Can We Teach Non-Cognitive Outcomes? A Quasi-Experimental Study of Philosophy for Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is indeed a dearth of large empirical studies evaluating the popular P4C pedagogy. Some previous studies have shown this lost cost program has wide ranging benefits and can easily be implemented by most teachers. Thus, more empirical studies such as this one are needed. The study is unique in that it included a fairly large number of schools and participants and the intervention ran for a long time (18 months). Some of the results are very interesting.

I have added comments and corrections to a copy of the paper. However, in general, the following are issues that need to be addressed:

1. There are quite a few mistakes with expression and types (missing words), which make some points difficult to understand. These parts could be revised so as to be clearer (see attached document for more details).
2. P4C could be explained better, especially the role of philosophy which is clearly central to the program, the nature of the stimulus material, the sorts of thinking moves/contributions students make, when/why teachers should intervene (see comments on attached document).
3. Also, the proper name for P4C's method is the Community of Inquiry not circle of enquiry.
4. The context could be explained better, including mentioning the country/region earlier in the paper. Also, there are no real details about the demographics of the region or schools (e.g., any indicators of socio-economic status, cultural/gender diversity, private/public schools, religious/secular). Usually some such details are provided.
5. Also the intervention could be explained more - how often did classes run, what were the curriculum topics, resources, activities? Did the teachers follow a ready-made curriculum, program? 
6. Also, I am not convinced about the validity of the vignettes for assessing students ability evaluate fairness, etc., which is essentially moral reasoning. In particular, I am not convinced that the 'most fair' responses for 2 and 3 are obviously the most fair. They are contentious I think. Like Kohlberg, it seems that it would be better to assess the students reasons for their answers rather than just their answers. That way we would know why they made these decisions. Anyway, some more justification of this method and who created the vignettes, what other studies they have been used for would be good. 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks to both reviewers for their comments and suggestions. In response we have an opportunity to make clarifications and increase the wider readership of the manuscript.

We have made tracked changes in the article. Here, we address individual queries/comments of the reviewers.

Reviewer 1:

I have added comments and corrections to a copy of the paper. However, in general, the following are issues that need to be addressed:

Our response: We have addressed all your comments and corrections in the tracked version of the article.

1.    There are quite a few mistakes with expression and types (missing words), which make some points difficult to understand. These parts could be revised so as to be clearer (see attached document for more details).

Our response: We have done another proof-reading of the article and clarified ambiguous phrases and errors in the language.  

2.    P4C could be explained better, especially the role of philosophy which is clearly central to the program, the nature of the stimulus material, the sorts of thinking moves/contributions students make, when/why teachers should intervene (see comments on attached document).

Our response: We have added details of the P4C progromme. Section 2 has now discussed the stimulus and its forms used in the programme. We have also included details on dialogue practices encouraged in the P4C sessions.  

3.    Also, the proper name for P4C's method is the Community of Inquiry not circle of enquiry.

Our response: We have replaced this.

4.    The context could be explained better, including mentioning the country/region earlier in the paper. Also, there are no real details about the demographics of the region or schools (e.g., any indicators of socio-economic status, cultural/gender diversity, private/public schools, religious/secular). Usually some such details are provided.

Our response: We have included geographical details and also indicated that all schools were state-funded school in the North Yorkshire of England. We have not used socioeconomic indicators in this analysis therefore it is not relevant.  

5.    Also the intervention could be explained more - how often did classes run, what were the curriculum topics, resources, activities? Did the teachers follow a ready-made curriculum, program? 

Our response: See point 2 above. In section 4 (Formative findings) we have covered these details as part of our findings. We have now added details on P4C training in section 3 which covers detail on the type of resources used in training (please see lines 107-111).
  
6.    Also, I am not convinced about the validity of the vignettes for assessing students ability evaluate fairness, etc., which is essentially moral reasoning. In particular, I am not convinced that the 'most fair' responses for 2 and 3 are obviously the most fair. They are contentious I think. Like Kohlberg, it seems that it would be better to assess the students reasons for their answers rather than just their answers. That way we would know why they made these decisions. Anyway, some more justification of this method and who created the vignettes, what other studies they have been used for would be good. 

Our response: We understand your concerns regarding the options of fairness. We have included a paragraph justifying the method of using vignettes and also included a supporting reference (Please see section 5: 5.1)  

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Article “Can We Teach Non-Cognitive Outcomes? A Quasi-experimental Study of Philosophy for Children” is a very useful article, especially for teachers and philosophers. The research described in the article, as well as the results of that research, is important for new insights into the effectiveness of the methods used in philosophy for children. It seems that the research was conducted, but also described, according to the rules of the profession. In the (untitled) conclusion, the author(s) point to the possibility of further research and new issues. Maybe, for some newcomers in Philosophy for children or for young scientists, it will be good to add a simple explanation of what is ‘non-cognitive skills. Something similar to Gutman & Schoon sentence from the Summary of the article “The impact of non-cognitive skills on outcomes for young people. A literature review” – “The term ‘non-cognitive skills’ refers to a set of attitudes, behaviors, and strategies that are thought to underpin success in school and at work, such as motivation, perseverance, and self-control.” Also, maybe one or two sentences for a better explanation of the quasi-experimental Study. In addition to the above, perhaps the author (s) could consider the difference between philosophy with children and philosophies for children (Karin Murris, Marjan Šimenc). P4C is the Limpan method, while PWC includes in P4C all other methods that exist in philosophy for children (Philosophical foundation, Oscar Brenefier Socratic Method, Sapere ...). Perhaps the author (s) used just P4C method. 

Author Response

Thanks to both reviewers for their comments and suggestions. In response we have an opportunity to make clarifications and increase the wider readership of the manuscript.

We have made tracked changes in the article. Here, we address individual queries/comments of the reviewers.

Reviewer 2:

Article “Can We Teach Non-Cognitive Outcomes? A Quasi-experimental Study of Philosophy for Children” is a very useful article, especially for teachers and philosophers. The research described in the article, as well as the results of that research, is important for new insights into the effectiveness of the methods used in philosophy for children. It seems that the research was conducted, but also described, according to the rules of the profession. In the (untitled) conclusion, the author(s) point to the possibility of further research and new issues. Maybe, for some newcomers in Philosophy for children or for young scientists, it will be good to add a simple explanation of what is ‘non-cognitive skills. Something similar to Gutman & Schoon sentence from the Summary of the article “The impact of non-cognitive skills on outcomes for young people. A literature review” – “The term ‘non-cognitive skills’ refers to a set of attitudes, behaviors, and strategies that are thought to underpin success in school and at work, such as motivation, perseverance, and self-control.” 

Our response: In the introduction we have now included a paragraph on non-cognitive outcomes and also included further references (please see lines 32-40). 

Also, maybe one or two sentences for a better explanation of the quasi-experimental Study.

Our response: We have now included a definition of quasi-experimental design (please see section 3, Methods used in this study)

In addition to the above, perhaps the author (s) could consider the difference between philosophy with children and philosophies for children (Karin Murris, Marjan Šimenc). P4C is the Limpan method, while PWC includes in P4C all other methods that exist in philosophy for children (Philosophical foundation, Oscar Brenefier Socratic Method, Sapere ...). Perhaps the author (s) used just P4C method. 

Our response: We just used P4C method. We have added a line that variants of this methods exist. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author(s) have addressed the issues raised and the paper is publishable in its current form.