|
Results of the first phase of the
research
Aims
and responsibilities
In March 2007 the programme and research
project ‘Democracy in dialogue’ started in over 40
classes in primary schools. Both programme and research will
run until summer 2008. The first phase ran from March to
July 2007.
The programme ‘Philosophy for Democracy’
consists of four partial programs, each containing five
elaborated themes:
‘A child can
ask more than why’ for group 1/2, in which asking questions
is the central focus.
‘All votes
count’ for group 3/4. The main focus is the advancement of
dialogue.
‘Just because
isn’t a reason’ for group 5/6, in which the development of
thinking skills is the central issue.
‘The big
issue’ for group 7/8. In
this part some democracy-related themes, such as freedom of
speech, tolerance, etc. are elaborated.
The program ‘Philosophy for Democracy’ is
an ‘ordinary’ program for philosophy with children. Apart
from certain themes in group 7 and 8 there is no special
emphasis on the development of democratic values or skills.
The assumption is that philosophy with children is a
democratic practice per se, and by using this practice,
children develop democratic values and skills.
In the program special attention is paid
to:
- philosophical orientations for the
teacher;
-
a large variety of scenarios to open up
philosophical enquiries;
- the structure of the enquiry, which
should focus on enabling elaboration and deep insight;
- closing activities.
The program should stimulate and enable
teachers to philosophize
at least once every two weeks with their children. The
assumption is that when it is done less often, it is no
longer effective.
The objective of the research is to show that philosophy
with children can be a democratic practice which contributes
to education for democratic citizenship: specifically, how
all participants in a philosophical enquiry are equal and
have an equal opportunity to influence the process; how an
enquiry develops opinion, freedom of speech, and exchange;
how philosophical enquiry shapes dialogue.
In the first phase of the research we wanted to know how
children participate in philosophical enquiries as
democratic practice. Do they indeed influence the process?
Can and do they speak freely?
In this first phase we used three
instruments:
a
questionnaire for the teachers, consisting of three parts.
The first part focused on information about the
participating teachers: the class or age group they teach?
What experience do they have in philosophy with children?
What motivated them to join the program? The second part
focused on their observations during the enquiries. Do
children spontaneously give reasons for their opinions? Do
they react rationally to differences of opinion? The third
part reviewed the teachers’ assessment of the program. 24
out of 42 teachers completed the questionnaire
A short
questionnaire for children from group 3 to 8. On this form
we asked the children about their behaviour during the
philosophy lessons. Questions like: Do you voice your own
opinion? Can and do you speak freely and independently? 393
children completed the questionnaire
Class
observations and interviews with eight teachers and their
classes in order to clarify the statistical data from the
questionnaire research. During classroom observation the
same topics as on the questionnaire were used as a
guideline.
The
participants
Over forty teachers and the
children in their classes joined the program in May 2007.
Three complete school teams participated, the ‘Statenschool’
in Dordrecht, ’de Zevensprong’ in Boskoop, and ‘Icarus’ in
Heemstede; nine teachers of the ‘Groningse Schoolvereniging’
and three teachers of primary school ‘Het Landje’ in
Rotterdam participated as did six individual teachers. The
research data are based on the response from Dordrecht,
Boskoop, Heemstede, Rotterdam and from one individual
teacher in Assendelft. They represent a fair amount of
diversity, with regard to type of school (public, catholic,
independent neutral), and to school population (inner city,
multicultural, middle class).
The representation of different school
years (from group 1/2 to group 7/8) is biased for teachers,
as well as children. For the teachers, those with Group 5/6
or Group 7/8 are severely underrepresented, one of the main
weaknesses of the research. With regard to the children,
they range from group 3/4 to group 7/8 (there is no sense in
giving the youngest group a written questionnaire), with
overrepresentation of group 3/4. This is partly caused by
the children of one school, ‘Het Landje’ in Rotterdam. In
that school only the children in group 3/4 participated.
Several comparisons between the schools were made. It was
interesting to see that the practice
of philosophizing, at least when considering the
researched topics, did not vary much. The highest difference
was 0,08 (on a five point scale)!.
|
Results The
teachers were very enthusiastic about the programme. The average
assessment by the teachers was 4,06 on a five point scale. ‘This brings
me so much structure’; ‘it just works’; the manuals make sure ‘that the
enquiry doesn’t stay at the surface, it forces you to go deeper’.’
You have to work regularly with the program’, teachers said,’ then you
will see the benefits’. Most of the teachers philosophized at least once
in every two weeks. The ones who did it more frequently reported more
progress. These teachers were probably the most enthusiastic ones. The
program recommends that teachers and children philosophize once every
two weeks. The enthusiasm of the teachers cannot only be explained by
the quality of the program. The sole fact that it exists, was already
seen as a great stimulus.
Which behaviours do we observe during philosophizing with children?
Philosophizing starts with the asking of questions, by the children!
That is at least what is assumed in the program guidelines. Starting
questions focus the topic and direction of the dialogue, so the initial
questioner has an important influence on the process in a philosophical
enquiry. During the enquiries a lot of questions will be put forward,
both by children and the teacher. The teachers ask questions, with which
they also influence direction and the development of the enquiry.
During the enquiry children ask each other questions: why do you think
so? Can you prove that? Does that mean …? Do you also think that …?
Children are already able to do this when they are five years old. These
are the questions that make dialogue out of a conversation. In this way
the children’s questions shape the enquiry.
This is a remarkable feature. In the mainstream of daily school
practice, there is barely room for children to ask and discuss
questions. Countless research studies show how many questions teachers
ask and the astonishing speed at which they do so (Dillon, 1982; Rowe,
1996; a.o.). Obviously it is hard for most teachers to drop this pattern
while philosophizing with children. Perhaps the program manual
contributes to this. In the manual teachers are shown a direction for
the enquiry by means of questions which they have thought of in advance.
This doesn’t stimulate leaving space for children to ask their own
questions. The multiple asking of questions by the teachers threatens to
make the teacher the central figure in a philosophical enquiry.
Every group has its ‘big mouths’ and ‘silent types’. The results show
that teachers as well as children recognized this phenomenon. And all
seemed to be a little unhappy with it. ‘At the beginning a lot of
children speak. But then the enquiry is often taken over by familiar
faces’, one teacher wrote. One of the children said: ‘a theme is
interesting when everyone can talk about it, especially when everyone
thinks differently about it.’ Letting everyone join in is a hard task in
groups of over twenty children: ‘when I want to say something, then the
others are still talking, they talk very fast one after another and then
I don’t know what to say anymore’, sighed a girl. The teacher who gave
turns, or went around the circle and let everyone join in, was
appreciated as most democratic, but ‘not philosophical. The topic
changes in between and you can’t react anymore’, said a boy who
obviously was one of the ‘big mouths’. The children thought that
everyone had an equal opportunity to participate. In practice this was
mainly realized by the use of duos and smaller groups during the
enquiry.
The
involvement of the children in philosophy was highly rated by the
teachers, apart from the ones who teach group 1 or 2 (the youngest
children). In written explanations and also in the observations and
interviews with the teachers it became clear how difficult teachers
found it to involve four-year-old children in the enquiry.
Interestingly, teachers also reported less involvement in group
7/8. This is also visible in the study with children, in answers to the
question whether philosophy is about things they find interesting.
However, when we interpret involvement as the degree to which children
think about the questions that are discussed in philosophy we see high
scores. Still, there was also a small change observable from
group 5/6. It would be interesting to see if this picture fits with the
more general picture of the appreciation by children of activities in
school.
For our purposes, the answers on the topic ‘I always listen carefully to
what other children say’ were very interesting. This topic had the
highest average scores in the children’s research, and the spread of
answers was not very broad. The score remained high in all groups.
Thinking about what is being said and listening to what others say
showed high scores from young to old.
Just as high, and for our purpose very interesting, were the scores with
regard to autonomy: children answered themselves, their contribution to
the enquiry was authentic and they contributed independently from
others. The high average scores and the low standard deviations (for the
teachers of group 3/4) show that the picture was consistent. Only with
the youngest (group 1/2) was this score a little lower.
Children give reasons for their opinions, and they do so more and more
spontaneously as they get older, is the conclusion. ‘They develop as
they get older’, wrote one of the teachers of group 3/4. This is
confirmed when we see the results of the children’s research. That
younger children (group 1/2) found it hard to give reasons`(mainly the
four year olds, according to the teachers) is not surprising.
Can
children deal reasonably with objections and differences of opinion? In
all foregoing topics we saw that teachers and children did not rate
the practice of philosophy very differently. The trend in their
answers was always the same. Not on this particular item, however. The
teachers may have too rosy a picture of how children feel about
objections and differences of opinion. They seemed to agree on this:
yes, children react rationally to objections. But the children
themselves said, “No, it is annoying when others don’t agree with you’.
As children got older this diminished. Maybe this is a growing process.
Of course, we must take into account that teachers and children
responded to a different formulation of the question. The teachers were
asked about observable behaviour, while the children were asked about
their feelings. In a way this makes it even more interesting from the
perspective of democratic citizenship development: although children do
not like to, they still act rationally when differences of opinion
arise.
Philosophy with children is a democratic
practice!
The
results form the first phase of the research seem to confirm our main
hypothesis: Philosophy with children is a democratic practice!
Although the teacher is the dominant source of questions within the
philosophical enquiry, and because of this, decisive for its direction
and development, we also observe considerable influence from the
children. At a young age, they already have dialogical attitude and
skills, such as asking one another questions, listening to one another,
and these attitudes and skills develop more and more as they get older.
Everyone has equal opportunities to participate. The enquiry within the
full circle of an entire class of children is mostly dominated by some
‘big mouths’, but by using smaller circles and groups everyone
still gets their turn. The involvement of children in the enquiries is
high.
The
opinions expressed are of the children themselves, their contribution to
the enquiry is authentic and they contribute independently from one
another. The four- and five-year-olds sometimes watch each other first,
but from group 3 (age 6) upwards they are admirably involved. This even
develops further.
Children give reasons for their opinions, and they do so more and more
spontaneously as they get older. It is hard to think of new reasons,
when you have to defend your point of view. It is even annoying when
someone else disagrees with you. Obviously that does not feel
comfortable, but in their reactions that discomfort - as children get
older – is less and less observable.
|
|
