filosofía y niños: ¿para o con?

IF 0.3 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Childhood and Philosophy Pub Date : 2020-07-21 DOI:10.12957/childphilo.2020.51240
Vania Alarcon castillo
{"title":"filosofía y niños: ¿para o con?","authors":"Vania Alarcon castillo","doi":"10.12957/childphilo.2020.51240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children are compared, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. The text begins with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, P4C is discussed. Second, PwC. Their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics are the main focus. Third, PwC’s critique of the P4C programme is studied. Finally, the paper concludes with some ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, PwC’s proposal is supported, fundamentally because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education, since philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as a collective one.","PeriodicalId":42107,"journal":{"name":"Childhood and Philosophy","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Childhood and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2020.51240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children are compared, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. The text begins with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, P4C is discussed. Second, PwC. Their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics are the main focus. Third, PwC’s critique of the P4C programme is studied. Finally, the paper concludes with some ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, PwC’s proposal is supported, fundamentally because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education, since philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as a collective one.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哲学与儿童:支持还是支持?
在本文中,比较了两种不同的哲学建议,在包括儿童参与在内的学校空间中引入和实施哲学,它们是:儿童哲学(P4C),主要由Matthew Lipman和Ann Sharp开发,以及儿童哲学(PwC),实际上是一套“第二代”(反)提案-正如Vansieleghem和Kennedy(2011)所描述的那样,以Reed和Johnson(1999)为基础-其中Walter Kohan和Karin Murris创造的提案,仅举几例,就很突出。文章以两种提议之间的一些相似之处开始,然后在各自的维度上进行比较。首先,讨论了P4C。第二,普华永道。他们对教育、学校、哲学教育的看法,他们的童年观,赋予教师的角色以及他们与政治的关系是主要焦点。第三,研究了普华永道对P4C项目的批评。最后,本文对学校空间引入哲学的问题提出了一些看法。特别是,普华永道的建议得到了支持,从根本上说,因为它一致承认教师的自主权和教育中的政治因素,因为与儿童有关的哲学经验特别值得质疑和挑战,因此,它有可能带来重要的转变,无论是在个人层面,还是在集体层面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
reinventando a prática alfabetizadora de paulo freire. uma experiência de alfabetização filosófica em Pau dos Ferros, RN Des-clasificar a Pinocho Cinema dos primeiros tempos, infância e a entrada na linguagem De la Filosofía para Niños indígenas a la Filosofía desde Niños indígenas: una propuesta desde la nosotrificación maya-tojolabal o governo da infância: para uma ontologia histórica do desenvolvimento infantil e a delimitação de modos de ser criança
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1