



































































The Effects of Participation in a P4C Program on Australian Elementary School Students


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 37, ISSUE 1 (2016) 

  
 

1 
 

The Effects of Participation in a P4C Program on Australian 
Elementary School Students 

Chadi Youssef, Marilyn Campbell, Donna Tangen  

 

ABSTRACT: Both academic attainment and student well-being are high priorities for schooling in 

Australia. While many programs are implemented in schools to promote either academic success or 

mental well-being, one program, the Philosophy for Children (P4C) program claims to do both. This 

program is being widely implemented in Australian elementary schools. A quasi-experimental study 

therefore explored the effects of participation in a philosophical community of inquiry (COI), a feature 

of the broader P4C program on Year 6 students’ reading comprehension, interest in math, self-esteem, 

pro-social behavior and emotional well-being. It was found that reading comprehension increased. 

Interest in math and self-esteem decreased and there was no change in pro-social behavior and 

emotional well-being for children who participated in the COI program compared to students who did 

not participate. Implications for practice are discussed. 

Key Words: elementary school, philosophy, children, reading comprehension, mathematics, self-

esteem, pro-social behaviour, emotional well-being 

   

INTRODUCTION 

ith the introduction of the National Assessment for Plan (NAPLAN) in 2008 in 
Australian schools, and the public’s interest in schools’ results, increased emphasis 
has been placed on the academic attainments of children in elementary school. 

Additionally, increasing mental health problems (National Institute for Health and Clinical 
Excellence, 2013; Social and Character Development Research Consortium, 2010) have put the 
spotlight on elementary school children’s emotional well-being as well as the continued problem 
of bullying in schools leading to more teaching about pro-social behaviour. Many separate 
programs to increase academic achievement and emotional well-being have been tried in schools 
such as You Can Do It, the Friends Program and Aussie Optimism (Bernard & Walton, 2011; 
Neil & Christensen, 2007; Roberts, 2010). One educational program which has some claims for 
increasing both student academic results and emotional well-being is Philosophy for Children 
(P4C) (Millett & Tapper, 2012). This educational program is organized to encourage students to 
contemplate philosophical questions (Lipman & Bynum, 1976; Lipman, 2001) and focus on the 
application of ethical, aesthetic, and logical inquiry,  allowing students the opportunity to see 
issues from many different perspectives (Lipman, 2003). The philosophical community of 
inquiry (COI) is a feature of the broader Philosophy for Children (P4C) program (Cam et al., 
2007). However, research suggests that P4C programs show contradictory results in terms of 
students’ improved academic outcomes and also affective domains (Allen, 1988; Gregory, 2011; 
Imbrosciano, 1997; Lone, 2001; McDermott & Fox, 2001; Morehouse, 2010; Vansieleghem & 
Kennedy, 2011; Weber & Gardner, 2009). The purpose of the current research was therefore to 
examine the effectiveness of a philosophical community of inquiry (COI) intervention and to 

W 



2 
 

observe and quantify its effects on elementary school students’ reading comprehension, interest 
in math, self-esteem, pro-social behaviours and emotional well-being. 

Reading comprehension 

Various researchers have examined the effects of the P4C program on reading 
comprehension, following in the footsteps of investigations of the role of classroom discussions 
in improving reading comprehension (Jo, 2000; Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, & Hennessey, 2009).  
Lipman and Bierman’s (1970) study investigated the impact of a philosophical COI program on 
an experimental group of students who were exposed to a total of 18 40-minute sessions over 
nine weeks and found that students’ reading comprehension scores were higher for the 
philosophical COI group than for peer groups not engaged in the program. The effects of the 
program were still evident two and a half years later. Furthermore, compared with traditional 
instruction Banks (1987) found that the P4C program significantly improved the reading 
comprehension scores of 319, 4th to 6th grade African American students in a suburban area 
with low SES over a period of 24 weeks. Using a sample of 100 students aged 11 years, Yeazell 
(1982) also found that the P4C approach improved students’ general reading comprehension of 
all levels of ability compared to a sample of students traditionally taught. 

However, other studies have not found the P4C program benefited students’ reading 
comprehension. The Dyfed County Council (1994) study in Wales focused on students aged 5 
years and employed a whole class approach using ‘Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books’ 
(Murris, 1992) as the stimulus for discussion. Six schools in this study used two interventions 
(P4C and a reading activity), another six schools used the reading activity alone with a small 
group of children ‘at risk’ of reading difficulty, and a third group of six schools had no 
intervention. The schools were randomly selected, balanced for size and whether the language of 
instruction was Welsh or English. The standardised tests of reading miscue analysis and reading 
comprehension yielded no evidence of differences between the groups. A major limitation of this 
study was that no details were provided about statistical analyses.  

Attitudes to mathematics 

        The effects of P4C have also been investigated in relation to students’ attitudes to 
mathematics (English, 1993; Daniel, 1994; Lafortune, Daniel, Pallascio, & Sykes, 1995; Smith 
1995). Lafortune and colleagues (1995) conducted an experiment that explored the affective 
dimension of learning mathematics. Quantitative and qualitative results indicated from this 
study that the philosophical approach helped students aged 9 to 12 avoid developing more 
negative attitudes towards mathematics. A further experiment by Lafortune et al. (2002) was 
carried out over most of a school year, with five classes in grades four, five and six (ages 9 to 12) 
involved in a community of enquiry and five classes as control in French schools in Quebec. It 
was found that students in the control groups experienced far less pleasure when doing 
mathematics, and also felt less involved in the subject, than those in the experimental groups.  

Self-esteem 

 It has also been claimed that the self-esteem of elementary school students is enhanced by 
involvement with P4C (Sasseville, 1994). A Canadian study conducted by Sasseville (1994) 
explored the effects of participation in a P4C program on student self-esteem. The experimental 
group comprised 124 students and the control group 96 students. The teachers involved received 



3 
 

12 hours pre-project training and 4 days training during the 5-month period of the research. On 
the Piers-Harris self-esteem test (Bagley & Mallick, 1978), philosophy students showed an overall 
statistically significant gain in self-esteem compared to students in the control group. The largest 
gains in self- esteem were with students with the lowest pre-test self-esteem, while those with high 
self-esteem actually showed a relative loss compared with the controls. However, a study by 
Lafortune et al. (2002) found no differences in self-esteem between students who had been 
involved in a philosophical community of inquiry and those who had not been involved.  
Participating in a philosophical community of inquiry does not appear to enable all students in 
such a program to develop an improved self-image (Glaser, 1992; Portelli & Reed, 1995). 
According to Phillips (1996), exposure to P4C could even work against the development of self-
esteem, if one does not take into account the fact that there may be certain contradictions 
between promoting the development of self-esteem and promoting intellectual skills such as rigor 
and intellectual honesty. To ensure positive development of student self-esteem, Daniel, 
Lafortune, Pallascio and Schleifer, (1999) suggest that students must consciously link success to 
surpassing oneself in a cooperative context, rather than surpassing others in a competitive verbal 
sparring match.  

Pro-social behavior 

 To study the effects of P4C on children’s pro-social behaviour, Collins (2005) used a 
pre/post controlled intervention study of P4C with 133 ethnically diverse students in five South 
Australian elementary schools for two terms (6-months). The pre/post questionnaire tested 
students’ justificatory thinking abilities and dispositions. It was found that a philosophical COI 
intervention led to growth in the participants’ ability and disposition to consider issues 
empathetically and to weigh consequences for all concerned. P4C has also been described as a 
pedagogical vehicle by which students in the school community can address the attributes 
essential for a successful bullying intervention by promoting empathy, caring and respect and 
working toward rectifying the imbalance that exists between bullies and their victims in an effort 
to begin to readdress bullying behaviour (Glina, 2009). However, Tangen and Campbell (2010) 
looked at the effects of a philosophical COI program on bullying comparing students’ self-
reports on bullying between schools with and without a Philosophy for Children (P4C) 
approach. A sample of 35 students exposed to a philosophical COI and a matched sample of 35 
students in other schools between the ages of 10 and 13 completed the Student Bullying Survey. 
A higher percentage of P4C school students claimed to have both been face- to-face bullied and 
bullied others face-to-face in the year of the study than matched students at other schools with 
both groups showing similar involvement in cyberbullying (Tangen & Campbell, 2010).  

Emotional wellbeing 

 Finally, P4C involvement has been shown to enhance elementary students’ emotional 
wellbeing. Dawid (2005) investigated the effects of P4C on student emotional literacy; that is 
skills in self-awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, and handling of emotions and 
relationships. It was found that parents reported a significant increase in their children’s 
emotional intelligence in the experimental group as compared to the control group. However, 
some studies have found that students who were generally negative about learning philosophy 
had little understanding of why they were doing philosophy, and girls progressively lost interest 
in the program (Leckey, 2001). 



4 
 

Not only are there inconsistent results of the P4C program on children’s academic 
achievement and emotional well-being, the studies are dated and often do not present their 
statistical analysis. Furthermore, much of the positive research has been reported in Lipman’s 
own journal, creating interpretive problems which suggest problems of vested interest (Reed, 
1987; Sternberg & Bhana, 1996).  There are very few studies that substantiate the claims made 
by P4C proponents, and few that include short and specifically, long-term follow-up (Millett & 
Tapper, 2012; Trickey & Topping, 2006). In addition, many of the studies lack methodological 
rigor. The utilization of the techniques of multilevel modelling as an analytic strategy is strongly 
recommended as it corrects for autocorrelation inherent in studies where clustering or nesting is 
present, as in previous studies on COI programs. This means that, where nesting was present, 
the research may have not been measuring the differences accurately, as without this strategy 
there is a higher probability of making a Type I error. The current study addressed these gaps by 
researching how participation in a COI affected Year 6 students’ reading comprehension, 
interest in math, self-esteem, pro-social behaviour and emotional well-being compared to a 
control group using multi-level modelling. 

Method 

Participants 

Two hundred and eighty children (149 intervention group, 131 comparison group) from eight 
elementary state schools in the Southeast region of Queensland participated in the study. The 
sample was made up of 48% (n=135) females and 52% (n=145) males all in Year 6 (with an age 
range of 10-12 years).  

Measures 

Test of Reading Comprehension (TORCH Test Mossenson et al., 1988). This set of tests 
consists of fourteen untimed reading tests which are suitable for students in Year 3 through to 
year 10. The tests vary in length from approximately 200 to 900 words. A passage is administered 
to students and the students retell that passage in different words on a retelling form. The 
retelling form contains gaps relating to the original passage and the students are required to fill 
the gaps in one or more of their own words (Mossenson et al., 1988). The tests were used to 
measure reading comprehension. Validity is reported for TORCH tests in terms of content 
validity, obtained by a detailed examination of the content of the tests by different methods such 
as the selection of the items, and their appropriateness and representativeness, and also by 
comparing the items with accepted curricula (Mossenson et al., 1988). 

The Self-Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1992). The Self-Description 
Questionnaire is an eight-scale instrument intended to measure seven aspects of self-concept of 
preadolescent children (ages 7-13) as well as their general sense of self-worth. The global score 
was used to measure self-esteem and the ‘interest in math’ sub-scale was used to measure 
students’ interest in math. The Self-Description Questionnaire is acknowledged as one of the 
most reliable and valid measures of self-concept (Byrne, 1996).  Internal consistency estimates 
ranged upward from a minimum .74 for the instrument. Target factor loadings for each facet 
within the instrument reflected an average of around .70, with no loadings below .44. Cross-
loadings ranged from -.17 to .27, and factor correlations were typically small (March, 1999).  For 
the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .94 for self- esteem and .94 for interest in 
mathematics. 



5 
 

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire II (Goodman, 1997). This short behavioral 
screening questionnaire is appropriate for children (5 to 16 year olds). It contains 25 items that 
are divided into 5 scales: 1) emotional symptoms (5 items); 2) conduct problems (5 items); 3) 
hyperactivity/inattention (5 items); 4) peer relationship problems (5 items); and 5) pro-social 
behaviour (5 items). It has been demonstrated as a reliable and valid instrument (Muris, 
Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003). The Pro-social subscale was used to measure students’ pro-
social behaviours and the emotional symptoms subscale the students’ emotional well-being.  
Reliability is generally satisfactory, internal consistency (mean Cronbach .73) and retest stability 
after 4 to 6 months (mean 0.62) (Goodman, 2001). For this sample the Cronbach’s alpha for the 
pro-social behaviour scale was .62, and for the emotional well-being scale the Cronbach’s alpha 
was .65.  

Procedure 

The first author approached the Principals of the participating schools requesting 
permission to conduct the research in their schools. Once permission from the school principal 
and ethical clearance from both the Queensland State Education Board and University Ethical 
Committee was granted, students were provided with written information regarding the research 
project and a consent form to take home prior to the commencement of the study. Students who 
returned signed consent forms were included in the research. The first author administered all 
questionnaires and tests at three time points at baseline (Time 1, June 2011), post six months 
later (Time 2, December, 2011) and follow-up (Time 3, June, 2102). All testing was done during 
class time to the students in both the experimental and control classes.  

Study design and data analysis 

The study utilized a longitudinal time series quasi-experimental design with an 
experimental group and matched comparison group. For the current research this method was 
chosen because random allocation of the intervention was not possible. The study utilized a 
repeated-measures, following the participant’s longitudinally over three time points with pre-test 
and post-test data collected at baseline, six month, and twelve-month intervals.  

A 2-level multilevel model with age being represented by time (i) and students being 
represented by (j) was used in the multilevel model. The  MLwiN (Rasbash, Steele, Browne & 
Goldstein, 2012) was used as  the philosophical COI program is multidimensional, and classes 
are nested. 

Results 

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the variables. Reading 
comprehension scores increased over time for both groups. However, there was a sharper rate of 
increase in reading comprehension among participants in the COI compared to students in the 
control group. Students in the COI group had higher levels of interest in maths at pre-test than 
control students but this declined over time, while control students continued to increase their 
interest in maths over time. Self-esteem scores remained relatively stable over time for both 
groups with a sharper increase for the comparison group. The pro-social behaviour scores 
remained relatively stable over time for both groups. The emotional well-being scores also 
remained relatively stable over time for both groups. 

 



6 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for RC, MATH, SE, PSB, and EWB, by Time and 

Group 

 

Reading Comprehension (RC)                             

Age 

 

 

 Comparison   

                     

                     

Philosophical COI  

                                 

TIME 1 

 

11  

(n=240) 

 

47.68 (12.30) 

(n=110) 

 

41.96 (11.67) 

(n=130) 

TIME 2 

 

11.5 

(n=246) 

 

47.51 (12.18) 

(n=114) 

 

44.68 (11.98) 

(n=132) 

TIME 3 

 

12 

(n=222) 

 

49.60 (13.49) 

(n=105) 

 

47.92 (12.38) 

(n=117) 

Interest in Math (Math)  

Age 

                                     

 

Comparison   

                 

 

 Philosophical COI 

 

11 

(n=240) 

 

27.07 (8.35) 

(n=110) 

 

28.16 (7.81) 

(n=130) 

 

11.5 

(n=248) 

 

27.84 (8.59) 

(n=114) 

 

26.13 (7.71) 

(n=134) 

 

12 

(n=223) 

 

28.49 (8.44) 

(n=105) 

 

26.57 (8.39) 

(n=118) 

Self Esteem (SE)  

 Age 

 

                                         

 Comparison   

                 

 

11 

(n=240) 

 

28.98 (4.20) 

(n=110) 

 

11.5 

(n=248) 

 

29.59 (4.57) 

(n=114) 

 

12 

(n=223) 

 

30.00 (4.09) 

(n=105) 



7 
 

 

 Philosophical COI 

 

 

28.93 (4.24) 

(n=130) 

 

28.91 (4.24) 

(n=134) 

 

28.77 (4.48) 

(n=118) 

Pro-social behavior (PSB)  

Age 

 

                     

Comparison   

                 

 

Philosophical COI 

 

 

11 

(n=238) 

 

7.53 (1.83) 

(n=108) 

 

7.77 (1.76) 

(n=130) 

 

11.5 

(n=240) 

 

8.04 (1.81) 

(n=112) 

 

7.78 (1.91) 

(n=128) 

 

12 

(n=220) 

 

7.74 (1.67) 

(n=104) 

 

8.06 (1.66) 

(n=116) 

Emotional well-being (EWB)  

Age 

 

                    

Comparison   

                 

 

Philosophical COI 

 

 

11 

(n=238) 

 

3.06 (2.24) 

(n=108) 

 

3.53 (2.06) 

(n=130) 

 

11.5 

(n=240) 

 

3.16 (2.09) 

(n=112) 

 

3.42 (2.45) 

(n=128) 

 

12 

(n=219) 

 

2.90 (2.22) 

(n=104) 

 

3.06 (2.44) 

(n=115) 

Note. RC=reading comprehension, MATHS=interest in math, SE=self-esteem, PSB=prosocial 

behavior, EWB=emotional well-being, SD=standard deviation. 

The final composite model for the growth curve for reading comprehension, interest in 
maths, self-esteem, pro-social behaviours and emotional well-being, was: 

 ϒij = ϒ00 + ϒ01PROGRAMi + ϒ10AGE_11ij + ϒ11PROGRAMi X AGE_11ij  

+ (εij + ζ01 + ζ01AGE_11ij) 

The multilevel model includes PROGRAM as a predictor of both initial status and 
change. Interpretation of its four fixed effects: (1) the estimated initial reading comprehension 
for the average non-participant was 47.13 (p < .001); (2) the estimated differential in initial 
reading comprehension between program participants and non-participants was -5.22 (p < .001); 
(3) the estimated rate of change in reading comprehension for an average non-participant was 
1.50 (ns); and (4) the estimated differential in the rate of change in reading comprehension 
between program participants and non-participants was significant (p <. 01). 



8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Results of a Fitted Multilevel Model for Change in Reading Comprehension.  

 

 

  



9 
 

Figure 2: Results of a Fitted Multilevel Model for Change in Interest in Math.  

 

  



10 
 

Figure 3: Results of a Fitted Multilevel Model for Change in Self esteem.  

 

  



11 
 

Figure 4: Results of a Fitted Multilevel Model for Change in Pro-social Behavior.  

 

  



12 
 

Figure 5:  Results of a Fitted Multilevel Model for Change in Emotional Well-Being.  

 

 

Discussion 

This study explored the effects of participation in a philosophical community of inquiry 
(COI) on Year 6 students’ reading comprehension, interest in math, self-esteem, pro-social 
behaviour and emotional well-being. In summary it was found that students’ reading 
comprehension improved but their interest in mathematics and self-esteem decreased, while 
development of their pro-social behaviour and emotional well-being remained relatively 
unchanged compared to students who did not participate in the COI.  

The results of the current study suggest that the philosophical COI program improved 
reading comprehension for participants over one year faster than it did for students in the 
comparison group. These results are not surprising given that students in the philosophical COI 
engaged in a range of activities from talking, questioning and listening to writing, reading and 
drawing. The talking, questioning and listening, during the philosophical COI, interwoven with 
these other activities, could have aided reading comprehension as the program involved 
conversations that were ultimately and intrinsically linked with thinking. The findings suggest 
that students struggling with reading comprehension can significantly benefit from participation 
in a philosophical COI. These findings are consistent with the Dyfed County Council (1994), 
Banks (1987) and Yeazell’s (1982) studies, which also found that reading comprehension 
improved for students involved in a P4C program. 

 On the other hand, exposure to a philosophical COI appears to have a negative effect on 
Year 6t student’s growth in interest in math. The result is contrary to Daniel, Lafortune, 
Pallascio and Schleifer’s (1999) investigation, which found that students exposed to the COI 
became more interested in math. However, those studies which saw an improvement in students’ 
math interest used a mathematical COI and not a philosophical COI, which would have allowed 
students to exchange dialogue on mathematical and meta-mathematical matters. It is important 
to note that a philosophical COI and mathematical COI are not comparable in the sense that 
the content and material covered are different, although the method is the same. Specifically, 



13 
 

student engagement in a mathematical COI, by which dialogue on philosophical content is 
replaced by dialogue on mathematical content, may moderate levels of students’ interest in math 
more effectively and positively, and would be expected to produce different interest in math 
results to that found in the current study. Alternatively, perhaps time spent facilitating the COI 
subtracted time that could have otherwise been devoted to math lessons, resulting in the 
teaching of ‘basic’ math only, although this was not explored in the current study. It would seem, 
however, that both the content of the COI, as well as the method, influences students’ interest 
in math. 

 Both the experimental and control groups were comparable in their self-esteem scores at 
the beginning of the study. Students exposed to a philosophical COI, however, experienced a 
significant decrease in self-esteem over one year, while students in the comparison group 
significantly improved in self-esteem. These results suggest that the philosophical COI was not 
only ineffective in increasing self-esteem among program participants, but actually harmed their 
self-esteem. The current results are in contrast to other studies such as Sasseville (1994). 
Sasseville (1994), did, however, note that the largest gains in self-esteem were with students with 
the lowest pre-test self-esteem, while those with high self-esteem at pre-test, actually showed a 
relative loss compared with the controls. This could have been because the students with low self-
esteem were involved in the COI more than students with high self-esteem. Others, however, 
such as Lane and Jones (1986) have shown that individuals with high self-esteem are more likely 
to assume active roles in social groups and to express their views frequently and effectively and 
that students' feelings about themselves affect their classroom performance and academic 
achievement (Amini, 2004; Marsh & O’Mara, 2008). Gazzard (2001) also suggested that when 
children cannot make decisions, they are prone to falling deeper into the pit of low self-esteem. It 
could be that the COI process is detrimental to the self-esteem of students, irrespective of 
baseline self-esteem levels, who do not take part in the COI, and therefore it is incumbent on the 
facilitator to engage all students in the COI, and not just allow a ‘few’ to dominate. Phillips 
(1996) specifies that if students are placed in a COI where the focus is on the development of 
complex thinking skills, they are necessarily confronted with situations in which their ideas are 
contradicted, their justifications are challenged, and their arguments are undone. To ensure 
positive development of student self-esteem, it suggests that students must consciously link 
success to surpassing oneself in a cooperative context, rather than surpassing others in a 
competitive verbal sparring match. Perhaps the way the COI was facilitated by the teachers 
allowed only the more confident speakers to engage in this discussion and thus students with low 
self-esteem felt even worse. Portelli and Reed (1995) have posited that the development of self-
esteem relates to the respect of coming to value the self. This may not be possible after one-year 
exposure to a philosophical COI but may possibly occur after many years exposure to such a 
program.    

 In this study exposure to a philosophical COI appears to have no effect on pro-social 
behaviour. The current findings on pro-social behaviour are similar to those of Trickey and 
Topping (2006) who also found that on a scale for teacher observation of student social skills in 
problematic situations, a random sample of experimental philosophical community of inquiry 
students gained no more than controls overall. This was surprising given teachers encourage 
students to be social and cultural beings who learn through interactions with others and that 
ideas that are generated during the socio-cultural exchange are reflected upon, cognitively 
accommodated and then internalized. It is believed that through this process students learn to 
think for themselves. In regard to the current results on pro-social behaviour in the current 



14 
 

sample, and in line with the analysis by Daniel et al. (2000), it is suggested that the students in 
the current sample may require, at least, more than one year to enter into the community of 
philosophical inquiry and to experiment with the dialectical argumentation and that pro-social 
behaviour, as an end, would develop effectively in the medium to long-term. 

 In the current research, exposure to a philosophical COI program appears to have no 
effect on emotional well-being on philosophical COI participants compared to a comparison 
group. Although Gazzard (2001) made the claim that a philosophical COI has a lot to offer those 
interested in improving the way they relate emotionally to the world around them, and  Dawid 
(2005) found that student’s emotional intelligence significantly increased after one year, the 
findings in the current study suggest otherwise. These findings are in contrast to assertions that 
when children experience a difficult emotion, exposure to a philosophical COI could help them 
find a way to develop thoughts and behaviours that strengthen the messages from the "left 
hemisphere to the emotional centre" (Dawid, 2005, p. 47); further, that there is a possibility for 
the child to develop emotional flexibility if the child has experiences that comes from 'ah-ha' 
moments, which comes from seeing things in a different way and understanding them that way.  

Strengths and limitations 

This study is the first on the effects of philosophical COI on students’ reading 
comprehension, interest in math, self-esteem, pro-social behaviours and emotional well-being in 
Australia, using multilevel modelling. The use of this random coefficients technique, as an 
analytic strategy added statistical rigor to the study. The results, therefore, are believed to be a 
truer picture of differences between the groups than previous studies’ results. It is noted, 
however, that due to the small number of clusters and small number of level 1 participants, 
further research using a larger data set is needed to fully substantiate the results. In addition, it is 
also important to note that although there has been research on COI’s conducted with younger 
children, the current research focused only on students in Year 6. 

Implications for practice 

With an already overcrowded curriculum, these results need to be carefully considered 
before widespread implementation of the COI in elementary schools. Additionally, it is 
recommended that the philosophy taught to future philosophical COI facilitators be practically 
oriented rather than the typical academic approach that is standard in university philosophy 
courses. It is suggested that ongoing coaching may also help first time implementers of 
philosophical COI sessions. Pre-service teachers aspiring to be facilitators of the philosophical 
COI need to be encouraged to develop their “ability to examine and identify the personal 
characteristics, beliefs and attitudes that make them who they are and influence the way they 
think about teaching and learning” (Baum & King, 2006, p. 27).  

Conclusion 

In the current study a philosophical COI intervention found an increase in reading 
comprehension but diminished interest in math and self-esteem, with no changes for pro-social 
behaviour and emotional well-being in a group of Year 6 students compared to those who did 
not experience COI. The focus of the philosophical COI being mainly on language (wordiness) 
may have accounted for both the significant increase in reading comprehension over time and 
the significant declining trajectory of interest in math among these Year 6 participants.   



15 
 

 

 

References 

Allen, T. (1988). I think, therefore I can: Attribution and philosophy for children. Thinking,  

8(1), 14- 18. 

Amini, S. (2004). The role of self-efficiency, self-regulation and self-esteem in high school  

students’ academic achievement. Shareh Kord, Iran: Tarbiat Moallem Tehran. 

Bagley, C., & Mallick, K. (1978). Development of a short form of the Piers-Harris Self-    
Concept Scale. Educational Review, 30, 265-268. 

Banks, J. S. R. (1987). A study of the effects of the critical thinking skills program, Philosophy for 
Children, on a standardized achievement test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Baum, A. C., & King, M. A. (2006). Creating a climate of self-awareness in early childhood  

teacher preparation programs. Early Childhood Education, 33(4), 217- 222. doi: 
10.1007/s10643-005-0050-2 

Bernard, M., & Walton, K. (2011). The effect of You Can Do It! Education in six schools on  

student perceptions of well-being, teaching, learning and relationships. Journal of 
Student Wellbeing, 5, 22-37. 

Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measurement, and relation to academic  

achievement. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287- 316). New York: 
Wiley. 

Cam, P., Fynes-Clinton, L., Harrison, K., Hinton, L., Scholl, R., & Vaseo, S. (2007). Philosophy  

with young children – A classroom handbook. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies 
Association. 

Collins, C. (2005). Education for a just democracy: The role of ethical inquiry. Unpublished  

PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide. 

Daniel, M.F. (1994). Liberating the self in the philosophical community of inquiry. Thinking,  

11(3-4), 63- 71. 

Daniel, M. F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Schleifer, M. (1999). Philosophical reflection and  



16 
 

cooperative practices in an elementary school mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal 
of Education/Revue, 24, 426-441. 

Daniel, M. F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., & Schleifer, M. (2000). The developmental dynamics  

of a community of philosophical inquiry in an elementary school mathematics classroom. 
Thinking, 15(1), 2-10. 

Dawid, J. (2005). A report into the effects of a project using storytelling in the community of  

enquiry in six elementary schools. Thinking, 13(1&2), 34-64. 

Dyfed County Council, (1994). Improving reading standards in elementary schools project.  

Wales: Local Education Authority. 

English, L. (1993). Using philosophical inquiry to enhance mathematical communication.  

Critical and Creative Thinking, 1(2), 57-61. 

Glaser, J. (1992). Reflections on personhood: Developing a sense of self through community of  

enquiry. Thinking, 10(1), 19-22. 

Glina, M. (2009). Democracy as morality: Using philosophical dialogue to cultivate safe learning  

communities. Analytical Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 29(1), 31-38. 

Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of  

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. 

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire.  

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337-
1345. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015 

Gregory, M. (2011). Philosophy for children and its critics: A Mendham dialogue. Journal of  

Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 199-220. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00795. 

Imbrosciano, A. (1997). Can studying philosophy influence students’ overall academic  

performance. Critical and Creative Thinking, 5(1), 35-41. 

Jo, S. H. (2000). Literacy: Constructing meaning through philosophical enquiry. Analytic  

Teaching, 21(1), 37-42. 

Lafortune, L., Daniel, M-F., Daniel, M. F., Pallascio, R., & Skyes, P. (1995). Community of  

inquiry in mathematics for higher education. Analytic Teaching, 16(2), 81-89. 



17 
 

Lafortune, L., Daniel, M-F., Mongeau, P., & Pallascio, R. (2002). Philosophy for Children  

adapted to mathematics: A study of its impact on the evolution of affective factors. 
Analytic Teaching, 23(1), 11-20. 

Leckey, M. (2001). Philosophy for children in the middle Years of schooling: Findings from a  

year seven case study. Analytic Teaching, 21(2), 106-126. 

Lipman, M. (2001). Dramatizing philosophy. Critical and Creative Thinking, 9(2), 10-15. 

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

University Press. 

Lipman, M., & Bierman, J. (1970). Experimental research in philosophy for children. In M.  

Lipman, A., M. Sharp & F. Oscanyon (Eds.), Philosophy in the classroom (pp. 217-233). 
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.  

Lipman, M., & Bynum, T. W. (1976). Philosophy for children. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Lone, J. M. (2001). Does philosophy for children belong in school at all? Analytic Teaching,  

21(2), 151-156. 

McDermott, M., & Fox, C. (2001). The encouragement of reasonableness through the practice  

of philosophy with high school children at risk. Critical and Creative Thinking, 9(1), 18-
 30. 

Marsh, H.W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire – II: SDQ II Manual. Sydney: University of  

 Western Sydney. 

Marsh, H. W., & O’Mara, A. (2008). Reciprocal effects between academic self-concept, self- 

esteem, achievement, and attainment over seven adolescent years: Unidimensional and 
multidimensional perspectives of self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 
34, 542–552. doi: 10.1177/0146167207312313. 

Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools.  

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 546-567. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2010.00727.x 

Morehouse, R. (2010). Developing communities of inquiry in the USA: Retrospect Prospect.  

Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 30(2), 21-31. 

Mossenson, L., Hill, P., & Masters, G. (1988). Tests of reading comprehension (TORCH).  



18 
 

Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. 

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, F. (2003). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire  

(SDQ): Further evidence for its reliability and validity in a community sample of Dutch 
children and adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1-8. 

Murphy, K. P., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A., & Hennessey, M. N. (2009). Examining the effects  

of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764. 

Murris, K. (1992). Teaching philosophy with picture books. London: Infonet Publications. 

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2103). Conduct disorders and antisocial  

behaviour in children and young people: Recognition, intervention and management. 
London: The British Psychological Society and The Royal College of Psychiatrists. 

Neil, A. L., & Christensen, H. (2007). Australian school-based prevention and early intervention  

programs for anxiety and depression: A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia, 
186, 305-308.  

Phillips, R. (1996). Self-esteem and the ownership of ideas. Critical and Creative Thinking, 4(2),  

42-46. 

Portelli, J. P., & Reed, R. F. (1995). Children, philosophy & democracy. Alberta, Canada:  

Detselig Enterprises Ltd. 

Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2012). A user’s guide to MLwiN, v2.26.  

Centre for Multilevel Modelling: University of Bristol.  

Reed, R. F. (1987). Philosophy for children: Some problems. Analytic Teaching, 8(1), 82-85 

Roberts, C. (2006). Embedding mental health promotion programs in school contexts: The  

Aussie Optimism program. International Society for the Study of Behaviour Newsletter. 

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

32. 

Smith, G, (1995). Critical thinking, a philosophical community of inquiry and the  

science/maths teacher. Analytic Teaching, 15(2), 43-53. 

 



19 
 

Social and Character Development Research Consortium, (2010). Efficacy of school wide  

programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem behavior in 
elementary school children. Washington, DC, National Centre for Education Research: 
Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. 

Sternberg, R., & Bhana, K. (1996). Synthesis of research on the effectiveness of intellectual skills  

programs: Snake oil remedies or miracle cures? Educational Leadership, 44, 60–67. 

Tangen, D., & Campbell, M.A. (2010). Cyberbullying prevention: One elementary school’s  

approach. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 225-234. 

Trickey, S., & Topping, J. (2006). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children socio- 

emotional effects at 11 to 12 years. School Psychology International, 27, 599–614. doi: 
10.1177/0143034306073417 

Vansieleghem, N., & Kennedy, D. (2011). What is philosophy for children, what is philosophy  

with children – after Matthew Lipman? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 171-
183. 

Weber, B., & Gardner, T. (2009). ‘Back to the future’ In philosophical dialogue: A plea for  

changing P4C teacher education. Analytic Teaching, 29(1), 25-30. 

Yeazell, M. I. (1982). Improving reading comprehension through philosophy for children.  

Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 4, 239-246. 

Address Correspondences to:  
Chadi Youssef                                                                                                                         
School of Cultural and Professional Learning, 
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) 
Cnr Musk and Victoria Park Road, 
Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia 
chadi.youssef@connect.qut.edu.au 

 

Marilyn Campbell                                                                                                        
School of Cultural and Professional Learning, 
Queensland University of Technology (QUT). 
Cnr Musk and Victoria Park Road, 
Kelvin Gove, QLD, 4059, Australia 
ma.campbell@qut.edu.au 
 
Donna Tangen 
School of Cultural and Professional Learning, 
Queensland University of Technology (QUT). 
Cnr Musk and Victoria Park Road, 
Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia 
d.tangen@qut.edu.au 




