International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(6) 125-139

Investigation of Life Science Course Outcomes in Terms of Philosophy for Children Approach

Celal Boyraz

pp. 125 - 139   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2207-31-0001.R2

Published online: December 11, 2022  |   Number of Views: 86  |  Number of Download: 237


The study aims to examine the suitability of the Philosophy for Children approach to the learning outcomes of the Life Science course. In the study, the learning outcomes of the Life Science course, in which the Philosophy for Children approach can be applied, were determined, and a lesson plan example was presented. In the study, an analytical research method was adopted. 2018 Life Science Curriculum outcomes were accepted as documents, and document analysis was used as a data collection method. The researcher created a checklist that includes the outcomes of the Life Science course. The list evaluated whether or not the outcome is suitable for the Philosophy for Children approach and which philosophical concept it might be associated with was reviewed by a different Philosophy for Children instructor other than the researcher. The obtained data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. The evaluations of the researcher and the field expert revealed that Philosophy for Children practices could be done in 72 learning outcomes out of a total of 148 outcomes. The philosophical concepts that emerged after the examination were divided according to the units. Emerging concepts were; rule, responsibility, punishment, friendship, respect, communication, care, love, respect, belonging, time, diligence, freedom, individual and society, good-bad, nature-human, life-death, kindness, and balance. While a single concept can be handled for outcomes, more than one can also be addressed. When the concepts are examined and the Life Science course is thought to be an interdisciplinary course, the course offers important opportunities for the use of the P4C approach. These opportunities cover a wide area such as values education, moral education, citizenship education, science education, and media literacy. It is suggested that the P4C approach should be applied in the Life Science course, taking into account the relationship between outcome and philosophical concepts. Limitations of the P4C approach were mentioned, and a lesson plan example was prepared for one of the Life Science course outcomes.

Keywords: Philosophy for Children, Life Science Course, Learning outcomes, Primary School

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Boyraz, C. (2022). Investigation of Life Science Course Outcomes in Terms of Philosophy for Children Approach . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(6), 125-139. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.477.9

Boyraz, C. (2022). Investigation of Life Science Course Outcomes in Terms of Philosophy for Children Approach . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(6), pp. 125-139.

Chicago 16th edition
Boyraz, Celal (2022). "Investigation of Life Science Course Outcomes in Terms of Philosophy for Children Approach ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (6):125-139. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.477.9.

  1. Akkocaoğlu-Çayır, N. (2021). Öğretmenler için Çocuklar için Felsefe (P4C) rehberi. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bleazby, J. (2006). Autonomy, democratic community, and citizenship in philosophy for children: Dewey and philosophy for children’s rejection of the individual/ community dualism. Analytic Teaching, 26(1), 30-52.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyraz, C. (2019). Practices of philosophy with children in primary education: An action research. (Publication No. 604901), [Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University], Council of Higher Education Thesis Center  [Google Scholar]
  5. Burgh, G., & Yorshansky, M. (2011). Communities of inquiry: Politics, power and group dynamics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 436-452. https://10.1111/j.1469- 5812.2007.00389.x  [Google Scholar]
  6. Cam, P. (2003) The question quadrant. Critical & Creative Thinking, 11(2), 61-64. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cam, P. (2014). Philosophy for children, values education and the inquiring society, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46/11, 1205. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cleary, J.P. (2011). The role of philosophy for children's community of philosophical inquiry in critical media literacy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Montclair State University.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Daniel, M., & Auriac, E. (2011). Philosophy, critical thinking, and philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 415-435.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Direk, N. (2014). Türkiye’de "Çocuklar için Felsefenin” kurumsallaşması. B. Çotuksöken (Ed.), Çağın olayları arasında içinde (s. 64-72). Tarihçi Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dombaycı, M. A. (2014). Philosophy for children and social inquiry: An example of education for democratic citizenship through political philosophy. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 3(2), 85-101.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunlop, L. (2016). P4C in science education. In Philosophy for Children (pp. 72-82). Routledge.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, L.B.M. (2004). The role of a science story, activities, and dialogue modeled on philosophy for children in teaching basic science process skills to fifth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Montclair State University [Google Scholar]
  14. Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic teaching: Developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177 (6-7), 615–631. [Google Scholar]
  15. García-Moriyón, F., González-Lamas, J., Botella, J., González Vela, J., Miranda-Alonso, T., Palacios, A., & Robles-Loro, R. (2020). Research in moral education: The contribution of P4C to the moral growth of students. Education Sciences, 10(4), 119. [Google Scholar]
  16. Garret, D., & Piper, H. (2011). Citizenship education and philosophical enquiry: Putting thinking back into practice. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 7(1), 71-84. https://10.1177/1746197911432592  [Google Scholar]
  17. Golding, C. (2007). Pragmatism, constructivism ve Socratic objectivity: The pragmatist epistemic aim of Philosophy for Children. In 36th Annual PESA Conference Creativity, Enterprise and Policy, Dec. 6-9. Wellington. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gregory, M. (2008). Philosophy for children: Practitioner handbook. Montclair, USA: IAPC Publication. [Google Scholar]
  19. Karabağ, G. (2009). Hayat bilgisi dersinin tarihçesi (Edt. B. Tay), Hayat bilgisi öğretimi (s. 1-19) içinde. Maya Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaya, B, N. (2020). Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler derslerinde çocuklar için felsefe: Bir eylem araştırması. (Publication No. 627944), [Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University], Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaya, E. (2018). Hayat bilgisi, sosyal bilgiler ve fen bilgisi derslerinin temeli toplu öğretim sistemi. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Lipman, M., Sharp, M. A., & Oscanyan, F.S. (1980). Philosophy for children. Temple University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lomaca, C., & Chiado, J. A. (2019). Learning values and critical Thinking: A P4C approach for young children. Revista de Filosofie Aplicată, 2(2). [Google Scholar]
  26. McMillan, J.H. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Pearson Education, Inc [Google Scholar]
  27. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  28. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (2015). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis (Trns. from 2. Edt.). (Trns: S. Akbaba-Altun, & A. Ersoy). Pegem A Akademi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  29. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2009). İlköğretim Hayat Bilgisi dersi 1-3. sınıflar öğretim programı, MEB [Google Scholar]
  31. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Hayat Bilgisi dersi öğretim programı. MEB [Google Scholar]
  32. O’Leary, Z. (2017). The essential guide to doing your research project. SAGE Publications Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  33. Özdemir, Ö. (2021). Felsefe sınıfı. Nobel Yayıncılık [Google Scholar]
  34. Pala, F. (2022). The effect of philosophy education for children (P4C) on students' conceptual achievement and critical thinking skills: A mixed method research. Education Quarterly Reviews, 5(3), 27-41. [Google Scholar]
  35. Splitter, L. (2011). Identity, citizenship and moral education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 484-505. https://10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00626.x  [Google Scholar]
  36. Taşdelen, V. (2014). Felsefenin gülümseyen yüzü: Çocuklarla Felsefe. Türk Dili. 14(4), 562-568. [Google Scholar]
  37. Trickey, S., & Topping, K.J. (2004). ‘Philosophy for children’: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 365-380. [Google Scholar]
  38. UNESCO (2007). Philosophy a scholl of freedom teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize, teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize: Status and prospects. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  39. Vansieleghem, N., & Kennedy, D. (2011). What is philosophy for children, what is philosophy with children-after Matthew Lipman. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 171-182  [Google Scholar]
  40. White, D. A. (2014). Çocuklar için felsefe. (Çev. U. Uğur). ODTÜ Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  41. Worley, P. (2009). Philosophy in philosophy in schools. Think, 8(23), 63-75. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7th). Seçkin Yayınları [Google Scholar]