















































 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

62 
 

Teaching Philosophy through Paintings: A Museum Workshop   

 
Savvas Ioannou, Kypros Georgiou & Ourania Maria Ventista 
 
 
 

ABSTRACT: There is wide research about the Philosophy for/with Children program. However, 
there is not any known attempt to investigate how a philosophical discussion can be implemented 
through a museum workshop. The present research aims to discuss aesthetic and epistemological issues 
with primary school children through a temporary art exhibition in a museum in Cyprus. Certainly, 
paintings have been used successfully to connect philosophical topics with the experiences of the 
children. We suggest, though, that this is not as innovative as the conduction of a dialogue in a museum. 
Results were mostly positive. Pupils participated in the discussion and they gave intensive definitions of 
beautiful paintings and counterexamples for given definitions. The structure of inductive arguments and 
the difference between belief and knowledge were discussed. Progress in the analysis of inductive 
arguments was slightly noticeable, but it is likely that this was due to limited time spent on analysing 
those arguments. Furthermore, more sessions are needed to make generalisations for the effectiveness 
of the Philosophy for Children program in a museum instead of a traditional classroom. Even though 
there is discussion about the different stimuli of the discussion, it might be worth considering the 
effectiveness of different contexts where the discussion can take place.   

   
Keywords Philosophy for Children – Museum Workshop – Paintings – Aesthetics - Epistemology 

 
Introduction 

 
hilosophy for Children was developed in the USA in the late 1960’s by Matthew Lipman 
and it is currently being taught in approximately 60 countries (SAPERE, 2015). Primary 
school philosophy is about “providing children with the opportunity to explore fundamental 

aspects of their experiences which are already meaningful to them, in order to become more 
sensitive to their philosophical dimensions (ethical, logical, metaphysical, epistemological)” 
(Ventista & Paparoussi, 2016, p. 613). This paper aims to present a Philosophy for Children 
intervention in a different context than usual. It presents how P4C can be implemented in a 
museum as a workshop. This paper presents a museum workshop focusing on aesthetics and 
epistemology. This paper will suggest a new way of teaching P4C combined with museum 
education. Even though this paper does not make any causal claims about the effectiveness of 
teaching P4C in a museum, it does set a new context for further investigation.  
 

The aim of this research was to investigate whether fifth-grade primary school children can 
engage in a philosophical dialogue concerning aesthetic and epistemological issues and be critical 
of their and other’s opinions. This research also aimed to experiment with a new way of 

P 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

63 
 

implementing a philosophical dialogue; that is, philosophizing through a workshop in an art 
museum. Another aim was to develop the verbal reasoning of children about philosophical issues. 

 
At the beginning, topics of aesthetics and epistemology related to the workshop will be 

presented and approaches for teaching philosophy in primary school will be described. Then, this 
paper will briefly explain the exhibition and the paintings used as stimuli for the philosophical 
discussion. The material created will be presented and the ways that Year 5 students acted on them 
will be reported.  

   
Theoretical Background 

 
Aesthetics and Epistemology 
 

Aesthetics and epistemology are two sub-fields of philosophy. The description of them in this 
paper and the workshop about them were based on the tradition of analytic philosophy. A 
philosophical inquiry into art refers to the “philosophical discourse about conceptual questions 
raised by experiences with aesthetic objects (metal-level)” (Russell, 1991, p.95). For Hagaman 
(1988, p.19), aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that analyses; 
 

[T]he basic concepts and language people use in thinking and talking about art: 
beauty, expression, representation, symbolism, and the like. Additionally, they 
investigate questions in which these concepts are embedded: What is the function or 
purpose of art? Do criteria exist for distinguishing a good work of art from a poor one? 
[…] What is the relationship between an artist's intent and a viewer's response? […] And 
of course there is the big one: What is (or isn't) art, anyway?  

 
Aesthetic questions are close to children’s experience. For example, they discuss whether 

certain art works are beautiful or not. They argue that something is beautiful based on certain 
criteria. Their teachers explicitly and implicitly judge some artworks of theirs and others as 
beautiful.  

Concerning epistemology, for Steup (2016, para.1) 
 

[D]efined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the 
study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are 
the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its 
structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to 
answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? 
What makes justified beliefs justified? 
 

According to Audi (2011), epistemology investigates particular sources of knowledge and 
justification: perception, introspection, memory, a priori intuition (reason in one sense of the 
term), testimony, and inference. We know and are justified to believe several things because of 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

64 
 

those sources. A belief is justified, if it is grounded in those sources which give justification for 
beliefs.  

 
The art exhibition provided a suitable environment to discuss specific issues about those 

sources. One of them is visual perception (e.g., seeing a bird) which is a type of perception. 
Usually, seeing an object entails that this object really exists. People may assume that beliefs about 
the external world are justified because we perceive it to be so. However, the world is not always as 
it looks like. It may seem to us that we see something, but we are mistaken about it. There are cases 
that it seems to us that an object is perceived, but it’s not really there (hallucinations). Another 
case is seeing a hologram of a cup of coffee that is indistinguishable from a real one and mistake it 
for a real cup of coffee.   

 
According to Audi (2011, p.185-193), inductive inference is one type of inference. When we 

reason inductively, the premises of a strong inductive argument provide good grounds for believing 
its conclusion, i.e., there is a high probability that the conclusion is true, if the premises of the 
argument are true. The premises are based on beliefs we have. Still, even the likeliest conclusion 
may be false. Inductive reasoning is probabilistic reasoning and a form of probabilistic knowledge. 
An inductive argument can be inductively strong or inductively weak. It’s inductively strong, if its 
conclusion is highly probable. It’s inductively weak, if its conclusion is not very probable. 
Justification and knowledge is transmitted in inductive inference only if the underlying argument 
is inductively strong.  

 
Teaching epistemological issues in primary school students is not usually the focus of 

educational research. A literature review didn’t find any research about teaching epistemological 
issues in an art museum. We believe this is possible and the following workshop was a way to test 
it. Children already argue about several issues in their daily life. They argue for and against views, 
and consider the views of classmates and adults. Engagement with epistemological issues could 
help them to recognise the relevance of issues concerning justification and knowledge, when they 
formulate beliefs. Recognizing the difference between belief and knowledge could help them 
analyse better their and others’ opinions. The discussion with their classmates could help them to 
contemplate whether their beliefs are justified or not. The particular art exhibition provided a 
great opportunity to initiate a discussion with children about the aforementioned epistemological 
issues. 
 
Approaches for Teaching Philosophy in Primary School 
 

There are different approaches for teaching philosophy with young children. Different 
researchers debate about the material which could stimulate the discussion and the activities that 
could be included. In this article, the context of the discussion is also questioned. The dialogue 
should not necessarily take place in a classroom. For example, Vansieleghem (2011) implemented 
a Philosophy for Children session in Cambodia through a walk. Later, this research will suggest 
the implementation of the sessions in a museum.  



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

65 
 

 
Concerning the different stimuli, Glasser (1992) argues that any material could be used to 

initiate a philosophical inquiry or extend a theme of the IAPC (Institute for the Advancement of 
Philosophy for Children) materials. Those could be poetry, songs, and stories. Additional 
resources could also be used to explore themes that are not mentioned in the IAPC materials (e.g., 
environmental issues). Glasser (1992) recommended that plays, films, games, chance events in the 
classrooms, and the subject matter of any discipline could also be used to create a philosophical 
inquiry. What is more, paintings and children’s drawings had been also used by teachers to discuss 
a philosophical issue (Jespersen, 1993). Furthermore, the curriculum for ethical education in 
primary schools in Germany also recommended the use of paintings to philosophize with children 
(Brüning, 2008).  

 
Various methods for discussing philosophical issues were suggested. Venable (2001) suggested 

role play as a strategy for teaching and learning aesthetics. Role play can be inspired by current 
events, scandalous or unusual artwork, activities of artists, galleries, and museums. Moreover, 
Russell (1991) mentioned that “puzzle cases” can be utilized to confront aesthetic questions. For 
Brüning (2008), another method of philosophizing with children is thought experiments with 
ideas. This method aims to develop the philosophical imagination of children. It asks us to 
imagine what we would do or what the world would be like under certain imaginary situations.      

 
According to Hagaman (1988), discussing a painting can be used as an initiation for talking 

about global and abstract ideas of aesthetics. The underlying meanings of a specific work of art can 
be discussed and then, discussion about the meanings of all works of art can be started. 

 
Liptai (2005) maintained that while purpose-written philosophical texts are used just for 

initiating the philosophical inquiry and don’t have intrinsic, aesthetic qualities, works of art have a 
different kind of physical reality and unavoidable aesthetic qualities. A work of art appeals to the 
eyes in a different way than a text. It helps pupils who are visual or kinaesthetic learners to focus 
on the stimulus. Children with short attention span and fidgety limbs can also be helped because 
questioning starts sooner. Children are magnetized by a work of art, and hence, they are forced to 
revisit it a lot of times and gain new and deeper layers of meaning. Works of art can be 
remembered by the children, influence their aesthetic choices, and function as reference points, as 
resources, and as thinking repertoire. A good stimulus for initiating a philosophical enquiry can be 
a work of art that is problematical and controversial, and thus, it motivates children to 
reconceptualize the categories of aesthetics and taste (e.g., beauty and ugliness) and leads them to 
construct (new) criteria. An aesthetic inquiry uses the aesthetic object for more than just a trigger 
for discussion. 

 
We suggest that topics in aesthetics and epistemology can be discussed with primary school 

students through an art museum workshop. Paintings can be used to initiate philosophical 
discussions that are suitable for their age and relevant with their experience.  
 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

66 
 

The context is crucial for the philosophical discussion. Brüning (1987) emphasized the 
importance of presenting the philosophical problem in a context that enables children to discuss 
it. Instead of beginning with posing a complex and abstract question, it’s better to analyse a 
concrete situation as a starting point. A visit to a museum could be more beneficial than discussing 
paintings in or outside of the classroom. In the classroom, the pupils wouldn’t have the space to 
do the activities that are possible in the museum. In and outside of the classroom, the pupils aren’t 
close to the real paintings. The proximity to the paintings could help the children to notice details 
of the painting that they wouldn’t notice otherwise. A philosophical discussion can arise by 
discussing those details.  

 
Murris (2000) argued that both children and adults should analyse our concepts by focusing 

on how the words that denote our concepts are used in everyday circumstances. Analysing 
concepts out of the context of their use generates problems and doesn’t help at all. A concept 
doesn’t have an absolute, universal meaning outside the particular context in which it is used.   
 

Russell (1991) suggested some procedures that are steps for learning principles of concept 
analysis. First, case delineation elucidates a concept by examining different cases of its use. Second, 
concept comparison elucidates a concept by contrasting it to similar concepts. Third, definition 
elucidates a concept by formulating and/or assessing a definition of the concept. While 
formulating and assessing a definition, it should be confirmed whether the definition is not 
circular and covers all and only the cases of the concept. Counterexamples can be used to show 
that a definition is not satisfactory. Case delineation can lead to a definition.   
 
Benefits of Museum Education 
 

Research revealed that it’s beneficial for children to visit museums and participate in 
programmes there. To begin with, pupils that participated in museum multi-visits generated more 
instances of critical-thinking skills and used various critical thinking categories compared to pupils 
who didn’t participate in this programme (Adams et al., 2007; Burchenal & Grohe, 2007). 
Second, a multi-visit program in an art museum created positive attitudes in children toward art 
museums and art in general, and compared to a control group, participators of this program were 
able to express better their appreciation and love for works of art and articulated better their 
responses toward art (Falk, 1999). Furthermore, in museums, shy and unconfident children 
“became more open and assertive, able to hold their own in conversations, and able to explain 
what they had done and why” (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004, p.437). Moreover, children with learning 
difficulties were more confident and focused in museums compared to classrooms (Hooper-
Greenhill, 2004). 

 
Jeffery-Clay (1998) noticed that a museum is an ideal environment that allows pupils to move 

and explore freely and work at their own pace. This environment encourages group interaction 
and sharing. The personal experience with real objects can make them curious and encourage 
them to investigate and compare the objects with their own lives and experiences. This can lead 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

67 
 

children to question their knowledge structures, and hence, adding to or rebuilding those 
structures. 
 

Methodology 
 
Aim of the Workshop 
 

The workshop aimed to help the children to formulate and assess intensive definitions that 
mention necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of a concept. For Russel (1988), a “perfect” 
intensive definition “(1) "is not circular," (2) "describes all of the things it is supposed to define," 
and (3) "describes only the things it is supposed to define." The latter two principles refer to 
necessary and sufficient conditions, respectively” (p.284). An intensive definition is a summary 
statement of what is common and unique to the instances of a concept. Philosophical inquiry is 
concerned with formulating intensive definitions. In contrast, an extensive definition is a mere list 
of examples or attributes that explain the concept. 

 
In the workshop, we aimed to improve the philosophical skills of the students in the 

following philosophical issues: 
 Assessing and formulating definitions of beautiful paintings.  
 The distinction between “believing something” and “knowing something”. How beliefs are 

formulated through perception? The workshop focused on general conditions that must be 
fulfilled in order to have perception that gives us beliefs that constitute knowledge. Focus 
was on two types of perception: vision and hearing.  

 The structure of inductive arguments. What premises must be true to give us justification 
for our conclusions? How can the conclusion of an inductively strong argument be proven 
wrong? What are some examples?  

 
The exhibition 
 

The Loukia & Michael Zampelas Art Museum hosted the solo exhibition of Cypriot woman 
artist Kyriaki Phili, entitled speculum mundi, from the end of April to the end of May of 2017. The 
exhibition displayed works which are visual references to historic paintings as well as works with 
stills taken from film. Her two main visual references are the paintings of Johannes Vermeer and 
Luchino Visconti’s film, Death in Venice. She used pencil, oil, sand as materials to make her 
paintings. Further, the exhibition included a video. Kyriaki Phili attempted to generate a new 
reading for selected artworks by Vermeer by modifying particular symbols of the historic paintings. 
Consequently, a new narrative and inevitably a new meaning emerges. Photos of the main 
paintings that were examined by the children can be found in the appendix.   
 

A fifth-grade primary school class attended the workshop. The class consisted of 12 students. 
The primary school of the students is close to the centre of Nicosia, the capital city in Cyprus. The 
sample selection is not random and the school was selected because of the proximity to the 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

68 
 

museum. It was assumed that the workshop was suitable for children from 9-12 years old. 
Therefore, the fifth-grade was considered an appropriate selection.  

 
Implementation of the Workshop 
  

The workshop lasted for two hours. Two of the authors of this paper, who are qualified 
teachers, implemented the workshop. The workshop included several kinds of activities: 
discussion, performing plays, and drawings. A variety of activities is needed as different students 
can contribute to the philosophical inquiry in different ways. According to Hagaman (1990), while 
discussing with children, some pupils can be models for the rest because they have better verbal 
skills and are confident to share their thoughts. Other pupils can be models in other activities, 
such as performing plays on a theme or an idea which is related to the dialogue. A variety of 
activities can be used to develop a community of inquiry into philosophical issues. This inquiry 
could be impossible for a pupil studying individually. 

 
Following Gregory’s (2007) suggestion, the role of facilitators was to (a) model and request 

good dialogue moves and (b) to help the children recognize in which stage of the dialogue they are 
and how the dialogue progresses. During the dialogue, the facilitators were intervening to detect 
assumptions that were not recognized by the children, suggest important different views that were 
not mentioned by the children, and help children to move from one stage of the dialogue to the 
next. 

 
It was the first time that pupils engaged with issues of aesthetics and epistemology. For this 

reason, we thought it suitable to focus on encouraging pupils to give counter-examples for given 
definitions, and then, propose improved definitions that don’t have the above mentioned counter-
examples. Weekly philosophical sessions could examine the aforementioned and related issues in 
more depth.  

 
A visit to the museum can be considered an example which facilitates experiential learning. 

The students can act differently when they are in the museum. Even though they interact with 
their classmates, they do not adhere strictly to the rules of the classroom and they do not strictly 
belong to a classroom community. They can focus on their own feelings when they see the 
authentic paintings and they can be inspired.  In the museum, the students had the opportunity to 
see the authentic paintings and they were also asked to paint their own drawings. 

 
An evaluation sheet (see appendix) was developed and administered as a pre-test and post-test 

to all the children, who participated to the workshop. The tests were used to identify the children’s 
understanding and verbal reasoning about the aforementioned issues. More precisely, they were 
used to discover whether the workshop helped the children to understand the aforementioned 
aesthetic and epistemological issues, give intensive definitions about them, and evaluate definitions 
by noticing unnecessary and insufficient conditions and giving counter-examples. The pre-test was 
used to recognize the views and philosophical skills of the children prior to the implementation of 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

69 
 

the workshop. The pupils faced difficulties on giving definitions and completing the exercises 
related to inductive arguments. Therefore, the workshop proceeded by emphasizing improvement 
on those areas. Almost all the pupils gave counter-examples for the given definitions. The post-test 
was used to uncover whether there was any change on the views and skills of the pupils and help 
them with any difficulty they still face. The facilitators were checking the answers of the pupils and 
helping them to fill the sheet by reminding them what they did so far or trying new ways to help 
them. During both tests, the pupils needed the most guidance in the exercises related to inductive 
arguments.   

 
The evaluation sheet was testing whether pupils could implement specific philosophical skills.  

In 1 (a) and 1 (b), the pupils should have given a counter-example for each definition. In 1 (c), the 
pupils should have stated an intensive definition. In 2 (a), the pupils should have recognized that 
we don’t know and explained why. In 2 (b), the pupils should have described one or more 
circumstances. In 2 (c), the pupils should have given a counter-example for the definition. In 2 (d), 
the pupils should have stated an intensive definition. In 3 (a), the pupils should have recognized 
which inductive argument is better and explained why. In 3 (b), the pupil should have written one 
premise that makes the conclusion of the inductive argument more likely to be true. In 3 (c), the 
pupils should have described one situation that if it really happens, the conclusion of the inductive 
argument is false. In 3 (d), the pupils should have mentioned what is similar in the 
aforementioned inductive arguments (if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true, 
but it is not certainly true).  

 
After giving time to students to complete the pre-test, the evaluation sheets were collected and 

the activities sheet (see appendix) was given to them. Each activity had a different aim. In activity 1, 
the aim was for the children to formulate and assess definitions of “beautiful paintings”. 
Pondering what it is to be beautiful could help pupils to analyse paintings thoroughly and hence, 
appreciate their complexity. While the mimic game was happening, the kids that did the mimic 
were asked to tell us why they thought this specific painting was beautiful. The mimic game was 
used to help the children to recognise characteristics of the paintings. The children were going 
close to the paintings and were describing what exactly they found beautiful and why. Other pupils 
were encouraged to go close to the painting and mention reasons that they agree and disagree with 
the other children. Being close to the real paintings help the student to spot details of the 
paintings that could be missed in the classroom. After the mimic game was over, the teachers 
summarized what characteristics the children found beautiful in the paintings. The teachers asked 
whether all the paintings that are beautiful have any of these characteristics and whether only the 
paintings that are beautiful have any of these characteristics. After a brief discussion, pupils were 
asked to find other paintings that have the characteristics that they like and decide whether those 
paintings are beautiful or not. They were expected to argue for or against their initial views. Their 
classmates were asked if they agree or not and why. After discussion, those characteristics were 
found inadequate for defining the beautiful paintings, and the children were asked to propose 
other characteristics. During the discussion, the children were encouraged to criticize the views of 
their classmates. E.g., “Does this definition cover all the beautiful paintings?”. “Does this 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

70 
 

Image 1 – “Girl during a 

music lesson” 

definition cover only the beautiful paintings?” Children were comfortable in their own opinions, 
as evidenced by the fact that no consensus was formed.   

 
In activity 2, the aim was for the children to recognize the 

distinction between “believe” and “know” and discuss which 
conditions must be fulfilled so my belief can constitute 
knowledge. Contemplating the distinction between belief and 
knowledge could lead pupils to be more critical about their 
views and consider how certain they should be about them. 
One of the teachers drew three times the woman who wears a 
hat in the painting. Each time, he drew her hat and clothes 
with different colours. The three triplet nieces were named 
differently, and the children were asked to guess based on the 
portraits which sister stole the diamond ring. Then, they were 
asked to tell us why they chose the specific sister. The goal of 
the activity was for the pupils to formulate hypotheses about 
which woman is the murderer and recognise that their views 
were only assumptions and that they cannot be certain about 
them. They were also asked to tell us whether they only believe 
the specific sister was the thief or whether they also know that it 
was her. The pupils were led to contemplate how certain they 
were about their views and what could make them doubt their 
beliefs.  Whenever a child said that he/she knew, the teachers 
mentioned good reasons given from other students for 
believing that another woman was the thief. They were asked to 
describe what exactly doesn’t make them sure about their belief 
in this scenario. It was recognised that in this scenario, the mist 
prevents us from being sure about our beliefs. Then, the kids 
were encouraged to mention other cases in which we believe 
something, but we cannot be sure and know that it’s true. 
“Under what conditions are we not sure about the truth of our 
beliefs?”. The distinction between belief and knowledge was 
discussed. Sometimes we believe that something is true, but we 
don’t know it is true because the conditions of the environment 
or our physical condition hinder us from doing so. Ideal 
conditions for our beliefs to constitute knowledge were 
mentioned by the children. The teachers summarized those 
ideal conditions, and asked whether our beliefs constitute 
knowledge whenever those conditions are fulfilled. The 
discussion was continued with more counter-examples and 
discussion between the children. During the discussion and at 
the end of it, the teachers were stating all the conditions that 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

71 
 

Image 2 – “Adzio”  

the children mentioned in the form of the following definition: “we believe something and know 
it is true, if ….”. 

 
In activity 3, the students were required to analyse the structure 

of inductive arguments and produce examples of them. Children 
use inductive arguments in their daily lives without recognising it. 
If they do recognise it, they will probably be more critical about 
their views and think about how sure they should be about them.  
After the children completed the exercises, it was noticed by the 
teachers that all the children have drawn a woman as the owner of 
the items.  The children were asked to explain why they chose to 
draw a woman. The children mentioned that the earring belongs to 
a woman. The structure of the children’s arguments was made 
clearer by the facilitators. They were asked what alternative 
situations can be true. Given answers were that a man bought the 
earring for a present to his wife and that it’s not even an earring 
but an olive instead. This led the children to recognise that the 
available evidence could be used to support another conclusion. 
Two more paintings were discussed with the students. Those 
paintings depicted the half part of a male and female human body 
respectively (Image 1 and Image 2). The children were asked to 
guess what is the other half missing. Most of the answers were that 
the man wears pants and the woman wears a skirt. The children 
were asked to justify their answer and tell different alternatives that 
can be true. Some children justified their answers by mentioning 
what they observed so far (men wearing pants, women wearing 
skirts). Memory was described as a source of justification. Then, the 
teachers told the children that what they have done so far in this 
activity is similar to what we do in our life every day. We come to 
some conclusions about the world around us by using some beliefs 
we have about it. “But, how certain are we for the truth of the 
conclusions?” Through the discussion, the children realized that 
the conclusions are highly probable, but we cannot be certain of 
their truth. What we observed and observe give us some reasons for 
believing the truth of the conclusions, but we still cannot exclude 
alternative situations to be true. Then, the children were asked to 
give examples of other similar arguments, but few of them 
participated.  
 

 
 
 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

72 
 

Results and Discussion 
 

We spotted some positive differences, when we compare the pre-test and post-test of each 
pupil. In 1 (a) and 1 (b), 2 and 4 pupils respectively gave more or different counter-examples for 
the given definitions of beautiful paintings. In 2 (a), in the pre-test, 3 pupils said that they don’t 
know that he is their friend because of the mist, and in the post-test, they gave a more detailed 
explanation of why they don’t know.  In 3 (b), 4 pupils gave a different premise that makes the 
conclusion more likely to be true. In 3 (c), 2 pupils gave different explanations of what Sotiris 
thought wrongly.  While there were some positive effects, it seems that more sessions are needed to 
notice big improvement in the philosophical skills of pupils. The 2-hour session had some impact 
on the answers of the children, but more time is needed to develop more skills.   

 
Another difference was that some pupils became more sceptical after the workshop.  In the 

pre-test, 2 pupils gave definitions of beautiful paintings and 3 pupils gave definitions of knowing 
something exists that we believe we saw. However, they didn’t give any definition in the post-test. 
This may have happened because the workshop helped the students to be critical about their views 
and reduce their certainty for what is the definition of some concepts. The pupils were 
experimenting with different definitions during the workshop, but they may have not wanted to 
commit to one specific definition during the post-test. It is possible that later, they will ponder 
about those philosophical issues longer because of this uncertainty. On the other hand, this 
change may have happened because we confused the children during the workshop. However, 
their willingness to participate with insightful comments during the activities make this hypothesis 
unlikely to be true. It seems that time is needed to encourage students to write down their views, 
even if they are not certain about them.   

 
It seems that topics in aesthetics and epistemology can be discussed with primary school 

students. Children found the activities interesting and comprehensible. They participated in all of 
them, even though, altogether, they lasted for two hours. The pupils were enthusiastic to share 
their views, argued for them, and changed them when they heard a counter-example. Still, this was 
the first time that the children participated in a philosophical dialogue, and hence, the teachers 
needed to intervene often to progress the dialogue. Activity 3 needed the most intervention from 
the teachers. This shows that more time is needed to make clear the structure of inductive 
arguments and help pupils to give examples of this type of argument.  

 
The visit in the museum was a suitable stimulus for initiating a philosophical discussion. The 

paintings were easily used to relate the philosophical issues with the experiences of the children. 
Moreover, the paintings were excellent stimuli to maintain focus on the topics. There were not as 
many distractions as in the classroom. The environment had mostly stimuli related to the topic of 
the workshop. Therefore, the discussion didn’t have any digression. This is in agreement with 
Hooper-Greenhill (2004) who supported that pupils participate more often and are more 
confident and focused in a museum. Furthermore, children engaged the philosophical topics 
through playful activities that would be impossible to be implemented in a classroom. They found 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

73 
 

those activities interesting, and as a result, they participated lively in the discussion. This 
engagement of the students in the discussions and the story-based activities are likely to promote 
the retention of the museum experience by the students later in time and establish learning. More 
specifically, according to Anderson et al. (2002), children usually recall and describe museum 
experiences that were embedded in the medium of story. This is not surprising as engagement with 
stories is a common and enjoyable part of a child's everyday culture. This finding reveals “the 
importance of tapping into the familiar socio-cultural aspects of children’s everyday experience to 
mediate learning” (Anderson et al., 2002, p.223). 

 
This workshop was a first step for improving the verbal reasoning of pupils. For Russel (1988), 

verbal reasoning refers “to the use of words to articulate thinking that is logically sound and based 
on examples that support or do not support a position on the conceptual issue in question” (p. 
282). Reasoning is an important part of philosophical inquiry. Cam (2016) mentioned the basic 
operations of reasoning: logical justification and inference. He suggested that pupils can carry out 
these operations, even if the terms “justification” and “inference” are not used. ‘Giving a reason’ 
can be used to introduce logical justification, and ‘draw a conclusion’ can be used to introduce 
inference. Logical “justification is the giving of reasons in support of a suggestion” (p.8). The term 
‘because’ can be used when the pupils carry out a logical justification. According to Brüning 
(1987), giving and examining reasons for opinions and beliefs is a feature of philosophical 
thinking. It should be examined whether the reasons for believing something are good or not. 
People have a good reason for believing something when a warrant can serve as a reason for having 
this reason. For Cam (2016), inference happens when “we reason in order to draw conclusions or 
to infer one thing from another” (p.9). The term ‘therefore’ can be used when the pupils carry out 
an inference. 

 
Of course, one session is not enough to notice significant improvement in the verbal 

reasoning of pupils. Time is needed to make pupils accustomed to give reasons for their views and 
evaluate critically their reasons and that of others (Fair et al. (2015). However, the lively 
participation of pupils gives us a reason to examine more thoroughly the effects of teaching 
philosophy this way.  

 
Limitations and Future Directions 
 

There were some limitations on this research. First, the workshop was implemented with only 
12 students, and hence, the results cannot be generalized. Second, there was only one session, and 
thus, we couldn’t go into depth in the aforementioned philosophical topics and test whether 
significant improvement can be identified. 

 
Future sessions could examine the aforementioned issues in more detail and talk about 

relevant topics. We assumed that some paintings are beautiful and some are not, but is this true? 
Are there objective criteria that can distinguish beautiful paintings from poor ones? What is the 
difference between being justified in believing something and knowing something? What is the 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

74 
 

difference between being justified and truly believing something and knowing something? What 
are some problems of the inductive arguments? 
 

Creating a randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of conducting philosophy 
in museums compared to the normal classrooms is recommended. The environment as an 
intervention could play a significant role, particularly in an intervention like philosophy where the 
thinking should be stimulated appropriately and it does not necessarily require a typical 
environment with students sitting at their desks.  
 
 
 
 

Conclusions 
 

The implementation of the workshop had positive results. Primary school children can discuss 
topics of aesthetics and epistemology and found them interesting. Analysing paintings seems to be 
a good way to raise questions and discussion about belief, knowledge, and perception. More 
research is needed to analyse the peculiarities of this area of philosophy. For example, are some 
educational materials more effective than others to initiate an epistemological discussion? Are 
some epistemological topics too complex to be comprehended by children?  

 
There was a lot of participation in the philosophical topics discussed. A variety of definitions 

of beautiful paintings and counter-examples were given. Students were trying to distinguish 
between belief and knowledge and analyse the structure of inductive arguments. Doing the 
philosophical discussion in the art museum was helpful. The children could focus in the 
discussion by paying attention to the paintings. It’s quite probable that the children were focusing 
more time on the paintings than they would if they were seeing a photo of them. They were 
observing the paintings from different distances because they wanted to see every detail of the 
paintings, and hence, they had more stimulus for participating in the discussion. The paintings 
also helped them to connect the philosophical topics with their experiences. Moreover, the playful 
activities attracted the attention of the children. They participated in the discussion because they 
wanted to solve the mysteries. Walking around the museum and going closer and further away 
from the paintings helped the children to get into the mood of exploration. It would be impossible 
to implement those activities in a classroom because of the lack of paintings and space.  From this 
experience, we conclude the benefits and drawbacks of discussing philosophical issues in a 
museum should be the topic of further research.  
 
Acknowledgements  

We would like to thank Michael Zampelas, who is the Chairman and Managing Director 
of Loukia and Michael Zampelas Art Museum, for the opportunity to implement the workshop 
there. We would also like to thank Kyriaki Phili for her permission to use photos of her paintings. 
 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

75 
 

References 
Adams, M., Foutz, S., Luke, J., & Stein, J. (2007). Thinking through art: Isabella Stewart 
           Gardner museum school partnership program year 3 research results. Annapolis: Institute 
           for Learning Innnovation. 
             https://www.gardnermuseum.org/sites/default/files/uploads/files/Year_3_Report.pdf . Accessed  
           November, 3, 2017. 
Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M., & Tayler, C. (2002). Children's museum  

experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(3), 
213-231. 

Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (3rd ed.).  
            New York, NY: Routledge. 
Brüning, B. (1987). What is a Philosophical Discussion with Young Children? Analytic  
           Teaching, 8(1), 87-92. 
Brüning, B. (2008). Philosophizing with Children at Universities and Schools in Germany.  

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 18(4), 2-5. 
Burchenal, M., & Grohe, M. (2007). Thinking through art: Transforming museum  

curriculum. Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 111-122. 
Cam, P. (2016). Basic operations in reasoning and conceptual exploration. Journal of Philosophy  
            in Schools, 3(2), 7-18. 
Fair, F., Haas, L. E., Gardosik, C., Johnson, D. D., Price, D. P., & Leipnik, O. (2015). 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. 

Falk, J. H. (1999). Museums as institutions for personal learning. Daedalus, 128(3), 259-275.  
Glasser, J. (1992). What’s So Special About This Story Anyway? Analytic Teaching, 12(2), 45-52.  
Gregory, M. R. (2007). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teaching Philosophy,  
            30(1), 59-84. 
Hagaman, S. (1988). Philosophical aesthetics in the art class: A look toward implementation. 
          Art Education, 41(3), 18-22. 
Hagaman, S. (1990). The Community of Inquiry: An Approach to Collaborative Learning.  
          Studies in Art Education, 31(3), 149-157. 
Hooper‐ Greenhill, E. (2004). Learning from Culture: The Importance of the Museums and  

Galleries Education Program (Phase I) in England. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(4), 428-
449. 

Jeffery-Clay, K. R. (1998). Constructivism in museums: How museums create meaningful 
           Learning environments. Journal of Museum Education, 23(1), 3-7. 
Jespersen, P. (1993). Problems with Philosophy for Children. Analytic Teaching, 14(1), 69-71. 
Liptai, S. (2005). What is the meaning of this cup and that dead shark? Philosophical inquiry 
          with objects and works of art and craft. Childhood & philosophy, 1(2), 537-554. 
Murris, K. (2000). Can children do philosophy?. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(2), 261-279.    
Russell, R. L. (1991). Teaching students to inquire about art philosophically: procedures  
           derived from ordinary-language philosophy to teach principles of concept analysis.  

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/sites/default/files/uploads/files/Year_3_Report.pdf


 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

76 
 

          Studies in Art Education, 32(2), 94-104. 
SAPERE(2015). What is P4C? Available at: http://www.sapere.org.uk/default.aspx?tabid=162   

(access: 15 April 2017) 
Steup, M. (Fall 2016 Edition).  Epistemology. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of  

Philosophy.Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/epistemology/ . 

Vansieleghem, N. (2011). Philosophy with children as an exercise in parrhesia: An account of a  
philosophical experiment with children in Cambodia. Journal of Philosophy of 
Education, 45(2), 321-337. 

Venable, B. B. (2001). Using role play to teach and learn aesthetics. Art Education, 54(1), 47-55. 
Ventista, O.M. & Paparoussi, M., (2016). How to introduce a philosophical discussion in your  

classroom: A community of enquiry in a Greek primary school. Childhood & Philosophy, 
12(25),611-629. http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/childhood/article/view/24994  

 

 

 

Appendix 
Evaluation Sheet (pre-test and post-test)  

 

Did you know that philosophers wonder about different issues that concern us? Let’s see some of 

them?  

 

1. (a)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

 

Do you agree with this definition? What do you think? A painting is beautiful only if it 

represents exactly the nature or can it be beautiful even without representing the nature?  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

(b) 

 

 

 

 

Why are some 

paintings beautiful 

and some are not? 

“A painting is beautiful, 

if it represents exactly 

the nature” 

“A painting is beautiful, 

if it has a lot of colors”. 

http://www.sapere.org.uk/default.aspx?tabid=162%20%20
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/epistemology/
http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/childhood/article/view/24994


 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

77 
 

 

 

Do you agree with this definition? A painting is beautiful only if it has a lot of colors or can it be 

beautiful even without having a lot of colors?  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

(c) Can you think of a better definition that reveals which paintings are beautiful?   
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

2. (a) 

  

 

 

 

 

It is foggy. Someone is approaching, but we can’t recognize his characteristics clearly. He looks 

like a friend of ours and we believe he is our friend. Can we say that we know that he is our 

friend? Yes? No? Why? 

 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________ 

 

(b) We have a lot of beliefs about what exists around us and in the rest of the world. Can you 

think of some circumstances that would stop us from creating precise views about the world 

around us?  

 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

When we discuss with other people, we 

tell them about many things that we 

believe and know. But what is the 

difference between “believe” and 

“know”? Imagine the following 

scenario: 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

78 
 

(c) We believe that we see something. But do we know that it actually exists? A definition of 

whether we know that something exists that we believe we saw is the following: 

 

 

 

  

 

Do you agree with this definition? Why?   

 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

(d) Can you think of a better definition? 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

3. (a) During our lives, we come to a lot of conclusions about many situations by giving 

arguments. George and Andreas heard someone shouting and came to different conclusions 

through the following arguments:    

 

George:  

I hear someone shouting, but I don’t see him.  

The voice is similar to Kostas’ voice.  

Conclusion: probably, then, Kostas is shouting.   

 

Andreas: 

I hear someone shouting, but I don’t see him.  

I don’t see John.  

Conclusion: probably, then, John is shouting.  

 

Which conclusion is better and more persuasive? Why?   
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

(b) Look at the following argument: 

The pencil of Maria has been broken. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Conclusion: probably, then, Anna broke Maria’s pencil.  

 

What should we fill to make the conclusion more likely to be true?  

“We believe we saw something and we know that 

it exists, if there was good visibility”. 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

79 
 

 

(c) Sotiris came to a conclusion. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the conclusion is false! Why is the conclusion of this argument wrong? What did Sotiris 

think wrongly?  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

(d) How are the above arguments similar to each other?    
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Activities Sheet  

 

 

Welcome to the Loukia & Michael 

Zampelas Art Museum.                                                 

 
You are in the temporary exhibition Speculum Mundi. 

1. Look carefully at the works of Kyriaki Phili. Write in the following box the title of 

the art work that you think it is the more beautiful and tell us why.  

 

 

 

I listen to the sound of a musical instrument.  

This sound is similar with the sound of a guitar. 

Conclusion: probably, then, someone is playing 

guitar somewhere close. 

 

   Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

The more beautiful art work in this exhibition is the one with the title 

……………………………………………………………………………………………..          

It’s the more beautiful because 

………………………………………………………………………………………….…………

……………………………………………….……………………………………………………

……….…………………………………………………………….……………………………

……………………. 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

80 
 

A mimic game will start soon. Can you mimic the content of your favorite work to 

help the other kids to recognize it?  

 

2. Go and sit in front of the following art work. “In Lido of Venice” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solve the mystery!  

In a misty summer day, there was a robbery! Someone stole a diamond ring from the house 

of Mrs. Richy. The above photo was taken by the camera of Mrs. Richy’s house. It looks 

like the thief was wearing a hat. The only people who were wearing a hat that day were the 

triplet nieces of Mrs. Richy. Let’s meet them? Which of the three sisters can be this 

mysterious woman?   

We have just met the triplet nieces. Write in the following box which of the 3 sisters 

you believe that she appears behind the mist in the painting.   

 

 

 

How sure are you about your answer? Draw yourself to the step that represents 

your view.  

 

 

 

………………………………………………………………………

… 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

81 
 

 

 

Paint the figure by using the 

colors that represent the sister 

that stole the ring. Where 

would you draw her look?  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

82 
 

3. Look at the following art work. Find it and sit in front of it.  

 

 

“Locus I” 

Draw in the following box the things that belong to someone.  

 

 

 

Can you imagine their owner or owners? Draw him/her/them in the above art work and 

give him/her/them name/names.  

 

 
I painted ………………………………………………………………………………….. 



 

ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 
 

83 
 

 
Address Correspondences to: 

Savvas Ioannou, Doctoral Researcher  
School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studies 
University of St Andrews 
savvasioa@hotmail.com 

 
Kypros Georgiou, Museum Educator 
Loukia & Michael Zampelas Art Museum 
kypros1991@hotmail.com  

 
Ourania Maria Ventista, Doctoral Researcher and Teaching Assistant 
School of Education 
Durham University 
o.m.ventista@durham.ac.uk  

 

 


