Philosophy with Young Children

sharing how I have worked

Over ten years ago I started work at a newly opened preschool with a completely new focus - philosophy with children. I was excited to embark on this learning journey. I quickly discovered that the vast majority of the information and research for philosophy with children was for 6 years and upwards (with a few including 4 year olds) and was mostly children who could already read and write. This, of course did not fit our Swedish preschool where reading and writing is not formally taught to our 1-6 year olds, and at this newly opened school the oldest child was four! Just one four year old, the other 39 children were 3 and under with the vast majority being 1. So most of my work with philosophy with children I have developed myself together with my various colleagues over the years, as well as the research and suggestions that were/are available that I could adapt to the best of my ability.

I worked with a small group of 2-4 year olds - all the “oldest” children, and I stayed with them until they left preschool to start the preschool class in school at age six. So I was with them for 3-4 years, depending on their age. I share this because it’s important to realise when I write about my journey working with philosophy with children that this is not a quick fix thing, but a process that requires time, as it is complex and is not just the philosophy dialogues but everything we did during the week together. And it is the longevity of our practice over multiple years that I feel is the biggest contributor to the success of working philosophically with children.

What is Philosophy with children?

Philosophy with children is not about Plato, Socrates and Descarte - but is about creating a safe and brave space for the children to explore ideas and concepts together, to learn from each other, to learn how to challenge ideas and be challenged, to ask questions and think critically and creatively. Our dialogues always centred around what was interesting, meaningful and important for the children - because if it wasn’t, there would be no dialogue - as simple as that.

The structure of the philosophy session was as follows

• Stimulus (a question, a story, photos, an object, an action - essentially something to stimulate the dialogue)

• Thinking Pause (some time to think about how/what to answer and why that answer, 1-2 minutes)

• Dialogue (the aim was always for this to be the children’s dialogue and the adult scaffolds their dialogue. The adult does not present facts or “teach” during this time.)

• Meta Dialogue (the dialogue about the dialogue. I knew that this would simply be too much for such young children, so instead our meta dialogues became the teacher reading back the notes of what was said during the session (we tried to write as verbatim as possible) and the children could say if we had made a mistake and inform us of what they really said, and/or had the opportunity to change their mind - we would note down their change of mind too. They loved listening out for what they said, so this was always an important part of the process for the children).

• Bubble Game (this was added on to the end because the children enjoyed this so much, despite designing the game to be about self regulation, so it felt like a win win situation)

When we first started it became obvious that if the children struggled to sit, they would struggle to listen. If they struggled to listen there would be no dialogue, but merely a series of monologues. So throughout the week I planned activities that would playfully help them tone their muscles needed for sitting, hone their self regulation needed for turn taking, and their listening skills in order to be able to fully participate. I also thought about group size. Our philosophy sessions consisted of 2-12 children depending on the stimulus and whether it was a verbal or physical/non-verbal exploration. For us, 12 children was a full group with two teachers (at one point we became four educators as we had a group that was 60% special needs/rights with ADHD, autism, language delays, selective mutism, ACE’s induced aggressive reactions, and no Swedish spoken. I look back and feel proud of the community of learners we were able to create, but I also shed many tears of sadness and frustration behind the scenes in the process).

The Circle

How we sat was important, and who they sat next to - I never controlled the children by saying who they could or couldn’t sit next to - I only reminded them to sit next to someone who would not disturb their listening; and if they sat next to someone that disturbed them (and others) I would point it out right there and then and remind them the next time. This actually led to the children either choosing a different spot to be able to listen, or working harder on their self-regulation to sit together. I had one pair that loved sitting next to each other in everything they did except philosophy because they both knew they could not focus - after about a year they arrived last to the philosophy circle and the only remaining seats were together - I suggested they should give it a go…and they discovered they were now competent at sitting together and focusing on listening. I think it is important to consider that there is not one way to sit for a philosophy with children session - I have done it with chairs in a circle with small spaces in between so that the children could be fully aware of this space is mine and not waste energy on trying to work that out (as my first group did when sat on the floor and kept leaning on each other and pushing each other as if to ask - where do I end and where do you begin?). I have had philosophy sessions sitting on mats on the floor, round tables, we have laid down on the floor on our tummies facing inwards - the only constant has been a circle. Because in a circle we are creating a sense of equality - we are all equally in the circle, not a teacher leading from the front, but adults and children as equals.

Talking Rings

In the beginning turn-taking was hard and the responsibility of listening when not talking was harder still. We introduced talking rings, which were in reality serviette rings, two different ones, one for the leader of the dialogue and one for all the other participants. We had previously had a talking pine-cone, that when someone held the cone only that person could speak, the downside was that having just one cone meant it made it hard for the teachers to linguistically support the children in communicating their ideas through questions and word suggestions without breaking the rule of only the person holding the pine-cone can talk - this is why two talking rings were necessary. The leader ring was held by the adult responsible for leading the dialogue, by holding the ring they could scaffold whenever needed without breaking the rule of speaking without holding a ring. We called it a leader ring, and not the teacher ring, because we envisioned the possibility that an adult or child could be the leader. The other ring went around the group so they could share their thoughts, their questions and their arguments. Those not holding the ring were not asked to sit silent and still, instead they were asked to actively listen. Because listening for some children is not still - listening is an active verb, not a passive one. The group soon learned who needed to move to be able to focus on listening, and who didn’t. We talked about all our different listening needs, how we sit to be able to listen. A fun project we did was drawing  how we sit so it’s easy to listen and how we sit so it’s hard to listen, and then tried out all the different positions. We laughed so much trying out all the hard to listen positions and confirmed that it would indeed be hard to listen, mostly because of all the laughter. Laughter is essential in creating a community of learners and listeners; creating a sense of belonging that allows every child to feel safe and brave. It can feel very risky to share ideas sometimes, especially when you are not sure how they will be received.

Once the children understood the flow of a philosophy session we stopped using the talking rings. They are like training wheels on a bike when learning to ride. Once they aren’t needed anymore they get in the way.

Staying on Topic

The topics for the philosophy dialogues came from our adult observations of the children’s play and participation in learning activities. We did sometimes collect questions from the children but discovered that these questions seldom worked during the philosophy sessions. Instead we learned to have dialogues about those questions then and there, or around the lunch table, not as formal philosophy sessions with structure and the need to stay on topic, but more informally and allowing the conversation to drift naturally.

Staying on topic is important in the philosophy session. We don’t go off topic unless the entire group consents, because there is then the risk that someone who was going to contribute to the topic has not been given the chance. The staying on topic is not about adults controlling the dialogue, but about the community of a dialogue and the group taking responsibility to ensure everyone has been heard.

I once had a speech therapist observe one of my philosophy sessions, as she was there to observe one of the children for the day. She was lyrical about the concrete nature of the dialogue - the use of the talking rings, the keeping on topic and the fact we only continued for as long as there was interest, with enough encouragement to ensure everyone had the time and support to contribute. She pointed out that this was an excellent way for children to become competent communicators and acquire language.

Being able to participate has always been key, this has involved sending home information about the stimulus to parents of some children so that they could chat about it at home - I have been asked before if this is cheating - and my answer is always, always, no. Because the goal of philosophy with children is not to test how much they know or how they can respond to the question but the creation of a community of learners where the children feel confident to participate. Participation is the goal - the learning and everything else are the bonus outcomes of the participation. 

This extra support at home helped children who did not have Swedish as their home language to be able to discuss their ideas in their own language first (often the parents would let me know what the child had said at home, so that I could scaffold the child to communicate this in Swedish for the others to understand). Shy children also benefited from talking about it at home, because then their energy could be used overcoming anxiety and not having to deal with anxiety and thinking about what to say. Basically every time we noticed children struggling to participate we looked for solutions to help them, for one child this meant sitting next to the person who wrote down what was being said, and we changed it from handwritten notes to on the computer because we noticed that their interest was in the writing and was participating by reading. The computer text made it easier for this child to read. The child was more than capable to participate linguistically, but would only do this if it was a topic they absolutely burned for, so in our dialogues about robots they were very active. Pointing out that this child was helping with the note taking by checking what was written, was a way to show to the whole group that participation can occur in many different ways. 

Many different ways. 

In reality this might have been the most important part of doing philosophy with children - that they could learn there are many different perspectives and many different ways to do things. It also allowed us to do philosophy in many different ways, and not just verbal philosophy sessions - we used art, games, puddle jumping, dance, maths etc that could be done in silence or a combination of verbal and bodily communication.

Our mantra, how we started our philosophy sessions, was always:

Listen with our

Ears

Eyes

Heart, and 

Mind

We hear the words, the tone and volume, we see what is being communicated and how it is being communicated, we listen with empathy and respect, we listen so we can think critically and creatively about how we will respond.

The Thinking Pause

The Thinking Pause was another game changer. Suddenly children stopped saying I don’t know and started saying I need a thinking pause. It felt so powerful, that the children realised that just because they didn’t know at that moment they could ask for the time to think about it and come up with a response/answer/solution/idea. And they used this not only during our pedagogical activities and the philosophy sessions but also in their play.

Their play. 

Over time this group used the skills they learned in the philosophy sessions in their play to work out disagreements and come up with ideas together that included all of them. It’s hard to know exactly whether it was the philosophy with children or my teaching approach (Original Learning) that made such a difference, but everyone that met them, that observed their play, was blown away about their ability to collaborate; and parents would come to me with joking exasperation saying how proficient their children had become in arguing their case at age five - no tantrums, just simply asking questions about the legitimacy of parental decisions that parents were unable to defend and were forced to change their mind.

The Freedom to Change your mind

Changing minds has been another vital part of what we learned together in our philosophy sessions. That if we heard an idea, fact or argument that made more sense than what we already think/know then we could change our minds - either completely or partially, to adapt our thinking. Equally, the children grew to know they did not have to agree with others to be valued, that everyone had the right to their opinion, but what was important was to explore together the truths of this world and discover which ones are the most likely.

If I saw the children going down paths of thinking that took them in to fiction rather than fact I would not interrupt the dialogue to “correct” them, but provide activities, experiences and stories that would expose them to knowledge (theoretical and embodied) that would allow them to understand more fully and adapt their way of thinking.

For instance, once they were deciding that if an animal was to be the leader of the Swedish forest it should be a bear because a bear could write (when I asked how a bear could write I was looked at as If I was the most ignorant person on the planet - with a pen, of course!!). In an activity outside of the philosophy circle I provided an opportunity to write like a bear - with no opposable thumbs and lids on the ends of fingers like big claws. The children realised it was impossible to write with a pen as a bear - I didn’t tell the children they were wrong, I found a way they could discover this for themselves. When we returned to the philosophy circle the children decided the bear should not be the leader because of the ability to write with a pen. Eventually the bear was chosen due to size and the predatory nature that gave the bear power. Prior to the dialogue the children had visited the Natural History Museum to see an exhibition about Swedish animals, we had read books and done other things that would provide them with the information they needed to make an informed decision.

Feeling Safe. Being Brave.

As a teacher, no matter how informed we think the children are, they are always fully capable of throwing a curveball - like the bear being able to write with a pen. This means that when we are thinking of philosophy stimuli we need to think carefully about all the possible curveballs and whether we feel comfortable going in that direction. There are some topics that some adults do not feel comfortable talking about with children, such as war and death - yet these will come up if the stimulus gives them room. While I personally feel comfortable to go in any direction the children take me, and to scaffold the space so that it is safe and brave for all the children, I understand that not all teachers are. In the philosophy with children sessions the adults do not control the direction of the dialogue, the children do - so to avoid interfering through saying stop, or redirecting, it is important to choose topics you are capable of scaffolding - this requires you to know your children well and to imagine possible directions they will take the stimulus.

If I notice that the conversation is making one of the children feel afraid or uncomfortable then I will ask them how they feel. The group then can make an empathic decision together about the direction of the dialogue.

Sometimes children feel uncomfortable because they have an unpopular opinion; for instance during one of our many fairy philosophy dialogues (connected to the International Fairy Tea Party) we were talking about what we would do if we met a fairy. One child said they would put the fairy in a cage and take them home. The rest of the group were upset with the idea of the fairy being imprisoned and that we don’t have the right to keep another against their will. Arguments were given for and against, at first the child was upset that their great idea of being able to have a fairy at home like a pet was empowered by many agreeing with the child on the point of birds being kept in cages as pets - but another child countered with how Leonardo Da Vinci had released all the bird in the market (we were mid Leonardo da Vinci project - that actually took us into robots) and everyone agreed with that. Bit by bit the child began to change their mind to inviting the fairy home for fika (a very important tradition in Sweden of coffee/tea and cake) - and everyone thought this was an excellent idea.

I checked in with the child shortly after the session to see how they felt, as they had at one stage come close to tears, and I was informed that they felt fine. I also sent a message to their parents to let them know what had happened, that their child had an intense philosophy session and might want to talk about it when they got home. It turned out they did, and the parents shared with me that their child was fine but had been mostly upset by the fact that their best friend had not thought the same way as them and at first felt betrayed - which is in fact an important life lesson - that others will not always think the same as us, and how to deal with disappointment and feelings of betrayal - basically resilience.

The only other time I had to contact a parent because a philosophy session was more heated than usual was when our stimulus was playing in different playgrounds across Stockholm and evaluating their playability. One child had access to one of the few bikes available at Vasa Park and had refused to get off and share it. I made the decision not to interfere and force the child off. When rating the playground the bike-child gave it a 10 out of 10 while all the others gave it a low score (the only low scores of the week) stating that not being able to ride a bike was the reason - giving an accusing look to bike-child. It was a powerful moment for the whole group to see how personal actions can affect the enjoyment of others. Again I checked in with the child, to see if they were Ok, they were visibly shocked, and talked through what had happened with them. Everyone had shared their opinion respectfully despite their frustration. When I contacted the parents I let them know that they did not have to talk to their child about sharing or turn-taking, because they had already learnt their lesson from their peers, but that they just needed to be there as a support for their own child’s wellbeing should they need it - to give a little extra love. After that day the whole group was incredibly mindful about the needs of others. Sometimes a little discomfort is needed for children to learn the big lessons in life. For example, telling the children that if they get wet on a cold day will make them feel very cold is no way near as effective as warning them and letting them get wet to discover themselves (taking into consideration the proximity to getting warm again). This embodied knowledge then becomes much easier to remind them about next time a tempting puddle beckons on a day that is barely above freezing and we are far away from being able to get warm again.

Children’s Rights

Working philosophically with children, where everything I have done has been about giving the children the skills they need to be able to participate in the dialogue and where the dialogue influences how and what I teach and offer as experiences can be connected to children’s rights as follows

2. No discrimination - all the children have the right to take part and be valued. The only time I interfere in philosophy sessions is if discrimination of a child occurs. This is not the same as policing a dialogue as the children explore topics of discrimination or that they can only speak in politically correct ways. The children will make mistakes, it is their right to make these mistakes and we should not correct them during the session, although we can ask questions such as “why do you think that?”. We should then expose them, outside of the philosophy circle, to more inclusive and less discriminatory ways of knowing and doing. In this sense the philosophy session opens up possibilities for us to know how we should be working as teachers to create a safe and brave space for all.

3. Best Interest of the child - the philosophy session is a space for the children to communicate and should be a space of joy not force.

12. Respect for children’s views -  the philosophy session provides

• Space - Possibility to express their thoughts and opinions

• Voice - scaffolding to ease children’s ability to express themselves

• Public - listening to the children’s perspective

• Influence - Putting the children’s perspective into practice - that the children’s ideas influence what activities etc we provide

13. Sharing thoughts freely - the space should be safe and brave for every child to participate and feel they can share their smallest and biggest dreams and reflections.

17. Access to information - much of the preparation is about ensuring the children have access to the information and experiences they need to be able to form ideas and opinions, and to make informed decisions

23.Children with disabilities - constantly finding strategies for every child to be able to participate in their own way. The children were good at acknowledging the need for some children to move in order to be able to focus and listen. There became a better understanding of all our responsibility to include and not put all the responsibility on the individual to learn how to participate.

28 and 29 - the sessions very much connect to education, despite philosophy not being a traditional teacher led activity but the  focus being on child autonomy and a playful nature.

30. Minority culture, religion and language - the philosophy sessions very much provided the opportunity for children to express knowledge from their own context - cultures, religions and languages were acknowledged and valued as important sources of understanding the world together. The whole purpose is about listening to different perspectives and not simply accepting the normative view.

31. Rest, play, culture, arts and leisure - the philosophy sessions were rooted in the children’s play. Our observations of the children’s autonomous play was the biggest indicator of which dialogue topics were most likely to be successful. We also used play, culture and the arts as languages of philosophical exploration and dialogue. The philosophy with children sessions also influenced the children’s play, often providing them with the skills they needed for autonomous play with extremely little need for adult mediation.

Putting aside agendas. Trusting the Play.

Working philosophically with young children requires us to put our own agendas aside and attune to the pace of the children, so that we are providing them with the skills, knowledge and experience they need to participate in this community of learners. It requires us to practise asking questions that are specific and easy enough for the children to understand but are not leading the children to specific answers - there is freedom for the children to explore from their own interests, backgrounds and knowledges. Preparing a few follow up questions that are also open, in case the children need some extra motivation to get started, is also a good idea. But if a dialogue does not get going I will not force it, I will simply state that either the children do not seem to be interested or have the focus and ask whether we should stop for the day, or admit that philosophy is not as interesting as the Christmas tree being put up in the square outside and suggest we all move to the window to watch!!

I cannot adequately convey the complexity of philosophy with young children in this text, it is the interconnection of everything not just adding an extra circle time to the week. It includes - 

• focusing on the relationships in the group and a sense of trust and belonging, 

• helping children acquire the skills they need to be able to listen to understand, such as language acquisition, focus, self regulation, physical strength to be able to sit (so they feel physically comfortable), critical and creative thinking

• providing experiences that expose the children to facts and information - excursions, books, experiments etc

• scaffolding those children who need extra support to be able to participate

• providing opportunities for the children to do things in different ways, so they can learn that there is not always one way to do something - e.g. how many different ways can we jump into a puddle, how many different ways can we sort these objects. Also various art experiences where we draw what we see from different perspectives and notice that what we see is different depending on where we are viewing from.

• and last but not least, adequate amounts of autonomous play that we can observe so that we can teach play-responsively and ensure that the topics we present as stimuli are most likely to inspire joy-filled, interesting dialogues. The Original Learning Approach is a reflective tool for this.

I want to end with the reminder that the philosophy sessions must be rooted in joy, otherwise the children will not want to participate. The goal is not for the children to talk about something the teacher has presented, the goal is to empower the children to want to participate, share their ideas and learn together about the world. To make learning feel more play-like - autonomous, joy-filled and intrinsically motivated.

For the rest of the year I will be sharing concrete tips for philosophy with children dialogues and activities - an example is already available for free which is about photos. But I will also be going into art and other areas too. These will all be for those who support me financially, as a thank you. Also those who support me financially here in substack will get the opportunity to follow my journey to England, Greece, Bali and Vietnam in the coming 2 months through a vlogging like sharing style.

Thinking Pause by AI