










































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

  
 

54 
 

Fieldnotes: Integrating AI Ethic into Philosophy for Children: 

Account of a Data-Privacy Lesson 

 
 

Mohammad Reza Vaez Shahresani 
 
 
Abstract: This Fieldnotes article documents the design and implementation of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) 
lesson aimed at introducing children aged 8–12 to the ethical dimensions of Artificial Intelligence (AI), with a 
particular focus on data privacy. Drawing on the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) methodology—
specifically the “Plain Vanilla” model associated with Thomas Jackson and disseminated by the IAPC (Yarmel & 
Gregory, 2023)—the session employed an illustrated narrative stimulus, “Liam’s Secret Base,” followed by 
student‑generated dialogue and a collaborative “Safe Sharing Scenario” activity. These components were designed 
to foster critical, creative, and caring thinking (Lipman, 2003) about digital life. This article demonstrates that 
engaging young learners in ethical inquiry about AI technologies is both timely—given the global call for 
age‑appropriate AI‑ethics education (UNICEF, 2021; Dabbagh et al., 2025)—and feasible, since most children 
already interact with AI‑mediated platforms. Classroom reflections showed that the lesson supported 
higher‑order reasoning, metacognitive awareness, and collaborative dialogue in a supportive environment, 
outcomes consistent with reported benefits of P4C (Adams et al., 2023; Ab Wahab et al., 2022). Rather than 
prescribing a list of “don’ts,” educators used open‑ended questions and realistic digital‑life scenarios to nurture 
children’s autonomy in ethical decision‑making, echoing participatory design approaches from the MIT Media 
Lab’s AI + Ethics curriculum (Wu, 2020; Williams et al., 2022). We conclude that P4C—co‑founded by Matthew 
Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp (Gregory & Laverty, 2017)—provides an effective pedagogical framework for 
integrating digital‑ethics learning into childhood education, enabling students to become thoughtful, informed, 
and responsible digital citizens capable of navigating an increasingly data‑driven world (Floridi, 2023/2024; 
Turner, 2019). 
 

Introduction 

 
rtificial intelligence (AI) is an integral component of children’s daily environments, 
including personalized learning platforms, video games, voice assistants, and 
recommendation systems (UNICEF, 2021). While these technologies promise 

opportunities for creativity, accessibility, and engagement, they also raise ethical concerns, including 
data privacy, algorithmic bias, informed consent, and the fairness of automated decisions (Floridi, 
2023/2024; Adams et al., 2023). Preparing children to navigate these challenges requires 
age‑appropriate ethics education that complements technical digital literacy skills (Turner, 2019; 
Dabbagh et al., 2025). Yet many curricula address digital citizenship only superficially, without sustained 
opportunities to deliberate on normative questions such as: “What counts as private information?”, 
“Who is responsible for protecting it?”, or “When is it acceptable to share or restrict data?” 
 

Philosophy for Children (P4C), co‑founded by Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp at 
Montclair State College in the late 1960s (Gregory & Laverty, 2017), offers a dialogical and 
inquiry‑based pedagogy that fosters critical, creative, and caring thinking (Lipman et al., 1980; Lipman, 
2003). Through the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI), children engage with stories or 
dilemmas that serve as conceptual stimuli, then collaboratively formulate questions, exchange reasons, 

A 



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

  
 

55 
 

and reflect on their assumptions (Ab Wahab et al., 2022). The CoPI protocol followed here aligns with 
the “Plain Vanilla” model (Yarmel & Gregory, 2023), which emphasizes a low‑intervention facilitation 
style, clarity of the guiding question, democratic turn‑taking, and reason‑giving without premature 
evaluation. 
 

Integrating AI‑ethics themes—particularly data privacy—into P4C aligns with global calls for 
child‑centred AI governance (UNICEF, 2021) and leverages children’s familiarity with digital games 
and social platforms as entry points for ethical reflection. By framing these issues within philosophical 
dialogue rather than didactic instruction, educators can help children recognize the value‑laden nature 
of technology and make responsible, informed choices in a data‑driven society (Floridi, 2023/2024; 
Williams et al., 2022). 
 

Theoretical and Pedagogical Background 

 
The P4C approach is grounded in the idea that children are capable of genuine philosophical 

thought when provided with structured opportunities for dialogue and reflection (Lipman et al., 1980; 
Lipman, 2003). Research has consistently shown that P4C enhances not only cognitive outcomes, such 
as reasoning and problem‑solving, but also social‑emotional competencies, including empathy, 
perspective‑taking, and collaborative learning (Ab Wahab et al., 2022). Within CoPI, a carefully chosen 
stimulus sparks conceptual curiosity; participants then generate questions, select a focus through 
democratic procedures, exchange reasons, and revisit assumptions—practices that cultivate critical, 
creative, and caring thinking. 

 
Recent scholarship has refined the understanding of how dialogical structure affects the quality 

of reasoning within the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI). Yarmel and Gregory (2023) 
conceptualize the CoPI as a communicative ecosystem in which both cognitive and procedural “noise” 
can disrupt the flow of collective inquiry. Their analysis shows that excessive facilitator intervention, 
unclear guiding questions, or unstructured turn-taking can introduce discursive noise that obscures 
conceptual progress. Drawing on Thomas Jackson’s “Plain Vanilla” model, they argue that effective 
philosophical facilitation involves a process of “noise reduction”—minimizing unnecessary prompts 
while sustaining clarity, inclusivity, and autonomy in children’s reasoning. This framework supports a 
low-intervention approach in which the facilitator’s role is to refine the conditions of dialogue rather 
than to direct its content, thereby enabling participants to co-construct meaning through focused, self-
regulated inquiry (Yarmel & Gregory, 2023). 

 
In digital‑ethics education, scholars emphasize moving beyond purely technical instruction to 

address autonomy, consent, fairness, privacy, and accountability (Adams et al., 2023; Turner, 2019; 
Petrina, 2020). UNICEF’s Policy Guidance on AI for Children (2021) calls for participatory, 
age‑appropriate approaches that respect children’s rights and agency. Similarly, the MIT Media Lab’s 
AI + Ethics curriculum demonstrates that narrative prompts and collaborative inquiry can promote 
ethical awareness and metacognitive skills in middle‑school learners (Wu, 2020; Williams et al., 2022). 

 
 

 



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

  
 

56 
 

Lesson Design and Implementation 

 
The lesson was piloted with a mixed‑age group of ten children (ages 8–12) in a 60‑minute 

session. The structure followed three interconnected phases: (1) an illustrated narrative stimulus, (2) a 
Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) dialogue, and (3) a hands‑on ethical‑decision‑making 
activity. The lesson was subsequently repeated in two after‑school sessions and one primary‑school class; 
reflections synthesize insights from these implementations. 
 
1. Narrative Stimulus: “Liam’s Secret Base” 

The session opened with a short illustrated story, inspired by Minecraft, to ensure cultural and 
age relevance. Liam is an avid player who has built a private “secret base” to store his digital treasures 
and shares the coordinates only with close friends. One day, he discovers unfamiliar players entering 
the base and using his resources. Upset and confused, he learns that a friend posted the coordinates 
publicly online. After the storytelling- the visuals were presented as a short PowerPoint slideshow with basic 
animations and captions to maintain children’s attention and visual engagement- the facilitator posed reflective 
questions: “Have you ever played a game where you had to share or protect information?”, “How would 
you feel if someone accessed your information without permission?”, “Why do you think protecting 
personal information matters, even inside a game?” 
 
2. Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) 

Following P4C practice, the facilitator invited children to generate their own questions in 
response to the story. The questions were recorded on a board and the group voted on which to discuss 
first. Sample student questions included: “Should people always ask permission before sharing 
information about someone else?”, “Is it fair for game companies to collect players’ data?”, and “Who 
is responsible when private information is shared without consent?” The class selected: “Should you 
always ask before sharing something about another person?” The ensuing dialogue revealed nuanced 
reasoning about consent, trust, fairness, and responsibility. The facilitator employed open‑ended 
prompts, paraphrasing, and probing questions to deepen inquiry while avoiding prescriptive answers 
(Lipman, 2003). 
 
Transcript Excerpt (Plain Vanilla CoPI) 

Facilitator: Why do you think Liam was upset? 
Student A: Because it was a secret and someone told without asking. 
Facilitator: What does it mean to keep something secret? Is every secret private? 
Student B: Maybe not. Some secrets are for surprises, like birthdays. 
Facilitator: So is privacy always about hiding, or sometimes about choosing? 
Student C: Choosing! You get to decide who knows things about you. 
Facilitator: Interesting. Does that mean privacy is also about control of information? 
Student D: Yeah, like being the boss of your information. 
Facilitator: If privacy is control, what makes sharing sometimes okay and sometimes not? 
Student E: It depends who asks and why they need it. 
Facilitator: What criteria could we use to decide? 
Student F: If it’s sensitive; if I trust them; and what could happen after. 

 



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

  
 

57 
 

Analytic Note on Facilitation 
 

This exchange illustrates the Plain Vanilla sequence in which facilitator prompts shift discourse 
from anecdotal sharing to conceptual exploration. By reframing “secret” as an analyzable concept and 
linking privacy to choice and control, the facilitator elicited criteria (sensitivity, trust, purpose, 
consequences) that support principled judgment rather than rote rules (Yarmel & Gregory, 2023). 
 
3. Hands‑On Activity: “Safe Sharing Scenario” 

To reinforce dialogue with experiential learning, students participated in a role‑play activity 
called “Safe Sharing Scenario.” The facilitator presented a realistic online‑gaming situation: “You’re 
playing a popular online game. A new friend asks for your real name and home address to send you a 
gift. Another player asks for your game password, promising to help you unlock a rare item. What would 
you do in each case?” Children broke into small groups to analyze each situation: identify what kind of 
information is being requested, decide if it is safe to share and explain why or why not, and predict 
possible consequences of sharing. Groups then role‑played the interactions—some acting as the ‘player,’ 
others as the ‘requester,’ and a third subgroup as ‘observers’ offering feedback. Finally, each group 
drafted a “Safe Sharing Checklist” featuring rules such as “Always ask a trusted adult before sharing 
personal information” and “Never share passwords—even with friends.” A closing debrief helped 
children link these practices to wider issues of consent, trust, and data privacy in their digital lives. 
 

Reflections on Learning Outcomes 

 
Engagement and Higher‑Order Thinking. Throughout the session, children displayed high 

engagement with both the story and the discussion. Their contributions moved beyond opinions toward 
reason‑giving, perspective‑taking, and questioning assumptions—key indicators of higher‑order 
cognitive skills. Several students explicitly linked the fictional scenario to real‑life digital experiences, 
such as sharing photos or passwords with friends. 
 

Ethical Reasoning and Metacognitive Awareness. The CoPI dialogue enabled children to 
identify ethical dimensions—consent, trust, fairness, responsibility—while reflecting on their own 
reasoning processes. This aligns with research showing that P4C fosters ethical sensitivity and 
metacognitive growth (Lipman, 2003; Ab Wahab et al., 2022). Across repeated sessions, similar patterns 
emerged: initial storytelling elicited anecdotal responses, but the facilitator’s probing questions (e.g., “Is 
privacy the same as secrecy?”) consistently moved dialogue toward conceptual generalization. 
 

Collaborative Dialogue and Caring Thinking. Students listened actively to peers, paraphrased 
each other’s points, and disagreed respectfully with reasons. This collaborative turn‑taking reflected 
“caring thinking,” demonstrating empathy and recognition of others’ viewpoints—skills important for 
responsible digital citizenship. 
 

Transfer to Everyday Digital Life. During the closing discussion, several children reported 
intentions to check privacy settings, seek adult help before sharing, and avoid password‑sharing. 



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

  
 

58 
 

Follow‑up conversations one week later indicated recall of the Safe Sharing Checklist, suggesting initial 
transfer of ethical learning to practical decision‑making. 
 

Practical Recommendations for Educators 

 
• Leverage familiar digital contexts: Use games, stories, or platforms already known to children—such 
as Minecraft—to make abstract ethical concepts more relatable and concrete (Adams et al., 2023). 
• Prioritize child‑led inquiry: Encourage students to generate and prioritize their own questions. This 
preserves the democratic spirit of CoPI and supports autonomy in ethical reasoning (Lipman, 2003). 
• Balance dialogue with experiential activities: Combine philosophical discussion with hands‑on tasks—
like the Safe Sharing Scenario—to bridge conceptual reflection and real‑life decision‑making (Turner, 
2019). 
• Connect ethical inquiry to family and community: Provide take‑home Safe‑Sharing Checklists or 
reflection prompts to involve parents and caregivers, reinforcing learning in broader digital lives 
(UNICEF, 2021). 
• Adopt inclusive facilitation strategies: Create a supportive, non‑judgmental space that respects diverse 
experiences with technology and allows children from varied backgrounds to feel heard (Ab Wahab et 
al., 2022). 
 

Conclusion 

 
This Fieldnotes study demonstrates that integrating AI-ethics education—specifically data-privacy topics—

into P4C is both pedagogically feasible and developmentally appropriate for upper-primary learners (children aged 
8–12). 

By employing a story‑driven stimulus, student‑generated philosophical dialogue, and a 
hands‑on role‑play activity, the lesson enabled children to recognize ethical dimensions of everyday 
digital practices, reason about consent, trust, fairness, and responsibility, and begin transferring ethical 
insights to their real‑life online behaviours. Rather than treating digital ethics as a list of rules to 
memorize, the approach encouraged critical, creative, and caring thinking (Lipman, 2003) in line with 
participatory principles advocated by UNICEF (2021) and demonstrated in initiatives like the MIT 
Media Lab’s AI + Ethics curriculum (Wu, 2020; Williams et al., 2022). We conclude that P4C offers an 
effective and scalable framework for embedding ethical literacy into childhood digital‑citizenship 
programs, empowering young learners to become thoughtful, reflective, and responsible participants in 
a rapidly data‑driven society (Floridi, 2023/2024; Adams et al., 2023; Dabbagh et al., 2025). Future 
research should explore long‑term impacts on children’s reasoning, behavioural choices online, and 
their evolving understanding of AI‑mediated environments. 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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

  
 

59 
 

References 

 
Ab Wahab, M. K., Zulkifli, H., & Abdul Razak, K. (2022). Impact of Philosophy for Children and its 

challenges: A systematic review. Children, 9(11), 1671. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111671 

Adams, C., Pente, P., Lemermeyer, G., & Rockwell, G. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial 
intelligence in K‑12 education. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100131. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100131 

Dabbagh, H., Earp, B. D., Porsdam Mann, S., Plozza, M., Salloch, S., & Savulescu, J. (2024). AI ethics 
should be mandatory for schoolchildren. AI and Ethics, 5(1), 87–92. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681‑024‑00462‑1 

Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. Oxford 
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001 

Gregory, M., & Laverty, M. (Eds.). (2017). In community of inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: 
Childhood, philosophy and education. Routledge. 

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Temple 

University Press. 
MIT Media Lab, Personal Robots Group. (2020, April 13). Family‑friendly data privacy + AI activities. 

https://www.media.mit.edu/ 
Petrina, S. (2020). Philosophy of technology for children and youth. In P. J. Williams & D. Barlex 

(Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools: Contemporary issues in 
technology education (pp. 311–323). Springer. 

Turner, K. H. (Ed.). (2019). The ethics of digital literacy: Developing knowledge and skills across grade 
levels. Rowman & Littlefield. 

UNICEF. (2021, November). Policy guidance on AI for children: Recommendations for building AI policies 
and systems that uphold child rights (Version 2.0). Office of Global Insight and Policy, United 
Nations Children’s Fund. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/media/1341/file/UNICEF-
Global-Insight-policy-guidance-AI-children-2.0-2021.pdf 
https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/policy‑guidance‑ai‑children 

Williams, R., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2022). AI + ethics curricula for middle‑school youth. 
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1035–1063. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593‑021‑00262‑0 

Yarmel, A., & Gregory, M. (2023). Noise reduction in the community of philosophical inquiry. Journal 
of Philosophy of Education, 57(4), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12766 

 
Address Correspondences to: 
Mohammad Reza Vaez Shahrestani 
Director of Yara: The Iranian Center for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children and Youth 
(ICAPCY) 
Researcher in Philosophy, University of Bonn, Germany 
https://rooyeshedigar.ir/director 
mrvaez@uni-bonn.de 

https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/media/1341/file/UNICEF-Global-Insight-policy-guidance-AI-children-2.0-2021.pdf
https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/media/1341/file/UNICEF-Global-Insight-policy-guidance-AI-children-2.0-2021.pdf
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frooyeshedigar.ir%2Fdirector&data=05%7C02%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ce0b28834a4bd49eacce308de32b5fb57%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C639003954378651769%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BwJZDNSnG8S06OdA569mZdVamzOCnHyZGmeJepgQVvo%3D&reserved=0
mailto:mrvaez@uni-bonn.de

