How Effective is Philosophy for Children?

How Effective is Philosophy for Children?

Philosophy for Children (P4C) has emerged over the past few decades as a prominent educational initiative designed to foster critical, creative, and caring thinking in children and young people (Lipman, 2003). Originating with the work of Matthew Lipman and his collaborators, P4C has been implemented in schools across the globe and is now practised in more than sixty countries (SAPERE, 2015). Given this broad uptake, questions about its actual effectiveness—both in terms of cognitive and non-cognitive development—have driven a significant body of empirical research. This article provides an in-depth analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies on P4C, explores the impact on student outcomes, identifies key methodological considerations, and discusses the implications and gaps in current research.

The Research Landscape: Approaches and Quality

A significant strength of the P4C research tradition lies in the use of experimental and quasi-experimental study designs, especially those that incorporate both pre- and post-tests and comparison groups (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). This rigorous approach allows for the possibility of drawing causal inferences about the impact of P4C interventions, distinguishing them from less robust research methodologies. However, it is important to note that, within the literature, only a handful of studies are both large in scale and truly randomised, such as the randomised controlled trial conducted in England by Gorard, Siddiqui, and See (2015). Many other studies are small-scale or feature quasi-randomisation, which can limit the generalisability and reliability of their findings (Gorard, 2013).

Cognitive Benefits: Reasoning and Critical Thinking

Among the various skills that P4C aims to foster, the most consistent evidence exists for improvements in reasoning and critical thinking. A range of studies, including large-scale and follow-up studies, consistently report moderate effect sizes in favour of P4C for reasoning skills (Cooke, 2015; Fair et al., 2015a; Topping & Trickey, 2007). These gains often persist over time, with some research indicating that students retain improvements in reasoning skills in the years following the intervention (Fair et al., 2015b). Assessment tools such as the New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills—closely aligned with the type of thinking encouraged in P4C sessions—allow for the consistent measurement of these cognitive gains (Morante & Ulesky, 1984). However, studies with the largest effect sizes often have methodological shortcomings, such as small sample sizes or assessment tools that are overly similar to the intervention content, potentially inflating results (Gorard & Gorard, 2016; Simpson, 2017).

Creativity, Social, and Non-Cognitive Outcomes

While Lipman (2003) argued that P4C supports creative and caring thinking, the empirical support for these claims is far less robust. Only a small number of studies have directly investigated the impact of P4C on creativity, and these often face design limitations, such as group imbalances and inadequate measures (Jahani & Akbari, 2016; Pourtaghi, Hosseini & Hejazi, 2014). Research examining P4C’s effects on non-cognitive outcomes—including well-being, self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, motivation, and moral awareness—tends to yield mixed and often modest results (Siddiqui, Gorard & See, 2017; Sasseville, 1994; Youssef, Campbell & Tangen, 2016). One notable pattern is that some studies find greater benefits for particular subgroups, such as students with lower self-esteem or those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Colom et al., 2014; Sasseville, 1994; Stokell, Swift & Anderson, 2017). It is possible that P4C provides a supportive environment where these students, in particular, can thrive.

However, most interventions targeting non-cognitive skills are relatively brief, which may not be sufficient for noticeable changes in these domains (Youssef, Campbell & Tangen, 2016). Some researchers have also speculated that participating in philosophical dialogue might heighten children’s awareness of personal or emotional challenges, potentially leading to lower scores in self-reported well-being even as students become more reflective or self-aware (Trickey & Topping, 2007).

Academic Attainment and School Performance

A question of growing importance in the literature is whether improvements in reasoning and thinking skills translate into measurable academic gains. Some theorists have suggested that strong reasoning skills are a prerequisite for academic success (Lipman, 1985). However, the available evidence is inconsistent. While a few studies report limited gains in academic attainment following P4C interventions, most well-controlled studies find no significant direct impact on outcomes such as reading, writing, or mathematics (Gorard, Siddiqui & See, 2015). It may be that any influence of P4C on academic success is indirect and accumulates gradually through broader cognitive development and increased motivation to learn.

Participant Characteristics and Contextual Factors

The diversity of study participants and settings is another important consideration. P4C research has included children as young as four and adolescents in their early teens, in a variety of educational settings around the world (Giménez-Dasí, Quintanilla & Daniel, 2013; Lam, 2012). The contextual factors—such as socioeconomic background, school type, classroom environment, and national curriculum—can all influence how P4C is delivered and how its effects are manifested. Some studies indicate that the programme may be especially beneficial for younger children beginning around the age of five (Giménez-Dasí, Quintanilla & Daniel, 2013), while others highlight the need for culturally responsive adaptations to maximise impact in diverse settings.

Methodological Challenges and Limitations

A critical review of the evidence also highlights several methodological challenges. Small sample sizes, lack of true randomisation, brief intervention periods, and inadequate reporting of attrition rates or baseline group differences are common issues (Gorard, 2013). Some studies do not report whether the control and intervention groups were equivalent at the start, making it difficult to attribute post-intervention differences to P4C alone (Lam, 2012; Pourtaghi, Hosseini & Hejazi, 2014). Another issue is the potential for ‘diffusion’ between groups when they are located within the same school, which can dilute observed effect sizes and complicate interpretation (Gorard, 2001).

The use and interpretation of effect sizes also requires caution. Studies with small samples or measurement tools closely tailored to the intervention can inflate effect sizes, giving a misleading impression of impact (Simpson, 2017). Conversely, short-term interventions are unlikely to reveal the full potential of P4C, especially regarding non-cognitive development.

Implications and Future Directions

Despite these limitations, the overall weight of the evidence points to Philosophy for Children as an effective intervention for developing reasoning and critical thinking in children. While claims about creativity, emotional development, and academic attainment remain less substantiated, there is promising—if tentative—evidence that P4C may support broader personal and social growth, particularly for some student subgroups.

Moving forward, the field would benefit from further large-scale, long-term studies that investigate not only immediate outcomes but also the sustained impact of P4C across a wider range of cognitive, academic, and non-cognitive domains. Special attention should be paid to rigorous research designs, careful measurement, and the role of participant characteristics and school context in shaping outcomes. Robust evidence in these areas will be essential for convincing policymakers and educators to adopt P4C more systematically within school curricula.

In summary, P4C stands as a promising educational programme with clear benefits for reasoning skills, while its impact on creativity, well-being, and academic achievement awaits more decisive evidence. Its global spread and increasing popularity signal the need for further research to ensure that its potential is fully realised for diverse learners in varied educational contexts.

References

Abaspour, N., Nowrosi, R.A. & Latifi, Z. (2015). Investigating the Effect of Educating Philosophy in the Children on the Spiritual Development of Female Students with 12-14 Years Old in the City of Isfahan, Journal of Education and Practice, 6(11), 162-166.

Benade, L. (2011). Philosophy for Children (P4C): A New Zealand School-based Action Research Case Study. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 8(2), 141-155.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. London: Routledge.

Colom, R. García Moriyón, F. Magro, C. & Morilla, E. (2014). The Long-term Impact of Philosophy for Children: A Longitudinal Study (Preliminary Results). Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 35(1), 50-56.

Cooke, P.A. (2015). The Impact of Engaging in Philosophy with Middle School Children on the Development of Critical Thinking. PhD thesis. University of Rochester.

Fair, F., Haas, L. E., Gardosik, C., Johnson, D. D., Price, D. P., & Leipnik, O. (2015a). Socrates in the schools from Scotland to Texas: Replicating a study on the effects of a Philosophy for Children program. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 2(1), 18-37.

Fair, F., Haas, L. E., Gardosik, C., Johnson, D., Price, D., & Leipnik, O. (2015b). Socrates in the schools: Gains at three-year follow-up. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 2(2), 5-16.

Fields, J. I. (1995). Empirical data research into the claims for using philosophy techniques with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 107(1), 115-128.

Gorard, S. (2001). Qualitative Methods in Educational Research: The role of Numbers Made Easy (2nd ed). London: Continuum.

Gorard, S. (2013). Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gorard, S. & Gorard, J. (2016). What to do instead of significance testing? Calculating the ‘number of counterfactual cases needed to disturb a finding’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 481-490.

Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N. & See, B.H. (2015). Philosophy for Children: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/our-work/projects/philosophy-for-children

Jahani, R., & Akbari, A. (2016). The Effect of P4C (Process & Content Approach) on Creativity of the Six Grade Students. Scinzer Journal of Accounting and Management, 2(3), 10-15.

Lam, C. M. (2012). Continuing Lipman’s and Sharp’s pioneering work on philosophy for children: using Harry to foster critical thinking in Hong Kong students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 187-203.

Lipman, M. (1985). Philosophy for Children and Critical Thinking. National Forum, 65(1), 18-21.

Lipman, M. (1987). Critical thinking: What can it be? Analytic Teaching, 8(1), 5-12.

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Morante, E. A. & Ulesky, A. (1984). Assessment of Reasoning Abilities. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 71-74.

Pourtaghi, V., Hosseini, A. & Hejazi, E. (2014). Effectiveness of implementing philosophy for children program on students’ creativity. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 3(6), 375-380.

Sasseville, M. (1994). Self esteem, logical skills and philosophy for children, Thinking, 4(2), 30–32.

Siddiqui, N., Gorard, S. & See, B.H. (2017). Non-cognitive impacts of Philosophy for Children programme. Durham University: Durham. Available at Nuffield Foundation website: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/non-cognitive-impacts-philosophy-children

Topping, K.J. & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative Philosophical Enquiry for School Children: Cognitive effects at 10-12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 271-288.

Ventista, O. M. (2020). A Literature Review of Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Philosophy for Children. In: Family Resemblances: Current Trends in Philosophy for Children.