourage thinking moves needed for productive inquiry and dialogue. These include thinking moves such as clarifying, summarising, but also highlighting contestable concepts, adopting and modelling open and curious attitude, and encouraging students to employ critical (asking/giving reasons, justifying, questioning assumptions) and creative thinking (making connections) in addressing the question (see Table 1).

The facilitator’s role has many challenges.  He/she must pay attention to the quality of thinking (Table 1) and strive to create the ideal environment for dialogue, through e.g. the warm up games and the ground rules (Table 2).  Moreover, the stimuli must be sufficiently thought provoking and appropriate and relevant to the participants. There are instances, however, where stories written for younger children can be surprisingly effective in overcoming students’ reluctance to articulate their viewpoints.  Stories such as I want my hat back, for example, contain universal philosophical ideas of truth, revenge and justice that are discussible and contestable. More importantly, stories can provide unthreatening contexts to explore these concepts, and open dialogic spaces that enable students to use examples from their own experiences to critically and creatively interrogate these concepts. Thus, flexibility and adaptability are also important attributes for the facilitator (SAPERE, 2010).

Practical issues, such as few students dominating the discussion and superficial discussions, are also potential problems.  However, over time, the many guidance and tips in the P4C training can be of enormous help in addressing these aspects. More challenging is when participants express racist/sexist views that call for the facilitator to challenge and question speakers with care, e.g. to justify their views and perspectives and if necessary to offer counterevidence that challenges these views.  At the same time, facilitators may also be unaware of their own assumptions and biases and how these can influence the dialogue, for example, in the choice of stimuli or in the kind of interventions they make (Chetty, 2014). There is no magic solution to these matters; what they require is being aware, noticing and reflecting on our practices regularly so as to approach matters differently at the next opportunity. In all cases, experience can improve our responses to these challenges, but more importantly creating and nurturing a caring and collaborative community can make all these issue easier to manage and address.

6. Conclusion

Our collaboration was motivated by our shared concerns about the importance of dialogue for learning and living, and the potential of P4C as a pedagogy that can put dialogue at the centre of our teaching practice. We felt that ethically and professionally this is an important focus for our reflection on our practice because we believe that the absence of dialogue impoverishes education. We have also engaged in our own dialogue about the potential and limits of P4C in polarised societies. This has raised several questions such as Can the P4C pedagogy really lead to creative conversations? and How effective is P4C in polarised societies in Catalonia and elsewhere? We hope to explore our thinking and work further by conducting collaborative P4C enquiries (with the same stimuli) and to examine students’ responses and our own facilitation experiences.  We believe that the problem of dialogue and communication is a matter of serious concern that requires us to explore the limits and possibilities of creative conversations in higher education.

References

• Chetty, D. (2014). The elephant in the room:  Picture books, Philosophy for Children and racism. Childhood and Philosophy, 10, 11-31.
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education and introduction to the philosophy of education.  New York: Free Press.
• Gregory, M., & Laverty, M. (2017).  In community of inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: childhood and education.  London: Routledge.
• Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
• Osborn, P., & Canfor-Dumas, E. (2018). The talking revolution: how creative conversation can change the world. Oxford: Port Meadow Press.
• SAPERE (Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education). (2010). Retrieved from www.sapere.org