Non-Cognitive Aspects of Philosophy for Children

This essay will explain and discuss the findings of the 2017 research study “Non-cognitive impacts of Philosophy for Children,” conducted by Nadia Siddiqui, Stephen Gorard, and Beng Huat See at Durham University. The study investigates whether and how Philosophy for Children (P4C), a popular classroom intervention in UK primary schools, impacts children’s non-cognitive development, especially in relation to social and communication skills, teamwork and resilience, empathy, and related personal attributes.

Context and Aims of the Study

In the context of English primary education, there is increasing recognition that schools should foster not just academic achievement but also the broader social and emotional development of pupils. Non-cognitive outcomes such as self-confidence, trust, resilience, and civic-mindedness are now widely recognised as significant for children's well-being and future prospects. However, robust evidence on how such outcomes can be cultivated in the classroom is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether P4C, which has already shown evidence of cognitive benefits, can also reliably promote these wider non-cognitive skills.

Nature of the Intervention and Research Design

Philosophy for Children is a whole-class approach in which pupils and teachers engage in structured philosophical enquiry prompted by stories, films, or artefacts. Sessions are highly dialogic: students raise questions, select one for deeper discussion, and are guided to reason, listen, and reflect. The study was quasi-experimental in design, making use of schools that had participated in previous trials. Sixteen schools that had completed an earlier waiting period for P4C training formed the intervention group, while 26 schools not exposed to P4C (nor to another social intervention, Youth Social Action) served as controls. In total, data was collected from 2,722 pupils across 42 schools, with careful attention to issues of pupil background, age, and school context.

Non-cognitive outcomes were assessed through a purpose-designed survey administered before and after the intervention, measuring attributes such as self-reported communication, teamwork and resilience, empathy, and related constructs. To reduce the risk of socially desirable responding, the survey included vignettes and reverse-coded items. Observational and interview-based process evaluation complemented the impact assessment, exploring the fidelity and practicalities of P4C implementation.

Main Findings and Discussion

The results show that pupils who took part in P4C sessions were, on average, ahead of those in comparison schools in several non-cognitive domains. Specifically, the P4C group reported higher levels of communication skills (effect size +0.10), and teamwork and resilience (+0.15), though the effect on empathy was marginal (+0.01). Notably, these positive differences were even more marked among pupils eligible for free school meals, who are typically from disadvantaged backgrounds (communication skills +0.23, teamwork and resilience +0.11, empathy +0.08). While these effect sizes are small, they are consistent and positive, especially for disadvantaged groups.

However, the study is careful to note several limitations and caveats. When adjusting for prior pupil responses and background characteristics, the unique contribution of P4C appears modest, and the explanatory power of the models is low. The groups were not perfectly matched at baseline, and the timing of the pre-tests differed, making it difficult to attribute all observed differences to the intervention. For these reasons, the headline results should be interpreted cautiously, and further, more robust trials are recommended.

Qualitative findings from teacher and pupil interviews and classroom observations paint a richer picture of the benefits of P4C. Teachers reported increased confidence among pupils in questioning, reasoning, and expressing their views, both within P4C sessions and more widely in the classroom. Many teachers observed improvements in pupils’ respect for others, cooperation, and ability to manage disagreements constructively. P4C was seen as contributing to a classroom ethos of open dialogue and reflective thinking. Teachers also noted a reduction in behavioural incidents, greater willingness among pupils to listen, and improvements in the use of logical and evaluative language.

Pupils themselves expressed enjoyment of P4C, valuing the opportunity to share their opinions and listen to others in a safe environment. Some reported increased confidence, a sense of inclusion, and greater trust in teachers and peers. Nevertheless, not all pupils found the experience easy or enjoyable; some were anxious about sharing ideas or disliked long discussions. The success of P4C was often related to the skill and enthusiasm of the teacher, the regularity of sessions, and the willingness of school leadership to support the approach.

The study also highlighted practical barriers. Teachers found it challenging to fit P4C into a crowded curriculum dominated by literacy and numeracy targets. There were also risks that large group sessions might marginalise quieter pupils or that the open nature of philosophical discussion could allow for bias or inconsistent facilitation. Successful implementation depended on careful preparation, fair conduct of sessions, and a school culture that valued dialogue and reflection.

Strengths, Limitations, and Implications

The study’s main strength lies in its pragmatic and relatively large-scale approach, using existing groups of schools and a well-developed survey instrument. The process evaluation, with detailed observation and interview data, adds depth to the quantitative findings. However, the study design falls short of a randomised controlled trial, and the nature of the outcomes—being self-reported and attitudinal—introduces inherent measurement challenges. Effect sizes are small, and the results, while promising, should not be over-interpreted.

Despite these limitations, the research adds weight to the argument that non-cognitive skills can be influenced, at least modestly, by school-based interventions such as P4C. It reinforces the case for including such approaches in the curriculum, not simply as a route to better attainment but as valuable in their own right for fostering behaviour, cooperation, empathy, and democratic values. There is particular promise for disadvantaged pupils, for whom gains were more pronounced.

The research also provides useful lessons for policy and practice. For P4C and similar interventions to be effective, they must be implemented at the whole-class level, with explicit modelling of the values they aim to cultivate—such as fairness, respect, and open-mindedness—by teachers and older pupils. Effective teacher training and ongoing support are essential, as is careful monitoring of pupil well-being, especially when challenging or sensitive topics are discussed.

Conclusion

In summary, this study suggests that Philosophy for Children can bring small but meaningful benefits to the non-cognitive development of primary pupils, particularly among those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The intervention appears to foster better communication, increased resilience and teamwork, and, to a lesser degree, empathy. These effects, though modest, are achieved without detriment to academic learning and are generally appreciated by both teachers and pupils. The findings encourage further investment in research on non-cognitive outcomes, more rigorous trial designs, and a reconsideration of the wider purposes of schooling in modern society.

References

Siddiqui, N., Gorard, S., & See, B. (2017). Non-cognitive impacts of Philosophy for Children.