Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
emphasized the necessity to teach for thinking, not just for memorizing. It is not
enough for children merely to remember what has been said to them: they must
examine and analyze that material. Just as thinking is the processing of what
children learn about the world through their senses, so they must think about what
they learn in school. Memorizing is a relatively low-level thinking skill; children must
be taught concept-formation, judgment, reasoning, etc.
After a small but intensive experiment with the program (which showed that children
could be taught improved deductive reasoning without "teaching for the test"), a
number of Philosophy PhD's were taught to train teachers throughout the United
States, which they proceeded to do in the 1970's. By the end of the decade, some
5,000 classrooms in the country were using the program. (The experiment indicated
that children of age 11 could be taught to reason 27 weeks better in mental age on
formal reasoning problems, after only 9 weeks of exposure to the program.)
We proceeded, through the assistance of the New Jersey Department of Education
and private foundation grants, to hold workshops for the training of teacher-trainers,
who would then turn around and train teachers, who would proceed to use the
program with children. The trained teachers reported that the children responded to
the program joyously, as it gave them an opportunity to talk openly in the classroom,
and to discuss their ideas with one another and with the teacher.
Since Philosophy for Children is largely a language-based program, its success is
related closely to its being accurately developed through a large number of
languages. (Every country wants its own translation, and quite rightly so.)
When I first became interested in this field, I thought that children could do no better
than "Critical Thinking"that is, having their thinking trained to make it more rigorous,
consistent and coherent. But critical thinking contains no concept formation, no
formal logic, and no study of the works of traditional philosophy, all of which I have
endeavored to supply in Philosophy for Children. Critical Thinking does not lead
children back into philosophy, and yet it is my contention that children will not settle
for anything less. Nor should they have to. Critical Thinking seeks to make the child's
mind more precise; philosophy deepens it and makes it grow.
means of and through the teacher, and between the language of the adult world and
the growing intelligence of the child.
Jean
Piaget
20th century psychologist and educator, whose work illuminated the relationships
between thinking and behavior.
Gilbert
Ryle
20th century British philosopher, who analysed the connections between language,
teaching and self-teaching.
George
Herbert
Mead
American philosopher and social psychologist, whose work dealt almost exclusively
with the social nature of the self.
Ludwig
Wittgenstein
20th century Austrian-British philosopher, who explored with enormous sensitivity
the complex social relationships that are expressed through the subtleties of
language.
Any child that is capable of using language intelligibly is capable of schooling and
growth, and is therefore capable of the kind of discourse and conversation that
philosophy involves. Philosophy begins when we can discuss the language we use
to discuss the world. The aim is not to make children into little philosophers, but to
help them think better than they now think. Of course, the more accomplished
children are with regard to listening and speaking, the more quickly they can adapt
to philosophy, with its emphasis on mental acts, thinking skills, reasoning and
judgment. But the program attempts to avoid any use of technical terminology.