Philosophy for Children: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary

Autor/inn/en	Gorard, Stephen; Siddiqui, Nadia; See, Beng Huat
Institution	Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (United Kingdom); Durham University (United Kingdom)
Titel	Philosophy for Children: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary
Quelle	(2015), (45 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Elementary School Students; Group Discussion; Dialogs (Language); Teaching Methods; Discussion (Teaching Technique); Academic Achievement; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Writing Achievement; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Randomized Controlled Trials; Comparative Analysis; Student Characteristics; Low Income Groups; At Risk Students; Standardized Tests; Scores; Foreign Countries; Observation; Interviews; Intervention; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gruppendiskussion; Dialog; Dialogs; Dialogue; Dialogues; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Schulleistung; Leseleistung; Mathmatics sikills; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematical ability; Mathematische Kompetenz; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test; Ausland; Beobachtung; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik
Abstract	Philosophy for Children (P4C) is an approach to teaching in which students participate in group dialogues focused on philosophical issues. Dialogues are prompted by a stimulus (for example, a story or a video) and are based around a concept such as 'truth,' 'fairness' or 'bullying.' The aim of P4C is to help children become more willing and able to ask questions, construct arguments, and engage in reasoned discussion. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess whether a year of P4C instruction for pupils in Years 4 and 5 would lead to higher academic attainment in terms of maths, reading, and writing. The project also assessed whether P4C instruction had an impact on Cognitive Abilities Test results. The evaluation ran from January to December 2013. Teachers were trained in P4C by the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE). On average, pupils received one period of P4C per week, although this varied across schools. A total of 48 schools across a wide range of English geographies participated. While these schools were in many ways diverse, as a whole they had above-average levels of disadvantaged pupils. The project was delivered by SAPERE, funded by the Education Endowment Foundation, and independently evaluated by a team at Durham University. Key conclusions include: (1) There is evidence that P4C had a positive impact on Key Stage 2 attainment. Overall, pupils using the approach made approximately two additional months' progress in reading and maths; (2) Results suggest that P4C had the biggest positive impact on Key Stage 2 results among disadvantaged pupils (those eligible for free school meals); (3) Analyses of the Cognitive Abilities Test (a different outcome measure not explicitly focused on attainment) found a smaller positive impact. Moreover, in terms of this outcome it appears that disadvantaged students reaped fewer benefits from P4C than other pupils. It is unclear from the evaluation why there are these differences between the two outcomes; (4) Teachers reported that the overall success of the intervention depended on incorporating P4C into the timetable on a regular basis. Otherwise there was a risk that the programme would be crowded out; and (5) Teachers and pupils generally reported that P4C had a positive influence on the wider outcomes such as pupils' confidence to speak, listening skills, and self-esteem. These and other broader outcomes are the focus of a separate evaluation by the University of Durham. (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Education Endowment Foundation. 9th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP, UK. Tel: +44-207-802-1676; e-mail: info@eefoundation.org.uk; Web site: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01