Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Philosophy For Children - Coggle Diagram
Philosophy For Children
-
History of P4C
Matthew Lipman
The aim of a thinking skills programme such as P4C is not to turn children into philosophers but to help them become more thoughtful, more reflective, more considerate and more reason-able individuals.
Prior to this - children believed what they were told to believe; wouldn't question or scrutinise things
Anne Margaret Sharp
what P4C does is give children the intellectual, social and emotional tools that they need to think well, to think judiciously and reasonably and, by means of the classroom community of inquiry, foster the care, commitment and courage to act on their thinking
They saw that there was a real need in schools, and indeed in initial teacher education programmes, to get people to think 'reasonably'
Criticisms of P4C
-
Piaget says no, at least prior to the age of 11/12.
some argue that P4C is not philosophy proper and its just a watered down version of pointless questioning.
The 4C'S of P4C
Caring - Listening (concentrating) and valuing (appreciating) (e.g., showing interest in, and sensitivity to, others' experiences and values.
Collaborative - Responding (communicating) and supporting (conciliating) (e.g., building on each other's ideas, shaping common understandings and purposes).
Critical - Questioning (interrogating) and reasoning (evaluating) (e.g. seeking meaning, evidence, reasons, distinctions and good judgements).
Creative - connecting (relatig) and suggesting (speculating) (e.g., providing comparisons, examples, criteria, alternative explanations or conceptions).
Critical Thinking
It is a process of hunting assumptions - discovering what assumptions we and other hold, and then checking to see how much sense those assumptions. [Brookfield]
-
The critical person has not only the capacity (the skills) ro seek reasons, truth and evidence, but also has the drive (disposition) to seek them.
To be 'critical' basically means to be more discerning in recognizing faulty arguments, hasty generalisations, assertions lacing evidence, truth claims, based on unreliable authority, ambiguous or obscure concepts, and so forth
-