PUPILS’ AGE AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS: TWO FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING IN CHILDREN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"One of the fundamental objectives of Philosophy for Children (P4C) is the cognitive development of pupils. In this text, we examine to what extent the age of the children and the number of years of praxis in P4C influence the development of their critical thinking. Participants were groups of pupils (vs. individuals): 13 groups from preschool to the end of elementary school. These groups originated from two schools, one in Quebec and one in Ontario. At the time the data were collected, the Quebec school gro ups had one year of P4C praxis , whereas the Ontario school groups had two years of praxis . The content analyzed was the philosophical exchanges among pupils. As an analysis grid, we used the model of the developmental process of dialogical critical thinki ng (DCT). The model includes four thinking modes (logical, creative, responsible and metacognitive) and six epistemological perspectives (egocentricity, post - egocentricity, pre - relativism, relativism, post - relativism/pre - inter - subjectivity and inter - subjec tivity). With regard to the thinking modes, it emerged from the exchanges analyses that age may have an impact on the mobilization of the logical mode, and the number of years of philosophical praxis may have an impact on mobilization of the metacognitive mode, however, in all the cases studied, these factors could not be considered particularly determining. With regard to the epistemological development, results showed that the age factor is observable in the lack of mobilization of the more complex persp ectives (i.e. post - relativism/pre - inter - subjectivity) in preschool and the beginning of elementary school classrooms. And the impact of the number of years of praxis is observable in the increasing sophistication of DCT. In the groups with one year of phil osophical praxis , the transition from simple perspectives such as pre - relativism to more complex perspectives such as relativism or post - relativism, appeared in the 4 th grade, whereas in groups with two years of praxis it appeared in the 3 rd grade, one yea r earlier."
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".