(基础-)哲学教育的多元过程模型:一个将P4wC嵌入到概念变化/成长的建构主义理论中的跨学科框架

Andreas Höller
{"title":"(基础-)哲学教育的多元过程模型:一个将P4wC嵌入到概念变化/成长的建构主义理论中的跨学科框架","authors":"Andreas Höller","doi":"10.12957/childphilo.2023.70210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the Philosophy for/with Children (P4wC) movement seems to have overcome two major points of criticism, these critical concerns can still be found in the literature today. The first question is whether P4wC can be placed in the field of philosophy at all, and the second asks whether children possess the cognitive abilities necessary to engage in philosophical discourse. One of the more recent articles voicing these concerns is authored by Caroline Heinrich, who describes P4wC as “an assault on philosophy and an assault on children” and argues that P4wC is a “concept imposed by adults on children.” She maintains that P4wC ignores “children’s thinking, questioning and play.” Furthermore, Heinrich states that P4wC cannot be called philosophy because children are not able to philosophize. In most of her argumentation, refering to Jan Piaget’s theoretical account of the cognitive development of children. Although the P4wC discourse has already dealt with these questions over the last few decades, it seems that there is still a need for further clarification. This paper provides an overview of the main points of criticism, which form the starting point of the author’s Polylogical Process Model of (Elementary-)Philosophical Education (PPEE model). This interdisciplinary approach, which is based on the constructivist conceptual change/growththeory of Stella Vosniadou and William Brewer, attempts to add new perspectives to two central questions addressing the P4wC movement: first, can P4wC actually be called philosophy?; second, do children have the cognitive abilities to engage in philosophical discourse? In addition, the question arises as to which pedagogical considerations based on constructivist learning theory could be added to P4wC methodology? The aim of the interdisciplinary PPEE model is to build a broader scientific foundation that has the potential to reduce the main points of criticism of the P4wC movement.","PeriodicalId":315939,"journal":{"name":"childhood & philosophy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"the polylogical process model of (elementary-)philosophical education: an interdisciplinary framework that embeds P4wC into the constructivist theory of conceptual change/growth\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Höller\",\"doi\":\"10.12957/childphilo.2023.70210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the Philosophy for/with Children (P4wC) movement seems to have overcome two major points of criticism, these critical concerns can still be found in the literature today. The first question is whether P4wC can be placed in the field of philosophy at all, and the second asks whether children possess the cognitive abilities necessary to engage in philosophical discourse. One of the more recent articles voicing these concerns is authored by Caroline Heinrich, who describes P4wC as “an assault on philosophy and an assault on children” and argues that P4wC is a “concept imposed by adults on children.” She maintains that P4wC ignores “children’s thinking, questioning and play.” Furthermore, Heinrich states that P4wC cannot be called philosophy because children are not able to philosophize. In most of her argumentation, refering to Jan Piaget’s theoretical account of the cognitive development of children. Although the P4wC discourse has already dealt with these questions over the last few decades, it seems that there is still a need for further clarification. This paper provides an overview of the main points of criticism, which form the starting point of the author’s Polylogical Process Model of (Elementary-)Philosophical Education (PPEE model). This interdisciplinary approach, which is based on the constructivist conceptual change/growththeory of Stella Vosniadou and William Brewer, attempts to add new perspectives to two central questions addressing the P4wC movement: first, can P4wC actually be called philosophy?; second, do children have the cognitive abilities to engage in philosophical discourse? In addition, the question arises as to which pedagogical considerations based on constructivist learning theory could be added to P4wC methodology? The aim of the interdisciplinary PPEE model is to build a broader scientific foundation that has the potential to reduce the main points of criticism of the P4wC movement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"childhood & philosophy\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"childhood & philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2023.70210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"childhood & philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2023.70210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管“儿童哲学”(P4wC)运动似乎已经克服了两个主要的批评点,但这些批评仍然可以在今天的文学作品中找到。第一个问题是P4wC是否可以被置于哲学领域,第二个问题是儿童是否拥有参与哲学话语所必需的认知能力。最近一篇表达这些担忧的文章是由Caroline Heinrich撰写的,她将P4wC描述为“对哲学的攻击和对儿童的攻击”,并认为P4wC是“成年人强加给儿童的概念”。她坚持认为P4wC忽视了“孩子们的思考、质疑和玩耍”。此外,海因里希指出,P4wC不能被称为哲学,因为儿童无法进行哲学思考。在她的大部分论证中,提到了皮亚杰关于儿童认知发展的理论。尽管在过去的几十年里,P4wC的论述已经处理了这些问题,但似乎仍需要进一步澄清。本文概述了构成作者“(基础)哲学教育多元过程模型”(PPEE模型)起点的主要批评观点。这种跨学科的方法,是基于斯特拉·沃斯尼亚杜和威廉·布鲁尔的建构主义概念变化/增长理论,试图为解决P4wC运动的两个核心问题增加新的视角:第一,P4wC实际上可以被称为哲学吗?第二,儿童是否具有参与哲学话语的认知能力?此外,还有一个问题,即基于建构主义学习理论的哪些教学考虑可以添加到P4wC方法中?跨学科PPEE模式的目的是建立一个更广泛的科学基础,有可能减少对P4wC运动的主要批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
the polylogical process model of (elementary-)philosophical education: an interdisciplinary framework that embeds P4wC into the constructivist theory of conceptual change/growth
Although the Philosophy for/with Children (P4wC) movement seems to have overcome two major points of criticism, these critical concerns can still be found in the literature today. The first question is whether P4wC can be placed in the field of philosophy at all, and the second asks whether children possess the cognitive abilities necessary to engage in philosophical discourse. One of the more recent articles voicing these concerns is authored by Caroline Heinrich, who describes P4wC as “an assault on philosophy and an assault on children” and argues that P4wC is a “concept imposed by adults on children.” She maintains that P4wC ignores “children’s thinking, questioning and play.” Furthermore, Heinrich states that P4wC cannot be called philosophy because children are not able to philosophize. In most of her argumentation, refering to Jan Piaget’s theoretical account of the cognitive development of children. Although the P4wC discourse has already dealt with these questions over the last few decades, it seems that there is still a need for further clarification. This paper provides an overview of the main points of criticism, which form the starting point of the author’s Polylogical Process Model of (Elementary-)Philosophical Education (PPEE model). This interdisciplinary approach, which is based on the constructivist conceptual change/growththeory of Stella Vosniadou and William Brewer, attempts to add new perspectives to two central questions addressing the P4wC movement: first, can P4wC actually be called philosophy?; second, do children have the cognitive abilities to engage in philosophical discourse? In addition, the question arises as to which pedagogical considerations based on constructivist learning theory could be added to P4wC methodology? The aim of the interdisciplinary PPEE model is to build a broader scientific foundation that has the potential to reduce the main points of criticism of the P4wC movement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信