










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

35 
 

How Can We Promote the Treatment of Philosophical 

Questions in Primary School?  

The Perspective of Experienced Teachers 

 
 

Lise De Souter and Bruce Maxwell 
 

Abstract: At the international level, philosophical questions are increasingly used to develop students’ 
critical thinking, particularly in elementary school. Yet, despite this growing interest, their 
implementation in the classroom remains complex and raises several challenges for teachers. This article 
aims to support teaching practices by identifying the elements that foster philosophical inquiry in 
elementary school. To do so, we conducted a qualitative analysis of six interviews carried out with teachers 
experienced in philosophy with children. Based on the multi-agenda theoretical model (Bucheton and 
Soulé, 2009), the study highlights several elements which, when combined, foster a successful process of 
philosophical inquiry. The results presented offer promising avenues for teachers to effectively address 
philosophical questions in the classroom while ensuring the continuity of research and the validity and 
updating of recommendations formulated for teachers. 

 
Keywords: philosophy with children, critical thinking, philosophical questions, teaching practices, 
elementary school. 

Introduction 
 

t the international level, philosophical questions (PQ) are increasingly present in school 
curricula. This trend is part of a broader movement toward the democratization of 
philosophical practices in schools, supported by international bodies that recognize the 

importance of developing learners’ critical thinking from a young age (Chirouter, 2013; Coasne, 2023; 
Michaud and Gagnon, 2025). Yet, despite this growing interest, the treatment of PQ in the classroom 
remains complex and presents several challenges for teachers (Daniel, 2005; Daniel, 2007; Daniel, 2008; 
Michalik, 2019; Jolibert, 2015). In this context, this article aims to support teaching practices by 
identifying the elements that help foster the treatment of PQ in elementary classrooms. It reports the 
results of a qualitative study conducted with six experienced teachers from the second and third cycles 
of elementary school—cycles in which PQ are addressed in the Québec Education Program (MEQ, 
2023). 

 
The first part revisits the context in which philosophical practices have been democratized in 

schools, while the second part focuses on the difficulties teachers face when introducing and treating 
PQ with their students. These observations lead us to formulate our research question: what elements 
enable teachers to foster philosophical inquiry in their second and third-cycle elementary classrooms? 
We then present the multi-agenda model by Bucheton and Soulé (2009), which constitutes the 
theoretical framework of our study. After explaining the research method selected for this study, which 
included six semi-structured interviews with teachers experienced in philosophy with children (PWC), 
we present and discuss our main results. 

A 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

36 
 

The results show that treating PQ in the classroom relies on a combination of elements: a 
classroom atmosphere grounded in openness to differences, attentive listening, and respectful 
communication; flexible scaffolding focused on guidance rather than control; a spatial and temporal 
classroom arrangement that alters the teacher’s posture as a “holder of knowledge”; and the use of 
pedagogical supports—particularly picture books—that help connect PQ to students’ realities and 
concerns. 

 
The Democratization of Philosophical Inquiry in Elementary School 

 
Since the 1970s, experiments and research on philosophical inquiry in elementary school have 

been expanding and diversifying around the world (Chirouter, 2022; Michaud and Gagnon, 2025). 
With the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and the 
publication of the report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century 
at UNESCO (Delors et al., 1999), international bodies recognized the importance of developing 
learners’ critical thinking from the start of compulsory schooling, as well as the relevance of philosophy 
in achieving this goal. In doing so, they contributed to the recognition of PWC practices as a tool for 
fostering critical thinking within the broader project of forming tomorrow’s citizens. Although 
sometimes subject to criticism (Berton, 2015; Coasne, 2023), PWC is now viewed as an educational 
practice that promotes student expression, listening, and cooperation while preparing them to exercise 
active and informed citizenship (Daniel, 2008; Sasseville, 2009). Within this context, philosophical 
practices have been gaining an increasingly significant place in school curricula and are becoming more 
widespread around the world (Chirouter, 2013; Coasne, 2023; Michaud and Gagnon, 2025). 

 
Québec, in particular, is part of this movement, which is reflected in the increasingly explicit 

integration of philosophical content within its curricula. One of the most recent examples of this 
phenomenon is the reform of the Éthique et Culture Religieuse (Ethics and Religious Culture) (ERC) 
course, replaced by the Culture et Citoyenneté Québécoise (Culture and Citizenship in Québec) (CCQ) 
course. Introduced in 2008 for both elementary and secondary schools, the ERC program already 
provided a favorable framework for the emergence of philosophical practices (Beaucher, 2008; MEQ, 
2008). However, the CCQ program, which has replaced ERC since the start of the 2024 school year, 
marks a significant shift by prescribing the study of PQ as a formal object of teaching beginning in the 
second cycle of elementary school (MEQ, 2023; Point, 2025). This institutionalization of philosophy 
within Québec’s curriculum now places the responsibility on second and third-cycle teachers, who must 
work with content that has been only minimally explored in their initial and ongoing training. 

 
Addressing and Treating Philosophical Questions in the Classroom: Ongoing 

Difficulties 

 

Although Québec’s curricula give increasing prominence to PWC, its implementation in 
elementary schools remains uneven. Indeed, the practice of PWC often depends on teachers’ individual 
commitment, interest, or personal training (Sasseville, 2009). Thus, even if the institutional framework 
now recognizes the educational value of philosophical reflection, it remains, in practice, only minimally 
integrated into teachers’ pedagogical routines. Unlike contexts such as French-speaking Belgium, where 
PWC is institutionalized as a full-fledged subject from the age of six (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

37 
 

2017; Gagnon, 2021), Québec is still in a phase of gradual appropriation, now supported by the CCQ 
program (MEQ, 2023). Since the institutionalization of PQ, their implementation in schools raises the 
question of the conditions necessary for the emergence of philosophical reflection and for teachers’ 
successful integration of such questions in their classrooms. Several studies highlight challenges that 
continue to hinder the practice of philosophy in elementary schools. 
 

Among these studies, Michalik (2019) shows that both teachers and students encounter 
difficulties when addressing and working with PQ, largely because the ambiguity and uncertainty 
characteristic of such questions are uncommon in classroom contexts. In her review of philosophical 
experiences involving a group of elementary teachers and children, Michalik identifies three features of 
PQ that unsettle both teachers and students: their openness, the broad range of possible answers, and 
the unpredictability of exchanges. In her view, these elements contrast with more traditional pedagogical 
approaches and lead to a reversal of the teacher’s role, who must shift from being a “holder of 
knowledge” to a “facilitator of thinking”. This shift can disrupt teachers’ professional identity and 
generate a sense of lost control that may be uncomfortable for some. Michalik’s findings (2019) echo 
those of Daniel (2008), who shows that philosophy for children, and particularly the creation of a 
community of philosophical inquiry, requires teachers to trust in their students’ reflective abilities and 
to allow them to progress by “reducing” their own role to that of a simple guide. Daniel (2005) also 
notes that establishing such a philosophical community in schools requires a climate of trust and respect 
that can be difficult to achieve. According to the same study, philosophical inquiry is even harder to 
implement in certain contexts—for example, socio-economically disadvantaged environments where 
dialogue is not valued—which slows the development of a climate conducive to philosophical discussion. 
Time constraints, the need for regular and cross-curricular practice, and the gradual development of 
thinking skills constitute additional obstacles identified by Daniel (2007, 2008). To these difficulties is 
sometimes added the lack of teacher preparation. Jolibert (2015) notes, for instance, that initial teacher 
training in France provides little exposure to philosophy, which limits teachers’ ability to work with PQ. 
Although this observation is rooted in a specific context, in which philosophy holds a strong disciplinary 
status but is reserved for the secondary level (French lycées), it nevertheless resonates with the situation 
in Québec. There, philosophy is not a subject taught at the elementary level, which restricts its formal 
presence in initial teacher education. This situation is likely to evolve with the reform of the ERC course 
and its replacement by CCQ, which will presumably lead to adjustments in teacher training. Still, this 
parallel highlights a challenge shared by both France and Québec: the absence of mandatory training 
preparing teachers to address PQ in the classroom. 
 

Given all these factors, it is highly likely that many teachers in Québec, now responsible for 
integrating PQ following the recent implementation of the CCQ program, face similar difficulties and 
could benefit from guidance to help them navigate these challenges. 
 

Research Objective 

 

To support teaching practices in this area, this study aimed to identify elements that enable 
teachers to foster philosophical inquiry in second and third-cycle elementary classrooms. In a rapidly 
evolving educational context, marked by curriculum reform and increasing polarization in 
contemporary societies (Hirsch, 2025; Hirsch and Piché, 2023), ensuring the continuity of research and 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

38 
 

the validity of recommendations for teachers—who are on the front line of these issues—is vital. 
Accordingly, this study seeks, on the one hand, to update existing empirical data on the conditions that 
facilitate PQ treatment in the classroom, and on the other, to produce new data largely grounded in the 
Québec context, collected during the implementation of the CCQ program. An additional innovative 
aspect of this research is the use of the multi-agenda theoretical model (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009) to 
shed light on the challenges teachers face when addressing PQ with their students. The data collection 
tool was constructed based on the five concerns that make up this model, with the aim of identifying 
the elements that, in a given classroom context, enable teachers to foster philosophical inquiry. By 
drawing on this theoretical framework, the study aims not only to identify a set of elements that, when 
combined, support the treatment of PQ in Québec elementary classrooms, but also to highlight 
pedagogical aspects that prior research methods may not have revealed. 
 

Theoretical Framework: The Multi-Agenda Model as an Analytical Model of Teacher Action 

 

Developed in the 2000s by the multidisciplinary Educational Technology Research Team 40 in 
Montpellier, France, the multi-agenda model is grounded in a pedagogical-didactic research approach. 
In other words, pedagogy and didactics are brought together to elaborate a theoretical model that 
integrates concepts from both fields. The multi-agenda model serves as a theoretical framework designed 
to support the analysis of didactic situations. It aims to facilitate understanding of teachers’ actions by 
considering several elements that structure a teaching–learning situation (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009). 
These elements are organized around five major concerns: weaving, scaffolding, classroom atmosphere, 
steering, and learning the targeted knowledge. The model and its components are presented in Figure 
1. 

Figure 1. –  A multi-agenda of embedded concerns (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009, p. 33, [own 

translation]) 

 
The five elements – (1) steering, (2) classroom atmosphere, (3) weaving, (4) scaffolding, and (5) 

targeted knowledge—are defined by Bucheton and Soulé (2009) as follows. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

39 
 

 

The first concern of the model involves the teacher’s management of steering tasks. This refers 
to the teacher’s interventions in handling the practical constraints of the teaching–learning situation. 
This dimension requires attention to the spatial and temporal modalities used to teach the targeted 
knowledge—in this study, the treatment of a PQ. The second concern focuses on creating and 
maintaining the classroom atmosphere. It refers to the professional gestures teachers employ to establish 
and sustain a cognitive and relational climate conducive to teaching and learning the targeted 
knowledge. These gestures may include verbal strategies used to create and preserve dialogic spaces 
suitable for carrying out the learning activity. The third concern addresses the teacher’s scaffolding of 
the session. Scaffolding includes forms of support teachers use to assist student learning, teaching 
strategies that help deepen conceptual understanding, and regulatory gestures intended to maintain 
control over the teaching–learning situation (e.g., asking students to raise their hands before speaking). 
The fourth concern relates specifically to the weaving of a session—a form of scaffolding that makes the 
learning situation and targeted knowledge meaningful and relevant (in this case, making the PQ 
addressed by the teacher meaningful and relevant to students). Finally, the fifth concern of the multi-
agenda model, positioned at the center of the others, is the didactic concern. It refers to the pedagogical 
goal targeted for students, which guides the teacher’s actions throughout the session. It is around this 
pedagogical goal that the teacher mobilizes the various “organizing” elements of the session (weaving, 
scaffolding, classroom atmosphere, and steering) to achieve the targeted knowledge. 

 

These concerns constitute the matrix of teacher activity in the classroom and its organizing 
elements (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009, p. 32). They are both systemic, in that they co-act with one 
another, and hierarchical, in that the teacher may choose, depending on the context, to prioritize the 
creation of relational conditions necessary to continue the work, sometimes at the expense of specific 
lesson content. Thus, the organization, importance, and development of the model’s concerns may vary 
depending on the period of the school year, the teacher’s training, or the teacher’s posture and 
relationship to knowledge. It is also important to note that this model makes it possible to identify 
elements relating both to the introduction of PQ in the classroom and to students’ philosophical 
treatment of such questions. Finally, in this study, the targeted knowledge at the center of the multi-
agenda analytical model is not the PQ itself but the philosophical treatment associated with it. In other 
words, the focus is less on the nature of the question posed than on the way it is worked through in 
class—that is, on the reflective process and intellectual skills students mobilize to turn it into an object 
of philosophical thought. As Jolibert (2015) points out, introducing a question with philosophical 
potential does not in itself guarantee a genuine philosophical inquiry. For an intellectual activity to be 
considered philosophical, specific conditions must be met: philosophical thinking is characterized by 
critical rigor, universality, and an orientation toward the search for truth. In this sense, the philosophical 
treatment of a PQ refers not to the topic itself, but to the way it is questioned, discussed, and 
problematized during the activity. Ultimately, the philosophical treatment of a question, as understood 
in this study, must lead students to engage in philosophizing through a process of meaning-making that 
fosters autonomy of thought and the development of critical thinking. 

 

 

 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

40 
 

Methodology 

 

Positioned within the field of philosophy didactics in elementary school, this study aimed to 
identify elements that, when combined, foster the treatment of PQ in elementary classrooms. We 
conducted six semi-structured interviews with elementary teachers experienced in PWC, from both 
Québec and France. These interviews provided insight into which teaching practices support the 
emergence of philosophical reflection among students. 

 

Participants 

 

The sample included six elementary teachers: five from Québec and one from France. The 
French teacher had participated in a previous study on philosophy in elementary schools, demonstrating 
her experience and quality of practice in PWC. 
 

The sample spanned the relevant elementary school levels (second and third cycles, ages 6 to 
11). While five participants were women and one was a man, the group represented diverse experience 
levels: three teachers had over 15 years of teaching, two had between five and ten years, and one had 
less than five years but recently completed university training in PWC. 
 

Teachers were selected based on five criteria: (1) currently employed (not students or retired), 
(2) teaching in the second or third elementary cycles, (3) holding a teaching degree, (4) practicing PWC, 
and (5) having completed or received training in PWC. The latter ensured participants had expertise 
and commitment to PWC, gained through varied pathways. Some participants, trained at a time when 
university-level opportunities for PWC training were less available, acquired their skills through peers, 
continuing education, and regular classroom practice of philosophy with their students. Others, more 
recently graduated, benefited from university programs specifically dedicated to this field. 
 

Data Collection 

 

A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the five concerns of Bucheton and 
Soulé’s (2009) multi-agenda model. It served as the foundation for our data collection tool, highlighting 
essential dimensions for analyzing teaching–learning situations: (1) management of task steering in 
spatial and temporal dimensions, (2) maintenance of an atmosphere conducive to learning, (3) weaving, 
which seeks to make the situation and targeted knowledge meaningful and relevant, (4) scaffolding, 
considered central for supporting, deepening, and regulating learning, and (5) the didactic concern, 
focused on knowledge construction for students (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009). These concerns formed 
the five categories of the interview guide (see Appendix 1). 
 

Six individual interviews, lasting 40 to 60 minutes, were conducted remotely via 
videoconferencing. The semi-structured format, conceived as a flexible oral interaction (Savoie-Zajc, 
2009), enabled participants to provide coherent, personal accounts of their experience treating PQ in 
the classroom. Teachers signed a free and informed consent form guaranteeing anonymity (teachers 
were assigned pseudonyms), confidentiality, and the right to withdraw. Interviews were recorded with 
consent, fully transcribed verbatim, and manually corrected for accuracy and fidelity (Rioufreyt, 2016). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

41 
 

All interviews were conducted following ethical approval from the Education and Psychology Research 
Ethics Committee at the Université de Montréal.1 
 

Data Analysis 

 

Transcripts were imported into NVivo software to facilitate the analysis. We followed Braun and 
Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis process: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generating initial 
codes, (3) grouping codes into potential themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and refining themes, 
and (6) producing the report. This iterative process, with frequent movement between data and 
categories, ensured coherence and validity, guided primarily by the theoretical framework but open to 
emergent contributions from teachers’ discourse. Based on Bucheton and Soulé’s (2009) five concerns, 
the analysis identified elements from teachers’ accounts that facilitate PQ treatment in the classroom. 
We added an additional category on teacher training, a theme recurrently mentioned and considered 
by participants as central to their practice. 
 

Key Findings:  

Elements Supporting the Treatment of Philosophical Questions in Elementary School 

 

Classroom Atmosphere: Creating and Sustaining Dialogic Spaces 

 

The interviews revealed that, according to teachers, working with PQ in the classroom first 
requires establishing “dispositions”, rules, or habits with students. Annie, one of the six teachers 
interviewed, emphasized that these “dispositions”, essential to the classroom atmosphere, develop from 
the start of the school year, initially through non-philosophical activities. Once students internalize these 
dispositions, their ability to focus on philosophical reflection strengthens, and teachers feel more 
confident engaging with PQ. 
 

Marie exemplified this approach by dedicating an introductory class session on 
philosophy before addressing PQ. This session allows her to clarify the “right” dispositions for 
productive philosophical discussion, such as “all ideas are acceptable and open to discussion,” 
“everyone’s voice is to be treasured,” and “together we build richer and better ideas.” All six teachers 
agreed that establishing these intellectual dispositions creates a safe, caring atmosphere where students’ 
contributions are valued equally and not judged by peers. 
 

When asked to identify the dispositions they considered essential to a classroom atmosphere 
conducive to working with PQ, teachers identified three interconnected elements: openness to 
difference, respectful communication, and attentive listening. These three dispositions apply to both 
students and teachers and supported PQ treatment in all six classrooms. Teachers always described them 
in relation to one another: respect and listening foster openness; openness and listening are perceived 
as forms of respect; and openness and respect both presuppose attentive listening to others’ ideas. 
 

Teachers characterized openness to difference as recognizing the plurality of viewpoints, without 
the need to adhere to or judge them. Over time, maintaining these parameters (openness, respect, 

 
1 Certificate approved on October 6, 2024. Certification number: 2024-6154 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

42 
 

listening) also strengthens the bond of trust between teacher and students. Once this trust is established, 
teachers report feeling more at ease addressing potentially sensitive or controversial topics. This 
atmosphere and sense of trust allow teachers to worry less about the kinds of answers students may 
provide. 
 

Finally, most Québec teachers interviewed also reported using logical fallacies (explicit content 
in the CCQ program [MEQ, 2023]) to support the development and maintenance of a climate 
conducive to philosophical discussion. Once students understand and master different types of fallacies 
(e.g., appeal to authority, false dilemma, stereotyping, overgeneralization), classroom dialogue becomes 
easier to manage. Several teachers mentioned that students become better able to regulate their own 
speech or that of their peers once they can identify fallacies in exchanges. 
 

These dimensions, related to creating and sustaining philosophical dialogic spaces, are strongly 
connected to the other components of the configuration. For instance, the classroom atmosphere 
supports a specific form of scaffolding used by teachers when working with PQ, and this scaffolding, in 
turn, reinforces an atmosphere conducive to philosophical dialogue. 
 

Scaffolding a Philosophical Discussion: Helping Students Understand, Express, and Act 

 

During the interviews, we examined teachers’ scaffolding postures using Bucheton and Soulé’s 
(2009, p. 41) classification table. This table distinguishes several scaffolding postures (accompaniment, 
control, release, teaching-conceptualization, and magician) based on the professional gestures and 
intentions that characterize them. These gestures and intentions are identified for each of the five 
dimensions of the teacher action model (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009). For example, a control posture is 
recognized through collective, synchronous, and tightly managed steering, a hierarchical atmosphere, 
and limited weaving. 

 
Our analysis showed that adopting an accompaniment posture supports the productive 

treatment of PQ. All six teachers experienced in PWC reported using this posture during philosophical 
inquiry with their students. It involves demonstrating flexibility and openness in facilitating 
philosophical discussions and encourages a collaborative rather than a competitive atmosphere 
(Bucheton and Soulé, 2009). It also allows teachers to help students generate their own knowledge and 
ideas, guiding them toward a reflective rather than passive stance. In this perspective, the teacher acts 
as a facilitator of thinking: they support and stimulate students’ philosophical reflection by prompting 
them to articulate, refine, and justify their ideas. 

 
Conversely, a control posture proved counterproductive, tending to hinder dialogue. Teachers 

must avoid imposing a hierarchical relationship, which would contradict the established classroom 
climate, as this would imply that one voice dominates others. 
 

We also observed that half of the teachers occasionally alternated the accompaniment posture 
with others, notably the release posture or the teaching-conceptualization posture. The former aims to 
allow greater spontaneity within the group, while the latter places students in a focused and attentive 
atmosphere, helping them draw connections to prior activities and adopt a reflective, post-activity 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

43 
 

stance. However, our data do not allow us to conclude that these alternative postures facilitate the 
treatment of PQ at the elementary level. 
 

Finally, our results highlight the importance of teacher impartiality when working with PQ. 
Teachers reported being aware that their own words can strongly influence students’ thinking, as they 
are seen as authority figures holding knowledge. Catherine noted that maintaining impartiality is not 
always easy and that expressing one’s opinion can be a “trap” teachers should avoid: “We want our 
students to be good people, so we end up being biased everywhere. That’s the worst trap.” 
 

Steering Tasks: Managing the Spatial and Temporal Constraints of the Situation 

 

Regarding task steering, teachers emphasized the circular arrangement of students as an effective 
spatial setup for working with PQ. While this arrangement is widely recognized as conducive to dialogue, 
some clarifications offered by teachers deserve attention. 

 
First, students must be able to see and hear one another clearly. Second, it is important that 

neither the teacher’s nor the students’ position implicitly creates hierarchy. For example, if the teacher 
sits within the circle, they should not be seated on a chair while students sit on the floor, as this would 
imply superiority. The circle arrangement temporarily “suspends” the traditional school form (Vincent 
et al., 2012; Reuter et al., 2013), in which the teacher stands at the front transmitting knowledge to 
students sitting in rows. The circle therefore supports attentive listening and the accompaniment 
posture. 

 

Temporally, teachers agreed that philosophical inquiry cannot be “shortened” without 
compromising its quality. Providing answers or guiding ideas may seem like a time saver but has the 
opposite effect by limiting students’ autonomous thinking and creating the illusion of successful 
philosophical inquiry. To support authentic philosophical treatment, teachers should avoid “rushing” 
students by supplying arguments and should instead encourage the emergence of their own reasoning. 
Sufficient time for reflection strengthens the possibility of adopting an accompaniment posture and of 
fostering successful philosophical inquiry, in which students formulate their own ideas, problematize 
the question, justify their positions, and confront differing viewpoints. 

 
Overall, teachers’ accounts suggested that processing a PQ in the second and third cycles typically 

requires at least three philosophical sessions (workshops, discussions, or communities of inquiry) lasting 
between 35 and 50 minutes each. 

 
Weaving: Making the Learning Situation and Targeted Knowledge Meaningful and Relevant 

 

To give meaning and relevance to PQ, teachers emphasized the importance of anchoring them 
in students’ realities and concerns, so they engage fully with philosophical reflection. To achieve this, 
teachers use a variety of pedagogical resources (picture books, scenarios, videos, etc.), as well as examples 
drawn from students’ daily lives, interests, or events in class or during recess. Julie stated this clearly: 
“When my scenarios are directly connected to them, it really makes sense, because first, they get 
involved, and second, they become engaged.” According to teachers, it is this link between the topic 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

44 
 

and students’ lived experiences that drives their investment in philosophical inquiry. Pedagogical 
supports serve both to spark students’ questioning—as if they had brought up an existential question 
themselves—and to provide different perspectives and material for reflection. However, our analysis 
revealed one support that returned consistently in teachers’ discourse: the picture book. 

 

First, picture books serve as triggers for discussion or debate. They allow reflection to begin with 
a shared reference point: the narrative. Isabelle, one of the teachers, gave an example of a book she uses 
to provoke reactions among her students: 
 

I choose books that I know will maybe surprise them [the students]; books that have a slightly 
unusual ending. There’s one where you think it’s a knight searching for his princess throughout 
the story. But no, it’s the story of a girl on her horse searching for her princess – it’s actually a 
girl looking for another girl. 
 

In this example, the teacher chooses a story that destabilizes students because it contradicts traditional 
narrative expectations (a knight seeking a princess) and challenges gender stereotypes. Here, the picture 
book has students confront social norms and invites reflection on dominant social representations (in 
this case, heteronormativity). The surprise effect supports students’ engagement, and their reactions 
become a catalyst for philosophical inquiry. 

 

Third, PQ may introduce sensitive themes. Marie explained that using a picture book allows 
students to “distance themselves a bit more,” compared to class discussions where students may feel 
personally targeted. Fiction creates a buffer that helps protect students from emotional exposure while 
enabling discussion of sensitive topics. Students can express ideas through characters, situations, or 
dilemmas in the story, without referring directly to themselves. This distance creates a safer dialogic 
space. 

 

Fourth, picture books promote participation from all students, especially those who usually 
speak less. Martin, a participating teacher, observed: 

The philosophical question can encourage participation, but the picture book supports those 
who don’t engage much during discussions. They use examples from the book more easily. 

Thus, while a PQ alone may engage some students, the picture book supports those less inclined to 
speak by giving them shared reference points that facilitate understanding of the PQ and allow all 
students to participate. 

 

Finally, teachers emphasized that presenting pedagogical materials that spark philosophical 
questioning is not sufficient in itself. Preparing follow-up prompts (sub-questions, examples, 
counterexamples) in advance is a key strategy for guiding students toward a reflective posture and 
preparing teachers to adopt an accompaniment posture. 

 

Training for PWC Through Practice: A Promising Avenue? 

 
Teacher training emerged as a distinctive issue throughout our findings. For this reason, teachers were 

invited to discuss their own training and to offer advice for those beginning in PWC. Analysis of the transcripts 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

45 
 

showed that three of the six teachers recommended attending or participating in philosophical practices to better 
understand how they work. For instance, Catherine, a Québec teacher, encourages less-experienced colleagues to 
observe the PWC sessions she conducts with her students. For these three teachers, taking part themselves in 
philosophical discussions during their training was what motivated them to reproduce such practices with their 
students. Julie, also a teacher in Québec, explains: 

[During the university training in PWC], the first four classes were dedicated to theory on 
philosophy with children. Then, during the nine classes that followed, she [the professor] had 
us experience what a philosophy workshop really is. And that was the best thing in the world. 
Because I truly understood… and I really loved it. I told myself that this was exactly what I wanted 
my students to experience too. 

Thus, in half of the interviews, teachers emphasized the value of training in philosophical practices by 
observing experienced peers or engaging directly in philosophical discussion as a form of self-initiation 
into these practices. Viewed from this angle, training grounded in peer learning or lived experience 
appears to support the appropriation and classroom transfer of models that have already proven 
effective. Of course, although the practices experienced or observed by teachers and later reproduced in 
their classrooms do not necessarily guarantee results identical to those encountered during training, 
they nevertheless provide concrete reference points regarding strategies likely to support the treatment 
of PQ. This form of collaborative learning, still scarcely documented in research, represents, in our view, 
a promising avenue for teachers’ professional development in this field. It is important to interpret these 
findings with caution, however, since only half of the teachers referred to this aspect. They therefore 
cannot be taken as a guarantee of successful philosophical treatment, but they nonetheless constitute a 
promising direction to be explored in future research. 
 

Table 1. – Summary of the results 

Dimensions Elements supporting the treatment of PQ in elementary school and 
their classroom effects 

Classroom 
atmosphere: Creating 
and sustaining dialogic 

spaces 

Openness to difference, 
respectful communication, 
attentive listening 

Develops trust between students 
and between teacher and students 

Referencing logical fallacies Regulates students’ speech 
Scaffolding the 
session: helping 

students understand, 
express, and act 

Accompaniment posture 
Impartiality posture 
Prompts: invitation to formulate, 
nuance, and justify an idea 

Teacher becomes a facilitator of 
thinking 

Steering tasks: 
managing spatial and 
temporal constraints 

Circular arrangement Temporarily removes hierarchical 
relationships 

Regular practice 
Allow sufficient time 

Fosters philosophical reflection 
among students 

Weaving: making the 
situation and targeted 
knowledge meaningful 

and relevant  

Use pedagogical supports, shared 
reflection supports 

Provokes questioning among 
students, triggers discussion 

Anchor pedagogical supports in 
students’ realities and concerns 

Involves students in philosophical 
treatment 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

46 
 

Engages students in philosophical 
reflection 

Use fiction (e.g., picture books)  Creates distance during reflection 
Creates a safe space for discussion 
 

Offer shared reflection support Promotes reflection and 
participation from all students 

 

Discussion 

 

The findings of this study show that the treatment of PQ places teachers in a position of 
imbalance. They must adjust their posture, accept a degree of uncertainty, and navigate situations that 
may at times feel uncomfortable. In doing so, PWC practices may come into tension with teachers’ 
conceptions of their own profession, traditional school norms, or their usual planning routines. Yet the 
key to successful treatment of PQ lies precisely in accepting this uncertainty. Philosophizing with 
students requires daring not to control everything, recognizing the legitimacy of their ideas, and 
collaboratively constructing a richer understanding of the world. 

 

This research does not claim to provide “miracle solutions” enabling all teachers to successfully 
foster philosophical reflection among their students. Rather, its aim was to examine, through an 
innovative methodology, the practices of teachers experienced in this domain to draw insights from 
them. In this respect, our approach sought to amplify teachers’ voices, strengthening them through 
scientific and in-depth analysis of their practices so that other teachers may benefit. 

 

In addition to reflecting many of the concerns experienced by teachers who practise PWC and 
updating existing empirical data, the results align with previous work on these practices. The first 
dimension of Bucheton and Soulé’s (2009) multi-agenda model concerns the classroom atmosphere. As 
Michalik (2019) shows, the openness of PQ and the uncertainty they generate can make teachers more 
hesitant to engage in PWC. From this perspective, establishing a climate of trust appears to be a 
promising starting point. Moreover, our results directly echo several observations in the literature. For 
example, Michaud and Gagnon (2023) note that philosophical dialogue practices help students develop 
“certain dispositions” (p. 5) that foster reflection and relationships with others. This resonates with our 
findings, which highlight the crucial role of dispositions such as attentive listening, mutual respect, and 
openness to diversity in the treatment of PQ. 

 

Regarding scaffolding and teacher posture, one difficulty identified by Michalik (2019) concerns 
the shift in posture triggered by PQ. Similarly, Bélanger et al. (2023), drawing on Barrow (2015), remind 
us that children perceive a change in the teacher’s authority relationship after a few sessions of 
philosophical dialogue. We observed this as well: the treatment of a PQ calls for a modulation, or even 
a modification, of teacher posture. The posture emphasized by experienced teachers in this study was 
characterized by accompaniment rather than control. The interviews indicate that adopting a more 
flexible posture, open to uncertainty, helps teachers feel more comfortable within PWC practices. 
Following Bélanger et al. (2023), we also observed that participants agreed that teachers have the 
responsibility to grant each student the status of a “valid interlocutor”, as defined by Lévine et al. (2014), 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

47 
 

that is, “a human being equal to other human beings with respect to their right to think” (Lévine et al., 
2014, p. 68, in Bélanger et al., 2023, [our own translation]). The authors add that teachers have the 
responsibility to thoughtfully consider each student’s ideas, since these ideas hold value within the 
reflective process and must therefore be heard and understood by their peers. Another perspective on 
scaffolding comes from Hawken (2023), who examines the role of pedagogical tact in reformulating 
students’ ideas. The author identifies several forms of reformulation, for example, types of prompting 
that are useful when applied tactfully: “using humor, gently exaggerating a point, stating the need to 
reformulate in order to understand, highlighting the absurdity of an idea, or simply holding back and 
delegating to the group” (p. 70, [our own translation]). According to Hawken, the teacher posture 
conducive to facilitating a philosophical discussion is “always that of a tightrope walker” (p. 79). Our 
participants discussed such strategies, but their effects on students and on learning remain unverified. 
Classroom observations and student interviews would make it possible to assess their concrete impact 
on the quality of philosophical discussion. 
 

Our results are also enriched when compared with research on teacher impartiality in the 
treatment of sensitive topics at school. In the interviews, all teachers mentioned adopting a posture of 
impartiality, which they describe as a deliberate suspension of their own ideas, judgments, and beliefs. 
According to Maxwell and Sénécal (2023), impartiality entails addressing “the sensitive theme under 
study in a balanced and unbiased manner, showing students multiple sides of the issue and remaining 
open and tolerant toward different perspectives” (p. 2, [our own translation]). Thus, far from implying 
withdrawal or effacement, this posture consists in creating a setting conducive to the exploration of 
multiple viewpoints. Notably, such impartiality also supports a certain distance from traditional school 
norms and from the image of the teacher as “holder of knowledge”. By maintaining this posture, 
teachers reduce the likelihood that students respond according to perceived expectations (see Maxwell 
et al., 2020). In doing so, they preserve the reflective and critical dimension essential to the treatment 
of PQ. 
 

Regarding weaving, our results support the idea that students’ engagement in philosophical 
reflection is strengthened when teachers use common supports. According to participants, youth 
literature provides shared reference points that allow students to mobilize meaningful examples during 
philosophical discussions. These findings resonate with Chirouter’s work, which examines how young 
students use children’s literature to deepen their philosophical reflections (Chirouter, 2008; Chirouter, 
2011; Chirouter, 2013). A major contribution of Chirouter (2013) is the idea of “safe distancing” made 
possible by fictional narratives. Fictional characters act as a “screen”, preventing students from 
confronting personal vulnerability, shyness, or the shame they might feel if they had to evoke intimate 
questions directly. We therefore support, along with Chirouter, that youth literature is a valuable 
resource for teachers seeking to treat PQ. 
 

Finally, it is undeniable that teachers’ discourse cannot fully reflect classroom reality. Our study 
is thus limited to teachers’ recollections and interpretations of their own experiences. It is important to 
acknowledge this inherent limitation: the actions described by teachers do not necessarily mirror the 
actual actions taken in class. 

 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

48 
 

Conclusion 

 
This article is situated within the broader context of the democratization of philosophical 

practices in elementary schools and the implementation of the CCQ program in Québec. It sought to 
answer the following question: what elements enable teachers to foster philosophical inquiry in their 
second and third-cycle elementary classrooms? Drawing on the multi-agenda model (Bucheton and 
Soulé, 2009), the methodological approach relied on six semi-structured interviews with teachers 
experienced in PWC. The thematic analysis of the transcripts highlighted, for each concern of the 
model, elements that support the introduction of PQ in the classroom, and subsequently, their 
philosophical treatment: a classroom atmosphere grounded in openness, listening, and respect; a 
posture of accompaniment and impartiality, steering that promotes attentive listening and minimizes 
hierarchical relationships; weaving anchored in students’ lived experiences; and the use of shared 
supports, particularly youth literature. 

 
References 

 
Barrow, W. (2015). ‘I think she’s learnt how to sort of let the class speak’: Children’s perspectives on 

Philosophy for Children as participatory pedagogy. Thinking skills and creativity, 17, 76-87. 
Beaucher, V. (2008). La philosophie pour enfants : fondements, bénéfices et apports au curriculum 

d'Éthique et culture religieuse. Diotime : Revue internationale de didactique de la philosophie, 38. 
https://diotime.lafabriquephilosophique.be/numeros/038/021/Diotime 

Bélanger, N., Gagnon, M. & Smith, J. (2023). La pratique du dialogue philosophique au service du 

respect inconditionnel de la personne enseignante. Éthique en éducation et en formation, (15), 42–
61. https://doi.org/10.7202/1110001ar 

Berton, B. (2015). Le débat philosophique à l’école primaire : une identité en construction [Doctoral thesis, 
Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille III].  
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01282139 

Bucheton, D., et Soulé, Y. (2009). Les gestes professionnels et le jeu des postures de l’enseignant dans 

la classe : un multi-agenda de préoccupations enchâssées. Éducation & Didactique, 3 (3). 29-48. 
https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.543 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Utiliser l'analyse thématique en psychologie. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2). 77-101.  

Chirouter, E. (2008). L’enfant, la littérature et la philosophie. Penser l'éducation, (24), 43-63. 
Chirouter, E. (2011). L’enfant, la littérature et la philosophie. Comment la lecture philosophique de 

récits dès l’école élémentaire peut permettre une reconnaissance de l’élève-sujet et instaurer un 

nouveau rapport au savoir. Chemins de formation au fil du temps, 16, 73-82. 
Chirouter, E. (2013). Penser le monde grâce à la littérature : analyse d’une pratique à visée 

philosophique à l’école primaire. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 39 (1), 91-117. 
https://doi.org/10.7202/1024534ar 

https://diotime.lafabriquephilosophique.be/numeros/038/021/Diotime
https://doi.org/10.7202/1110001ar
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01282139
https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.543
https://doi.org/10.7202/1024534ar


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

49 
 

Chirouter, E. (2022). Pour une école philosophique. Penser l’école à la lumière de la philosophie avec 

les enfants. In E. Chirouter (ed.), La philosophie avec les enfants : Un paradigme pour 

l'émancipation, la reconnaissance et la résonance. 23-43. Éditions Raison publique. 
https://doi.org/10.3917/erp.chiro.2022.01.0023. 

Coasne, M. (2023). Enseigner la philosophie avant le lycée : réinterroger le ro ̂le et la place de la philosophie dans 

l’éducation au prisme de la philosophie pour enfants. [Doctoral thesis, Université Paris-Est Créteil 
Val-de-Marne - Paris 12]. https://theses.hal.science/tel-04480266v1/document 

Daniel, M. F. (2005). Pour l’apprentissage d’une pensée critique au primaire. PUQ : Presses de l’Université 

du Québec.  
Daniel, M. F. (2007). Epistemological and educational presuppositions of P4C: from critical dialogue 

to dialogical critical thinking. Gifted Education International, 22 (2-3). 135-147. 
Daniel, M. F., (2008). Chapitre 2. Présupposés philosophiques et pédagogiques de Matthew Lipman et 

leurs applications. In C. Leleux (ed), La philosophie pour enfants : Le modèle de Matthew Lipman en 

discussion. (p. 25-45). De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.leleu.2008.01.0025 
Delors, J., Mufti, A. A., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., 

Quero, M. P., & Savane, M. A. (1999). Learning: The Treasure Within Report to UNESCO of the 

International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. UNESCO. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=uiEwOAAACAAJ 

Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles. (2017). Cours de philosophie et de citoyenneté - Programme d’études - Cycles 2, 

3 et 4 de l’enseignement fondamental. 
http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=27915&navi=4429 

Gagnon, M. (2021). La philosophie pour enfants : une approche pédagogique ou une discipline scolaire ? 
L’aut’Journal. https://www.lautjournal.info/20210312/la-philosophie-pour-enfants-une-
approche-%20pedagogique-ou-une-discipline-scolaire 

Hawken, J. (2023). Comment construire une pratique éthique de la reformulation en discussion 
philosophique ? La notion de tact et l’éclairage de Herbart, de Canguilhem et d’Eirick 

Prairat. Éthique en éducation et en formation, (15), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.7202/1110002ar 

Hess, D. E. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. PS : Political 

Science & Politics, 37(2), 257-261. 
Hirsch, S. (2025). L’éducation à la citoyenneté dans le nouveau programme de Culture et citoyenneté 

québécoise : une nouvelle place pour une nouvelle approche ? In C. Adriana Stan et O. Lemieux 

(eds.), Culture et citoyenneté à l’école québécoise. 39-55. PUL : Presses de l’Université de Laval.  
Hirsch, S. & Moisan, S. (2022). Ouvrir une brèche dans le chaos du monde tout en favorisant les 

apprentissages. Définition, pratiques et tensions inhérentes aux thèmes sensibles en 
enseignement de l’histoire et de l’éthique. In S.Moisan, S.Hirsch, M.-A. Éthier et D. Lefrançois 

(eds.), Objets difficiles, thèmes sensibles et enseignement des sciences humaines et sociales (p. 61-88). 
FIDES. 

https://doi.org/10.3917/erp.chiro.2022.01.0023
https://theses.hal.science/tel-04480266v1/document
https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.leleu.2008.01.0025
https://books.google.ca/books?id=uiEwOAAACAAJ
http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=27915&navi=4429
https://www.lautjournal.info/20210312/la-philosophie-pour-enfants-une-approche-%20pedagogique-ou-une-discipline-scolaire
https://www.lautjournal.info/20210312/la-philosophie-pour-enfants-une-approche-%20pedagogique-ou-une-discipline-scolaire
https://doi.org/10.7202/1110002ar


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

50 
 

Hirsch, S. & Piché, A.-C. (2023). Lorsque les thèmes sensibles s’invitent à une discussion à visée 
démocratique et philosophique : analyse des pratiques enseignantes dans l’application de 

l’approche PhiloJeunes. Éthique en éducation et en formation, (15), 81–98. 
https://doi.org/10.7202/1110003ar 

Jolibert, B. (2015). Philosopher à l’école primaire ? Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger, 140. 
291-306. https://doi.org/10.3917/rphi.153.0291 

Lévine, J., Chambard, G., Gostain, D., et Sillam, M. (2014). L'enfant philosophe, avenir de l’humanité ? 

Ateliers AGSAS de réflexion sur la condition humaine (ARCH). ESF. 
Maxwell, B. (2023). Teacher Neutrality, Pedagogical Impartiality, and Democratic Education. Dans J. 

Culp, J. Drerup, & D. Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education (p. 607–
627). Cambridge University Press. 

Maxwell, B., Clarke, P., & Anderson, M. (2023). Teaching and learning about religion in secular public 

schools: Law-based guidelines for teachers and school officials. Education & Law Journal, 32(1), 
21-59. 

Maxwell, B., McDonough K., & Waddington D. (2020). La liberté d'expression des enseignants en 

classe : quatre principes directeurs et leurs fondements juridiques. Revue des sciences de l'éducation, 

46(3), 174-198. DOI : 10.7202/1075992ar 
Maxwell, B. & Senécal, M. (2023). L’impartialité enseignante : un regard scientifique et réglementaire 

[Chronic]. Formation et profession, 31(3), 1-7.  
https://dx.doi.org/10.18162/fp.2023.a312 

Michaud, O., & Gagnon, M. (2025). Le rôle de la pratique de la philosophie dans l’éducation citoyenne 

d’élèves du secondaire. In C. Adriana Stan et O. Lemieux (eds.), Culture et citoyenneté à l’école 

québécoise. 249-266. PUL : Presses de l’Université de Laval.  
Michaud, O. & Gagnon, M. (2023). Présentation du numéro : la philosophie pour enfants et 

l’éducation à l’éthique : regard sur la diversité théorique et pratique. Éthique en éducation et en 

formation, (15), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.7202/1109998ar 
Michalik, K. (2019). Teacher and learner perspectives on philosophical discussion – Uncertainty as a 

challenge and opportunity. Childhood & Philosophy, 15. 1-20. 
https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2019.42675 

Ministère de l’éducation du Québec (MEQ). (2023). Programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise. 
Québec : ministère de l’Éducation du Québec. 

Ministère de l’éducation du Québec (MEQ). (2008). Programme Éthique et culture religieuse. Québec : 
ministère de l’éducation du Québec. 

Point, C. (2025). Manuel d’éthique professionnelle pour l’enseignement au primaire. PUQ : Presses de 
l’Université du Québec. 
https://www.ohchr.org/fr/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child 

https://doi.org/10.7202/1110003ar
https://doi.org/10.3917/rphi.153.0291
https://dx.doi.org/10.18162/fp.2023.a312
https://doi.org/10.7202/1109998ar
https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2019.42675
https://www.ohchr.org/fr/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

51 
 

Reuter, Y., Cohen-Azria, C., Daunay, B., Delcambre, I. & Lahanier-Reuter, D. (2013). Forme scolaire. 

Dictionnaire des concepts fondamentaux des didactiques (p. 107-111). De Boeck Supérieur. 
https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.reute.2013.01.0107. 

Rioufreyt, T. (2016). La transcription d'entretiens en sciences sociales. HAL. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-
01339474v1 

Sasseville, M. (2009). La pratique de la philosophie avec les enfants. PUL : Presses Université Laval.  

Savoie-Zajc, L. (2009). L’entrevue semi-dirigée. Recherche sociale : de la problématique à la collecte des données, 

5. 337-360. 

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Treaty Collection,1577, 3.  

Vincent, G., Courtebras, B., & Reuter, Y. (2012). La forme scolaire : débats et mises au point. Recherches 

en didactiques, 13(1), 109-135. 
 
Address Correspondences to: 
Lise De Souter 
Université de Montréal 
Étudiante au doctorat en sciences de l'éducation / PhD student in Educational Sciences 
lise.de.souter@umontreal.ca 
 
Bruce Maxwell 
Université de Montréal 
Professeur agrégé / Associate Professor 
bruce.maxwell@umontreal.ca 
 
Translated from the French by Lise De Souter and Bruce Maxwell, with AI-assisted translation 
Traduction Dupont (info@traductiondupont.com). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.reute.2013.01.0107
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01339474v1
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01339474v1
mailto:lise.de.souter@umontreal.ca
mailto:bruce.maxwell@umontreal.ca
mailto:info@traductiondupont.com


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

52 
 

Appendix 1 – Semi-structured interview guide 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


