Is the implementation of Philosophy for children in primary school beneficial to the moral and civic education in Hong Kong?

Abstract

As Philosophy for Children (P4C) is increasingly favored as an educational approach in other regions, the absence of P4C in traditional schools in Hong Kong raises controversy regarding its benefits for Hong Kong students. This paper investigates the potential of implementing P4C in Hong Kong by exploring the features of values education in Hong Kong primary schools. The study employs Stake’s curriculum evaluation model for systematic evaluation and suggests that P4C helps bridge the gap between the Intended Curriculum and the Observed Curriculum in the Transactions and Outcomes aspect, addressing the shortcomings of Moral and Civic Education (MCE). This study discusses the possibility of using the P4C approach for values education by comparing P4C and MCE educational principles, pedagogies, and learning outcomes. The two share similarities, indicating the possibility of integrating P4C into values education.

Keywords:

• Philosophy for children
• moral and civic education
• values education
• Hong Kong primary school

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• John Lee, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Moral & Values Education
• Primary/Elementary Education
• Teaching & Learning

Introduction

Although the Hong Kong government instructs primary schools to “provide a balanced and diversified school education that suits the different needs of students” (Education Bureau, 2020b, Overview section, para. 1), I have found that this statement does not align with the reality. Students’ questions and puzzles persist even after graduating from primary school. On occasion, I have come across philosophical questions that are worthy of classroom discussion as they can enhance students’ thinking skills and learning effectiveness (Fisher, 2013). Schools should consider addressing these questions thoughtfully as they have the potential to benefit students’ development. The potential of using students’ philosophical questions for education is the driving force behind my search for relevant teaching approaches. My aim is to prevent significant philosophical questions from being overlooked during childhood. Hong Kong underwent an education reform in the 2000s, but after 20 years, there have been no notable and successful reforms in teaching thinking (Fung & Liang, 2018). This project aims to stimulate further research and changes in thinking education and values education in Hong Kong primary schools to enhance students’ thinking abilities.

In the 1970s, Matthew Lipman developed the first Philosophy for Children (P4C) curriculum to enhance students’ thinking ability before they enter university in the USA. P4C successfully enhances and improves students’ thinking ability using philosophical questions (Kohan & Carvalho, 2019). Unfortunately, P4C has not been well developed in Hong Kong (Lam, 2013), while P4C curricula are widely developed in the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Taiwan, and China (Fisher, 2013; IAPC, n.d.; Jan, 2005). The absence of P4C in Hong Kong could be because it is not considered suitable for Hong Kong’s specific context or because it is perceived to have no positive impact on Hong Kong’s education provision. This paper aims to ascertain the potential for implementing P4C in Hong Kong primary schools within this context.

According to the Education Bureau (2021), values education is one of the four key tasks in Hong Kong primary school education. This paper will cover two main concepts - values education and P4C - to demonstrate the potential of using the P4C approach in Hong Kong’s education system. The research question of this paper concerns whether the implementation of P4C is beneficial to values education in Hong Kong primary schools. It is worth noting that the Education Bureau (2014a) regards values education as identical to Moral and Civic Education (MCE) in their Basic Education Curriculum Guide. This paper might have mixed the terminology when citing others’ research. This secondary research uses Stake’s curriculum evaluation model to conduct a literature review. This model aligns with the objective of this study as it is “based on what people do naturally to evaluate things: they observe and react” (Stake, 1975, p.116).

This paper is divided into five parts: Introduction, Literature review, Methodology, Discussion, and Result. The conceptual analysis focuses on three main aspects, including educational principles, pedagogies, and learning objectives, primarily examining the connection between P4C and MCE from a theoretical perspective. Lastly, it will address the research question using Stake’s curriculum evaluation model.

Literature review

Values education

MCE is one of the four key tasks in educational reforms representing values education in primary schools to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and was first launched in 2002 (Education Bureau, 2014a). The Education Commission (2000) stated, “The world is undergoing fundamental economic, technological, social and cultural changes” (p. 27), “Hong Kong’s future development will depend on whether we can harness new technologies, develop new industries, new business strategies, and new operating modes, and whether we have people who are nimble and creative” (p. 28). Therefore, teaching students new knowledge and skills is crucial to retain Hong Kong’s competitiveness. This concern draws a new direction to equip students with skills and values to adapt to changes and fulfill different needs, which is a pivotal task in Hong Kong’s primary education (Curriculum Development Council, 2000a; Education Bureau, 2014a), referred to as Life-Long Learning ability and Whole-Person Development.

One of the mission of MCE is to transform schools into a learning community where “teachers should constantly explore new knowledge, build up a network for professional exchange, learn from the success of other schools, and become students’ partners in the pursuit of knowledge, thus achieving the goal of 'learning to learn’” (Education Bureau, 2014a, p. 4). Unlike language or science subjects, MCE depends on other subjects and does not have a standard curriculum or specific stimulus for teaching and learning (Curriculum Development Council, 2000a; Education Bureau, 2014a). Schools can decide on their MCE curriculum that aligns with the learning objectives, including cultivating positive values and attitudes and developing generic skills, such as thinking skills, social skills, creativity, and cooperation skills (Curriculum Development Council, 2000a; Education Bureau, n.d.). In short, MCE, as a task for schools, aims to form a learning community to enhance the teaching and learning experience, and, as a task for teachers, aims to equip students with positive values, attitudes, and generic skills.

Generally, MCE is a collective task primarily focused on teaching value-based moral education and civic education. There are three areas of focus: moral education, civic morality, and civic education (Cheng, 2004; Ho & Ho, 2014). Moral education focuses on cultivating positive values and attitudes; civic morality refers to building values and attitudes that help maintain the stability and sustainability of society; and civic education refers to political knowledge, such as historical facts and theoretical learning. Due to a series of historical events, misunderstanding of civic education from frontline educators, and public fear of political indoctrination, there has been an unequal distribution of knowledge in MCE, with a primary focus on moral education and civic morality (Cheng, 2004; Leung & Ng, 2014). However, this has also made it challenging to separate MCE as a subject from its cross-curricular approach (Koon, 2022; Leung & Ng, 2014; Lo, 2009). Therefore, the Education Bureau only provides general suggestions with high flexibility for schools to reform values education to address their specific challenges.

Education principle

As an instruction, the Education Bureau (2014c) and Education Commission (2000) opined that MCE should implement Student-Focused Education as a principle to prioritize students as the main protagonists in learning and value their interests and needs in the classroom, which is essential for facilitating Life-Long Learning. Teachers have two objectives in the classroom: 1) addressing students’ queries and fulfilling their intellectual needs, and 2) delivering learning objectives and goals necessary for values education. MCE is an education approach that fosters every student’s abilities in “learning-to-learn” and Whole-Person Development (Education Commission, 2000). To achieve these objectives, schools and teachers need to provide opportunities for self-directed learning and support each student according to their individual learning capacities to help them reach their potential (Education Bureau, 2014a).

The Education Bureau suggests that schools can develop their strategies in the learning experience of Cognition, Affection, and Action to deepen students’ understanding of positive values and attitudes and develop their generic skills (Education Bureau, 2014a, 2014c). Cognition involves fostering a deep understanding of specific knowledge to help students identify different values and enhance their ability to think independently and critically. Affection focuses on helping students internalize positive values and attitudes in their daily lives, thereby enhancing their self-confidence. Lastly, Action involves providing practical opportunities for students to apply the skills and values learned from school in real-life situations. By identifying students’ weaknesses in Cognition, Affection, and Action, teachers can provide personalized feedback to help them reflect on their experiences and learn, even when they are not in school or under supervision.

Teaching MCE

MCE promotes a different role for students and teachers in education. Students are active learners who express their interests and needs, participate in multiple thinking dimensions, discussions, and form their own judgments. Teachers, on the other hand, serve as mentors responsible for students’ personal development rather than simply imparting knowledge (Education Bureau, 2014a). The Education Commission (2000) affirmed that a practical learning experience in Cognition, Affection, and Action relies on the contributions of both teachers and students to create a supportive learning environment that extends beyond textbooks. However, achieving the ideal state of values education goes beyond creating a supportive atmosphere within the school. This reform task involves various individuals outside the school with different backgrounds, positions, and cultures. The Education Bureau (2014a) introduced the concept of Life-Wide Learning in MCE, which expands the learning experience from the classroom to the out-of-school environment. MCE expects students to practice different values and attitudes even outside the school context (Education Bureau, 2014d). It have an educational mission that “transcends the constraints of academic subjects and examinations” (Education Bureau, 2014a, p.37) to acknowledges that “activities that take place inside and outside the classroom contribute equally to all-round education” (Education Commission, 2000, p. 37). It is necessary for everyone to possess a basic level of learning capacity to enable Life-Long Learning and constant self-improvement (Education Commission, 2000, p. 37). Therefore, schools should provide more practical experiences and collaborate with different organizations in out-of-school environments to enable students to continue learning throughout their lives and face real challenges.

Learning objectives

According to the Curriculum Development Council (2001) and the Education Bureau (2012, 2014a), MCE aims to help students develop a commitment to Life-Long Learning and achieve Whole-Person Development, which involves attaining a balanced development in ethics, intellect, physique, social skills, and the aesthetic domain. MCE encompasses various values and attitudes related to moral and ethical education, civic education, Basic Law Education, National Education, Sex Education, Anti-Drug Education, and Life Education (Education Bureau, 2014b). Consequently, MCE encompasses a range of underlying values and attitudes. The Education Bureau (2014a, 2018, 2021) and The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2020) have identified nine important positive values and attitudes that should be included in the MCE curriculum: Perseverance, Respect for Others, Responsibility, National Identity, Commitment, Integrity, Care for Others, Law-abidingness, and Empathy. By cultivating these positive values, students can face challenges and failures in their personal growth, establish respectful, peaceful, and friendly relationships through honest communication, and become responsible individuals committed to the well-being of themselves, their families, society, and the nation. They will develop empathy and thoughtfulness to maintain positive interpersonal relationships and foster a spirit of mutual support and love within the community. The learning objectives of MCE are considered from a general educational perspective rather than being specific to a particular topic or issue (Chong et al., 2020; Leung & Ng, 2014).

Philosophy for children

P4C was developed by Matthew Lipman, Ann Margaret Sharp, and their colleagues in the USA since the 1970s. Lipman observed that university students lacked reasoning skills and understanding of its principles, which should be taught prior to university (Fisher, 2013). Lipman (2003) believed that through engaging in philosophy education, students can reflect on their thinking, identify weaknesses, and solve problems. With proper guidance, students can develop critical thinking skills and become rational thinkers. The systematic development of P4C relies on the contributions of Lipman and Sharp from both top-down and bottom-up approaches (Jan, 2005; Tibaldeo, 2023). Lipman’s work has gained widespread recognition for P4C in universities and organizations, facilitating the allocation of funds, resources, and generating new ideas for P4C's development. On the other hand, Sharp implemented P4C in practice, assisting in recruitment, teaching, and the development of P4C degree programs (Tibaldeo, 2023). P4C focuses on two main aspects during its development: reasoning skills and ethical awareness, which encompass moral education, relationship building, and appropriate emotional expression (Tibaldeo, 2023). In addition to reasoning skills, Sharp (2007a) emphasized that human experiences are interconnected, and therefore, recognizing and managing different emotions are crucial for rationality. Sharp (2007a) and Tibaldeo (2023) highlighted that these two features complement each other and are essential for adapting P4C education to diverse cultural backgrounds and regions. Lam (2013) conducted an empirical study in Hong Kong secondary schools, using the first book of the P4C curriculum to examine its effectiveness in promoting critical thinking. He found that P4C was beneficial for secondary students in Hong Kong, as he noted:

It was also found that P4C played a major role in developing the students’ critical thinking, because it could elicit from them a large variety and quantity of cognitive behaviours characteristic of critical thinking, help them develop their reasoning ability, and promote – through the MTL (My Thinking Log) – their reflective, critical, and visual thinking. (Lam, 2013, p. 115)

P4C was a curriculum in itself when it was first developed, but it was later discovered that it could be taught as part of a subject or integrated throughout the curriculum (Trickey & Topping, 2004). Kohan and Carvalho (2019) pointed out that P4C can be implemented in two ways in the classroom, either as a curriculum or as a pedagogical method known as the Community of Inquiry (COI).

Educational principle

During that time, Lipman (2003) discovered the potential of teaching philosophy to students. He believed that there were many unnecessary barriers that prevented people from engaging in philosophy, such as the study of philosophical theory, the history of philosophy, and the high requirements of formal and informal logic. Instead, Lipman advocated for philosophy to be based on human curiosity and reflection. Therefore, P4C focuses on the philosophical questions raised by students in the classroom, which is more effective than the teacher simply providing knowledge during a thinking-based education. Lipman’s perspective and findings challenged the traditional notion that children cannot learn philosophy (Tibaldeo, 2023). Lipman et al. (1980) argued that valuing and nurturing students’ curiosity and questions would encourage them to seek meaning and understand why things are the way they are, thereby enhancing their learning efficiency. Wartenberg (2009, 2013) emphasized the importance of a child-centered approach in P4C, as opposed to a teacher-centered approach that focuses solely on imparting knowledge and disregards students’ curiosity and interests, thereby discouraging active learning. Lipman (2003) believed that this shift in approach would motivate students to continue learning and thinking.

P4C also represents a Judgment-Based Education that bridges the gap between knowledge and human experience. Students are encouraged and guided to seek meaning and understand reality on their own instead of passively receiving answers in class (Lipman, 2003). This inquiry-based approach promotes students’ growth, as Noddings (2016) explained, “experience is educative only if it produces growth, if, that is, students leave the experience more capable or interested in engaging in new experiences” (p.26). Judgment-Based Education in P4C has two dimensions: 1) educating students to classify, and 2) educating students to make sound judgments. Lipman (2003) explained that “to judge is to judge relationships, either by discovering relationships or by inventing them” (p. 22), which involves identifying similarities, differences, and identities among different events. Murris (2012) highlighted that this aspect of P4C encompasses values education, teaching students to identify values and define concepts in terms of objectivity, subjectivity, ambiguity, facts, and universality. These elements contribute to the development of more comprehensive frameworks for judgment and reasoning. Strengthening students’ classification abilities is a step towards teaching them to make better judgments (Lipman, 2003). Yos (2004) pointed out that educating students to make sound judgments is not about relying on luck, but about equipping them with essential skills for making logical and ethical judgments. It involves avoiding casual, associative, elliptical, disconnected, and polyphonic thinking when making judgments (Lipman, 1988). This can be achieved by cultivating students’ multidimensional thinking abilities, which represent a balance of critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking (García-Moriyón et al., 2020; Lipman, 1988, 2003; Sharp, 1984; Yos, 2004).

Teaching P4C

COI is the pedagogy used in P4C, sometimes named “Community of Enquiry,” “Community of Philosophical Inquiry,” or “Community of Ethical Inquiry” (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003; Lipman et al., 1980; Tibaldeo, 2023), allowing participants to explain and verify meanings, exchange and share ideas during the lessons (Lipman et al., 1980). Fisher (2013) summarized that “community of enquiry can help children develop the skills and disposition that will enable them to play their full part in a pluralistic and democratic society” (p. 54). He also explained that “a community of enquiry is achieved when a group of people engage in a cooperative search for understanding through dialogue” (Fisher, 2013, p. 53). Generally, P4C educators use rules and instructions to maintain a proper learning atmosphere for cultivating students’ moral values and attitudes and engaging in inquiry together. Wartenberg (2009) stated nine rules in his lessons relating to respect for others, being reasonable, affirming everyone’s contribution, and creating a sense of community. Sometimes, these rules become stimuli for the class to discover the values behind (Golding, 2002), which is the learning experience of Cognition and Affection (Tibaldeo, 2023).

Two-way communication and the special role of the teacher are the keys for COI to enhance students’ thinking abilities through discussion (Lipman, 2003; Tibaldeo, 2023). These are essential components leading to COI's success and the development of students’ reasoning abilities (Lipman, 2003). P4C are not promoting any types of philosophical discussion in school. Instead, it promotes something more educative, which has an educational purpose, structured and well-planned. Lipman (2003) referred to the discussion in COI as “Dialogue,” which provides opportunities for students to develop social ability and criticize their beliefs. Fisher (2013) explained that Dialogue ensures all participants can simultaneously express their opinions and feelings on each topic. None of them will dominate the discussion. During the Dialogue, all participants, including students and teachers, actively listen and respond to all the others’ points. After reviewing and questioning the values and beliefs together, the class constantly reflects with actual and straightforward daily examples and puts their ideas into thinking experiences. This helps students formulate an appropriate practice of self-reflection for better judgments. Lipman (2003) thought that discussing different ideas, values, and working with thinking experiences with equitable winds in a respectful atmosphere can enable students to think better as they can learn from others and validate their beliefs with reason.

Learning objectives

Since P4C will nurture students to be reasonable, it prepares students with critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking skills (Lipman, 2003). These three types of thinking are co-related and construct multi-dimensional thinking, which is vital for one to understand reality, as explained by García-Moriyón et al.:

Reasonability includes a kind of rationality tempered by judgment, which takes into account the problematic aspects of experience, which uses a logic of good reasons, of what is appropriate, of what is correct, while always paying attention to the particular case and the consequences that would derive from a specific action or from maintaining a set of ideas or beliefs. The reasonable person is conscious of the complexities of reality and therefore exercises complex thinking that is critical, creative and caring. (García-Moriyón et al., 2020, p. 5)

Critical thinking and creative thinking

Critical thinking has two significant meanings, reminiscent of the ancient concern for wisdom and the skills to criticize concepts or ideas (Lipman, 2003). The first meaning of critical thinking concerns the love of wisdom proposed by ancient philosophy; it indicates that critical thinking is self-corrective. One would be willing to change from wrong to ascertain the truth. On the other hand, critical thinking also serves as a means to criticize concepts or ideas, helping one to make good judgments. A critical thinker can take ethical concern while performing logically good reasons to make sound and appropriate judgments as well as realizing the consequences of a particular action. Fisher (2013) and Paul (1993a) explained that P4C teaches a Strong Sense of critical thinking in which reasoning is allied to fair-mindedness. One engaging with a Strong Sense of critical thinking will focus on searching for truth rather than arguing for self-interest. A Strong Sense of critical thinking is essential for good judgments. Lipman (2003) pointed out that “good judgment takes everything relevant into account, including itself” (p. 211). In other words, a Strong Sense of critical thinking, alongside the thinking skills of P4C, is embedded with values and attitudes, such as what the Education Bureau (2014a) called Responsibility.

Lipman (2003) pointed out that some aspects of creative thinking are essential to make good judgments. For Lipman, creative thinking, including several aspects - Productivity, Experimentation, Holism, and Maieuticity - are highly related to making good judgments. These aspects of thinking consider the possibility and impact of practicing and executing such an idea in reality. In the meantime, such an idea should promote the best circumstance in the world. Therefore, from the P4C perspective, making good judgment is not only making a sound judgment but also bringing forth the best in the world, which Sharp called ethical consciousness (Tibaldeo, 2023).

Caring thinking

Lipman and Sharp have different understandings of caring thinking. For Lipman, it is another type of thinking of a reasonable person, equally crucial to critical thinking and creative thinking; for Sharp, it is another way, besides critical and creative thinking, to understand the world and human experience (Tibaldeo, 2023). Sharp (2009a) believed caring thinking is a goal and means of education. It is a value and attitude embedded in P4C to construct a better society and an ontological source of maintaining COI as well as being a way to understand the world and human experiences (Morehouse, 2018; Sharp, 2007b). It is believed that her idea of caring thinking overlapped some values of critical and creative thinking proposed by Lipman, as she explained that caring thinking “means intentionally entering the worlds of different people with different views, listening attentively to their stories, trying to figure out the world view from which they are coming, and how they might see you and your perspective as strange” (Sharp, 2007b, p.303). It also represents an emotional aspect that triggers Cognitive and Affection learning experiences (Lago Bornstein, 2003; Morehouse, 2018), which can be explained by one of its thinking aspects, empathic thinking (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003). Hoffman stated two modes of predisposition to empathy, primitive mode and mature mode (Gibbs, 2003). These modes form a full-fledged empathic predisposition for driving the emotional connection from shallow processing (attention to surface or physically salient cues) to profound processes of veridical emotional connection in moral perception, motivation, and behavior which Gert and Gert (2020) called internal values. Lipman (2003) posited that making good judgments required empathic thinking as it put others’ emotions into account to attain a good understanding of others. Simultaneously, it can be referred to as a mode of thinking that considers the love of wisdom, Responsibility, and fair-mindedness (Lago Bornstein, 2003; Lipman, 2003; Morehouse, 2018; Sharp, 2007b).

Methodology

All articles, documents, and books referenced in this study are public records. Stake’s Curriculum Evaluation Model, which includes the Intended and Implemented Curriculum of three elements - Antecedents, Transactions, and Outcomes (Morris & Adamson, 2010; Stake, 1967) is the analytic framework of this study. This curriculum evaluation model used to indicate the quality of the curriculum initially focuses on the causal relationship of the Antecedents aspect towards the Transactions aspect and should lead to the Outcomes aspect. The second element concerns the Intended Curriculum (curriculum’s design) drive to the Implemented Curriculum (observable results). Therefore, Stake’s evaluation model considers both theoretical aspects and empirical aspects. This paper will only focus on the theoretical aspects. In addition, Antecedents of the curriculum refer to those resources that do not involve people, such as education principles, curriculum content, knowledge, and skills. Transactions of the curriculum refer to the classroom situation, such as pedagogy, teacher and student’s behavior, and teacher and students’ interaction. The Outcomes of the curriculum refer to the practical outcome of the curriculum, including learning objectives, students’ achievement, teacher and students’ attitudes, and interpretation. This study aims to point out the similarity of MCE and P4C in the Antecedents, Transactions, and Outcomes, and it compares the main concepts’ differences by referring to the mixed-use of terminology when citing in academic publications.

Result

Education principles of MCE and P4C

MCE shares common education principles with P4C: Children-Centred Education and Judgment-Based Education. The teaching stance in MCE and P4C is similar, referred to as Students-Focused Education in MCE and Children-Centred Education in P4C (Education Commission, 2000; Lipman, 2003). Both approaches prioritize students’ interests and needs, focusing on their development and growth rather than simply imparting knowledge. MCE and P4C prioritize students’ development as the first priority in education. The document on MCE explains that “we should understand their needs, learning styles, interests, and abilities, in order to decide on appropriate learning, teaching, and assessment strategies” (Curriculum Development Council, 2001, p. 10), while Pan (2004) points out that in P4C, philosophy lessons are initially designed based on students’ interests. Neither approach aims to test students solely on rote memorization or academic knowledge. This type of education, known as Children-Centred Education, was developed by Dewey (Pring, 2007).

Moreover, MCE and P4C nurture students to overcome the challenges they face, referred to by Lipman (2003) as the problem of reasonableness and by the Education Bureau (2014a) as the challenges of the 21st Century. Both approaches aim to reform education by focusing on how students can think critically and judge with positive values. No-loser and Judgment-Based Education, as the foundation of P4C and MCE, share critical similarities, focusing on nonacademic achievement and facilitating personal development in critical and independent thinking for real life. This serves as an initial step to connect school education with daily experiences for every student, cultivating lifelong learners and achieving holistic development. Since valuing students’ interests is specified and recognized in a specific type of education (Pring, 2007), it is worth noting that P4C and MCE share the same ideas and values in nurturing students’ development.

Changing role in education

Teachers play a critical role in both MCE and P4C as facilitators and educators. They are not merely authorities of knowledge in the classroom but also mentors for students’ development. Teachers, as facilitators, are responsible for students’ growth, development, and self-realization. They also have the responsibility of ensuring the quality of learning in the classroom, as pointed out by Lipman (2003) and Lo (2009) in the context of MCE and P4C. Additionally, Fisher (2013) suggests that teachers should create a supportive learning environment with appropriate support and atmosphere for effective teaching and learning. Teachers also serve as role models, demonstrating the proper attitudes to engage in philosophy in the classroom. As students become active learners, sharing their interests and weaknesses and seeking personal support and advice, teachers are responsible for providing and exemplifying proper attitudes in MCE and P4C. They need to be open-minded, fair-minded, and responsible in recognizing different needs to help students apply what they learn from school. These changing roles are significant in MCE and P4C for values education in primary schools. It is worth noting that the concept of teachers as facilitators and mentors for cultivating thinking skills and values is not new, but it has been challenging to put into practice until the contributions of Lipman and Sharp to COI (Tibaldeo, 2023). Since MCE does not provide practical suggestions for achieving the learning objectives of values education, it can be challenging for frontline teachers to implement it (Lo, 2009). Teachers can consider implementing P4C pedagogy to enhance values education in the classroom.

Learning outcomes

The learning objectives of cultivating values, nurturing lifelong learners, and achieving Whole-Person Development in MCE are achievable through P4C education.

Values and attitudes

Since MCE is a collective task for positive values education, it implies many values and attitudes that align with P4C education. Revisiting some intended learning objectives of MCE and the values behind COI can reveal the similarity between MCE and P4C. According to the Education Bureau (2014a), “Respect for Others” is students establishing peaceful and friendly relationships with different people by accepting and respecting their differences to promote harmony. “Care for Others” is students showing empathy for others, thinking from others’ perspectives, and understanding others’ situations. “Empathy” is the value that students empathize and put themselves in others’ shoes, respect different opinions to create a harmonious and caring society. Tibaldeo (2023) points out that COI is an arena promoting emotional education related to nurturing respectful, caring, and empathic attitudes. Sharp (2007a) identifies COI as helping students identify their emotions, clarify the underlying beliefs of emotions, identify a procedure for justifying emotions, and learn to let go of emotions that cannot be justified. She believes P4C can cultivate a better world where everyone is willing to construct mutual understanding towards others and imagine themselves in different situations to recognize the innumerable relationships existing between them and others in the world to facilitate a harmonious society (Tibaldeo, 2023). Therefore, MCE and P4C share common values and attitudes in building healthy, reliable, and reasonable relationships to construct a better society.

Life-long learning

On the other hand, P4C is beneficial for equipping skills for Life-Long Learning. According to the Curriculum Development Council (2001) and the Education Bureau (2012), Life-Long Learning is highly related to thinking ability as they mention that cultivating the ability of Life-Long Learning means equipping students with those generic skills for learning, which is also crucial in adapting to changes. The Education Bureau (n.d.) explains that generic skills include thinking and social skills, such as communication, critical thinking, creativity, and cooperation. Fisher (2013) and Kohan and Carvalho (2019) point out that COI has a social education aspect that cultivates communication and cooperation skills. Students practice these skills when they cooperate in the Dialogue. Furthermore, critical thinking and creative thinking are learning objectives of P4C education. Paul (1993b) argues that having a strong sense of critical thinking is a necessary condition for being a Life-Long Learner, stating that “critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while you’re thinking in order to make your thinking better” (p. 91).

Schon’s (1983) idea of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action explains how human experience triggers learning when combined with a Strong Sense of critical thinking. Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) explain that reflection-on-action refers to reflecting on something that has happened, while reflection-in-action refers to adjusting one’s response in the middle of an action to pursue a more collaborative exchange. Once participants have a Strong Sense of critical thinking, they reflect on and improve their actions and discover the reasons behind their actions during discussions or momentary pauses (Lipman, 2003; Paul, 1993b; Schon, 1983; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). They shift their attention to how they think and learn from their thoughts (Munby, 1989; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). Therefore, individuals internalize and reflect on values, leading to a deepened understanding of values and attitudes. Consequently, MCE and P4C provide human experiences that facilitate the achievement of learning objectives through teachers’ involvement in directing discussions and momentary pauses with actual examples, stimuli, or personalized advice (Education Bureau, 2014a, 2014b; Lipman, 2003; Lipman et al., 1980; Munby, 1989; Schon, 1983; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009).

Whole-person development

P4C also contributes to the Whole-Person Development promoted by MCE, which is described as “students attaining balanced development in the domains of ethics, intellect, physique, social skills, and aesthetics” (Education Bureau, 2012, p. 2). P4C enhances Whole-Person Development by assisting in ethics, intellect, and social development (D'Olimpio & Teschers, 2017; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003).

First, there is no doubt that P4C is an intellectual education that focuses on equipping students with multidimensional thinking skills, which Lipman (2003) refers to as cultivating intellectual virtue. It is related to the development of intellect.

Secondly, P4C contributes to moral development by expanding moral concern and providing moral education related to ethical consciousness (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 1988; Tibaldeo, 2023; Wang & Bray, 2016). Moral development is not an additional feature of P4C; instead, moral education efficiency was considered during the development of COI with Sharp’s contributions (Fisher, 2013; Sharp, 1984; Tibaldeo, 2023). Furthermore, Fisher (2013) points out that multidimensional thinking impacts moral development in terms of making judgments. Adamson (2012) explains that two types of values influence one’s judgment: external and internal values. External values are theoretical moral knowledge that may not align with one’s beliefs or is inconsistent with one’s value system. On the other hand, internal values are assimilated and coherent within one’s value system. The review and examination of internal values are necessary for making sound judgments because proper judgments require internal coherence of values, which is the purpose of P4C education (Tibaldeo, 2023). Implementing COI facilitates the internalization of external values into internal values through Dialogues (Gert & Gert, 2020). Adamson (2012) and Fisher (2013) highlight that every time a participant’s ideas are criticized, it involves examining their moral values and provides an affective learning experience for internalizing and reviewing values, thereby potentially triggering a change in one’s value system. This reviewing process is part of moral development, as noted by García-Moriyón et al. (2020), who state that “moral growth does not consist of a successive overcoming of stages, but of a process of maturation and progress towards fullness that implies a wider set of moral competences” (p. 4).

Thirdly, P4C is beneficial for social development. Fisher (2013) and Kohan and Carvalho (2019) explain that COI has a social aspect in which students and teachers engage in Dialogue during lessons. Students practice social skills, learn to communicate, and cooperate with others in discussions. Moreover, the values underlying multidimensional thinking are related to social development (Lipman, 2003). As Fisher (2013) and Paul (1993b) explain, individuals with multidimensional thinking can perceive issues from multiple perspectives, which is a social aspect that considers the rights and viewpoints of others (Maieuticity). Therefore, both the pedagogy and learning objectives of P4C contribute to students’ social development.

Discussion

P4C is a democratic education that nurtures reasonableness and promotes a more democratic classroom (Lipman, 2003). Generally, democratic education is decentralized, valuing equality, diversity, and self-governed learning (Tibaldeo, 2023). It aims to prepare students to “become quite well prepared to engage in the kinds of evaluation of institutions that democratic citizens must be able to perform” (Lipman, 1988, p.22). Leung and Ng (2014) noted that Hong Kong, with its similar ideology to Western society regarding democracy, shares a comparable stance on education with P4C. Historically, Moral and Civic Education has been part of Hong Kong’s educational framework since its time as a British colony. As a democratic society, Hong Kong’s education system shares similar values with P4C, emphasizing equality, freedom, human rights, reasonableness, and democracy (Education Bureau, 2014a). Until now, no imposition in education in Hong Kong is forcing a particular perspective or self-identity. Instead, the cross-curriculum approach of MCE provides students with a flexible and diverse space to consider issues from different perspectives within the complex socio-political conditions of Hong Kong (Chong et al., 2020; Education Bureau, 2014a; Leung & Ng, 2014). Valuing autonomy and cultivating independent thinking in MCE is indicative of a democratic education (Education Bureau, 2014a; Peterson, 2019). Lipman (1988) shares the same perspective on values education, emphasizing that it is not a process of indoctrination but rather a process of dialogue and inquiry. Students have the right to question the values they have learned. They should understand the reasons and values behind civic values to foster critical thinking. Values should not be imposed but actively embraced. Nevertheless, this approach can still foster autonomy and a sense of belonging (Lipman, 1988, 2003). Burgh and Thornton (2022) argue that place-responsive education is inherent in P4C education, as it focuses on the development of a sense of place that is vital for students’ formation of identity as ecological citizens (p.169). Implementing place-based education that incorporates specific history, culture, spirit, and service learning can cultivate a sense of belonging. In fact, P4C has teacher training workshops in various countries with diverse historical, cultural, and political backgrounds, including Nigeria, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Taiwan, Russia, Argentina, and South Africa (Tibaldeo, 2023). Therefore, P4C education is applicable to Hong Kong, as Lam (2013) suggests that it is theoretically possible to teach P4C in Eastern Confucian heritage cultures.

Naji and Ghazinezhad (2012) conducted a quantitative study to investigate the development of reasonableness through P4C lessons among primary students in an Eastern heritage cultural city. The study took place in an Iranian primary school, with ten randomly selected fourth-grade students from different primary schools in Tehran. These students participated in weekly P4C lessons, consisting of two-hour sessions with a fifteen-minute break, for a duration of ten weeks. The researchers used the transformation of dialogue and the content of conversations as indicators of improved critical thinking. The findings revealed that students’ reasoning skills showed improvement. They exhibited a shift in behavior, engaging in collaborative inquiry, articulating their arguments with supporting reasons, and refraining from dogmatism and indoctrination. Naji and Ghazinezhad concluded that:

In the first session, when we read the “Linda and Clara” story, in the final part Clara told Linda “You look so beautiful” but Linda did not believe her. The children asked questions about lies and truth. Following their discussions we raised a general question about whether telling a lie is good or bad, and why they think so. The children’s answers were as follows:

Arash: Lying is bad since lying is a sin.

Sepehr: It is bad since my mom says so.

Nikec: It is not good because God doesn’t like it.

In fourth session, we read ‘The Knife’ story, and a similar question was raised, this time about stealing. Here are the children’s responses were:

Alireza: Stealing is bad since no one trusts a robber and no one becomes his friend.

Scpehr: Stealing is bad since I become sad when something is stolen from me. Since, I think every one else is just like me, stealing cannot be good.

Arash: I think stealing is bad since when someone steals something he becomes uneasy, and he always worries that others might notice, and even he is afraid that police might capture him. (Naji & Ghazinezhad, 2012, p. 83)

Wang’s (2020) empirical study documented the progress of an 11-year-old class attending weekly P4C lessons in Taiwan. Each lesson lasted forty minutes, and the study spanned three semesters. The findings indicated an upward trend in relationship-building and a sense of responsibility among the students. Wang observed that the students fulfilled their interests and needs, as demonstrated by the statement: “When other classmates have difficulty expressing their views, I try to use my own experience and imagination to understand them.” The score associated with this statement increased from 3.88/5 in the first semester to 4.23/5 in the third semester. Furthermore, the students showed improvement in the statement “I will try to reduce my prejudice,” with the score rising from 4.00/5 in the first semester to 4.55/5 in the third semester. Additionally, Wang found that P4C contributed to fostering respect among the students. One student, in an interview, mentioned:

When I was fourth grade, I didn’t understand what it means to respect others. I used to be very straightforward, and I might have made other people feel disrespected. But now, before I state my opinion, I always pause, and first consider whether I am being respectful. (Wang, 2020, p. 27)

Hong Kong has conducted a similar empirical study to Naji and Ghazinezhad (2012) and Wang (2020), focusing on a group of secondary students. In his study, Lam (2020a) proposed that P4C is suitable for teaching critical thinking in Hong Kong. He stated, “it is possible, both in theory and in practice, to teach critical thinking to Hong Kong students through P4C, despite the profound influence of Confucianism on the Chinese in the modern world” (p. 32). Lam (2019, 2021) highlighted the benefits of P4C for secondary students, as it equipped them with open-minded behaviors. However, implementing philosophical discussions and Dialogue in the classroom is not a straightforward task. Lam found that some students were reserved, passive, and inattentive, engaging in off-topic conversations and allowing dominant students to control the discussion, which is not conducive to proper Dialogue. This situation may also be applicable to Hong Kong primary schools. Consequently, Lam emphasized the importance of teacher training to enhance their ability to teach critical thinking and maintain an appropriate classroom atmosphere during dialogue for Hong Kong students (Lam, 2013, 2019; Lipman et al., 1980).

Conclusion

This study aims to explore the connections between P4C and MCE, and to stimulate critical debates for further elaboration on key elements in the future, focusing on the Antecedents, Transactions, and Outcomes aspect of the curriculum. P4C offers a concrete framework, pedagogy, and instruction to fulfill the objectives of MCE, providing frontline educators with a valuable tool for values education in the classroom, addressing the limitations of MCE (Lipman, 2003; Lo, 2009). Considering the theoretical compatibility between MCE and P4C, there is reason to be optimistic about integrating P4C into values education in Hong Kong primary schools, with the possibility of reconciling educational principles, pedagogy, and learning objectives from a theoretical standpoint.

About the author

I am passionate about philosophical thinking education; however, this form of education is still in its developmental stages in Hong Kong. Through conversations and discussions with primary and secondary students, I have discovered their enthusiasm for philosophical inquiry. Globally, there is an increasing recognition of the value of Philosophy for Children (P4C) in enhancing students’ thinking abilities and building a better world. Professor Lam Chi Ming’s research in Hong Kong has uncovered the potential of utilizing the P4C approach to enhance critical thinking education in secondary schools. I believe that this approach can also benefit primary school students. This initial secondary research demonstrates the potential of integrating P4C into the primary school curriculum. I will conduct a subsequent primary research study to illustrate how P4C can benefit primary education in terms of both teaching and learning.