Philosophical Inquiry with 5–7-Year-Olds: ‘My New Thinking Friends’

Abstract

This paper reports on a small-scale qualitative study, using philosophical inquiry in Key Stage 1 (5–7-year-old children). The study involved a one hour per week session of philosophical inquiry in one primary school, ‘Philosophy Club’, with eight children taking part for six weeks. Multiple methods were used, including researcher observations, creative methods such as children’s drawings, notes, models, and discussion, which are combined to make ‘mosaics’ of data. Data analysis focused on broad inquiry foci from across the data, and in this paper, these are reported with reference to children’s views on Philosophy Club as a space to think with their friends, build a community and changing perceptions of club members over the six-week period. Conclusions are drawn tentatively on the benefits of philosophical inquiry clubs for building community and friendship with younger children, particularly in the wake of COVID-19 and potential gaps in social experience in their early years, and how teacher education in the use of philosophical inquiry might support this community building.

1. Introduction

This paper reports on a small-scale qualitative study, using philosophical inquiry in Key Stage 1 (5–7-year-old children). The study involved a one hour per week session of philosophical inquiry in one primary school: ‘Philosophy Club’, with eight children taking part for six weeks. Multiple methods were used, including researcher observations, creative methods such as children’s drawings, notes, models, and discussion, which are combined to make ‘mosaics’ of data (Clark, 2001). Data analysis focused on broad inquiry foci from across the data, and in this paper, these are reported with reference to children’s views on Philosophy Club as a space to think with their friends and build a community and changing perceptions of club members over the six-week period. Conclusions are drawn tentatively on the benefits of philosophical inquiry clubs for building community and friendship with younger children, particularly in the wake of COVID-19 and potential gaps in social experience in their early years, and how teacher education in the use of philosophical inquiry might support this community building.

1.1. Early Education (3–7) in England

Firstly, it is worth exploring the provision for children aged 3–7 in England, as this varies from many of our European neighbours, and countries around the world. In England, the Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS) sets out the expectations of education for children from birth to five years old (DfE, 2021). When children leave the EYFS, in the academic year they turn six years old, their education is set out in the statutory National Curriculum Key Stage 1. In England, children are required to start full-time education at the beginning of the term following their fifth birthday, which is known as compulsory school age (DfE, 2025). This means they must be in school or receiving equivalent education, such as homeschooling, by that time. In the EYFS, there are seven areas of learning, taught through games and play (DfE, 2021):

• Communication and language;
• Personal, social, and emotional development;
• Physical development;
• Literacy;
• Mathematics;
• Understanding the world;
• Expressive arts and design.

Assessment at the end of the EYFS is against the 17 Early Learning Goals (ELGs) for each of the seven areas of learning. Children who meet the expectations of the ELGs are described as having met the Good Level of Development (DfE, 2022).

In the academic year that children turn six years old, they enter Key Stage 1, and the National Curriculum compulsory subjects make up their diet; English, maths, science, design and technology, history, geography, art and design, music, physical education, computing, relationships and health education, and religious education (DfE, 2013). Children have statutory tests in Year 1 (Phonics) and Year 2 (English reading, English grammar, punctuation and spelling, and maths). It has been argued that the level of statutory assessment has led to a narrowing of the curriculum to focus on what will be tested, and a reduction in pupil autonomy (Hargreaves et al., 2023).

1.2. Community, COVID-19, and Impact on Children

The COVID-19 pandemic created immediate threats to everyone in society, and in the first weeks, physical health was the major concern. As the months of lockdowns, restrictions and disrupted services went on, widespread concerns about young children’s development and well-being were raised (Pascal et al., 2020). In a study conducted by the University of York, NIESR and EPI, Tracey et al. (2022) engaged with 94 schools, 1105 families and the outcomes data for 3253 early years children. Their findings suggest that parents and schools felt that children entering the Reception year (the academic year in which children turn 5) in 2020 had been disadvantaged in their language, numeracy, and socio-emotional well-being during the pandemic. Outcomes data for this cohort at the end of Reception suggested that the parents and schools were correct, as the proportion of children achieving the Good Level of Development was 13 percentage points smaller than the previous cohort (Tracey et al., 2022).

It is important to recognise the life experience of the participant group in this study, as part of the national and global cohort who were in Nursery and Reception when the COVID-19 pandemic began. The study took place two years after the first national lockdown, as Figure 1, below, describes.

Figure 1. Timeline of COVID-19 and participant age (based on Quickfall et al., 2022).

Figure 1. Timeline of COVID-19 and participant age (based on Quickfall et al., 2022).

The benefits of early years settings in terms of social and emotional development, language and communication and physical activity are well documented (Pascal & Bertram, 2021), but during the pandemic, in many countries, access to early years provision was restricted or inaccessible. Concerns for many governments included potential long term mental health impacts of isolation and trauma, safeguarding issues not being identified for vulnerable children and the possibility of an attainment gap widening as the pandemic rolled on (Pascal et al., 2020). COVID-19 protective and preventative measures, such as lockdowns and social distancing, had a profound effect on children’s well-being (WHO, 2025), including the largest disruption of education in history, impacting on 1.6 billion children in 190 countries (WHO, 2025).

Governments were right to be concerned. In the UK, social and emotional skills worsened for almost half of children (Cattan et al., 2023), and just 27% of parents reported that there was no impact on their child/children’s social and emotional skills (Pascal et al., 2020). In Cattan et al.’s study, parents were asked questions about their child’s behaviour in February 2021 and asked to compare that to their behaviour in February 2020. Children aged 4–7 were 10% more likely to have worse social and emotional development than a year previously (52% of children). Egan et al. (2021) conducted a survey with 506 parents of children aged 1–10 years old in Ireland, during the national lockdown of May and June 2020. Their findings suggested that children missed their friends and playing with other children, and that the impact of closure of settings and schools was observed in children’s social and emotional well-being by parents, including anxiety, tantrums and clinginess (Egan et al., 2021). Children’s friendships and social and emotional well-being were undoubtedly impacted by the pandemic and are important aspects of children’s lives in ordinary times, too.

Carter (2021) defines making friends as a process of two people agreeing to establish a friendship, and that keeping friends requires being able to resolve differences in a manner acceptable to both parties, and Carter and Nutbrown (2016) point out that children’s friendships have been overlooked by researchers and undervalued more generally. As in Egan et al.’s study, the importance of friendships and social interaction with peers is highlighted in Urbina-Garcia’s (2020) review of literature, which suggests that social isolation could trigger long-term negative effects on mental health. Urbina-Garcia makes recommendations based on the review of literature on social isolation and young children, including children identifying their emotions, helping children to understand how they feel, and encouraging them to share their feelings. Urbina-Garcia recommends that children learn to label their feelings; ‘adults should support this new learning by engaging in warm and respectful conversations with the child with a view to helping accept, identify and value their emotions’ (Urbina-Garcia, 2020, p. 7). However, learning to communicate emotions and ideas to peers is also important. Philosophical inquiry is one way to encourage discussions of challenging topics between children, which has been shown to be effective with older children and adults (e.g., Murris, 2000).

1.3. Philosophical Inquiry with Children

In recent decades philosophy with children has had a renaissance, with programmes such as Philosophy for Children (Lipman, 2011) introducing inquiry as accessible to children from the age of 5. Inquiry usually involves the children having the ideas, then discussing and critiquing them as a community. In common with traditional philosophy, philosophical inquiry with children ‘questions what most are content to take for granted’ (Kennedy, 2022, p. 125) and in the community of inquiry, ‘children are acknowledged as independent thinkers, capable of seeing clearly and contributing in valuable ways to our understanding of our shared world’ (Cassidy & Mohr Lone, 2020, p. 16). Models of inquiry vary and there are several schemes available to practitioners to follow or be trained in, as well as manuals and web resources (for example, Philosophy for Children (P4C)). They tend to follow a similar pattern (Quickfall, 2019), starting with a team building or thinking game, moving on to a stimulus (a photo, story, piece of music, etc.) encouraging children to generate ideas using that stimulus and building up those ideas into a topic for debate.

There is a paucity of research into philosophy with children in their early years. Most published research is focused on upper Key Stage 2 (9–11 years) and secondary school children (Gorard et al., 2017; Tolmie et al., 2010; Topping & Trickey, 2007). For individual children in Key Stage 2, 3 and 4 (aged 7–16), philosophical inquiry has a positive impact on socio-emotional development, confidence and engagement in learning, as well as maths, reading and writing progress (Gorard et al., 2017; Tolmie et al., 2010; Topping & Trickey, 2007). Considering research with older children is useful in assessing the potential benefits for younger children, but this must be approached with caution, given that young children have different needs (UKRI, 2025). There are studies with younger children that suggest that inquiry and critical thinking are possible at a young age, suggesting that children as young as 3 years old demonstrate critical thinking (O’Reilly et al., 2022). This is enhanced if educators ‘know what skills to build and how to draw out these skills’ (O’Reilly et al., 2022, p. 12).

In terms of community and relationships, philosophy with children used with older children has demonstrated benefits, including learning how to disagree (Murris, 2000), increases in communication skills and empathy (Siddiqui et al., 2017) and relational skills (Hedayati & Ghaedi, 2009). In a study by Cassidy and Christie (2013) children were involved in a one-hour-per-week session which provided ‘a context for genuine collaborative engagement in learning where the actual process of learning itself is a shared one’ (Cassidy & Christie, 2013, p. 1081). The study took place in primary schools (n6) in Scotland, with a range of socio-economic and rural/urban contexts. Cassidy et al. (2018) found in a study with children who had behavioural and emotional challenges, the structure of inquiry supported ‘children’s engaged participation and self-regulation’ (p. 81).

Research suggests that there are many benefits of using philosophical inquiry with Key Stage 2 and older children. Therefore, the aim of this project, following the literature review, is to explore how (if at all) philosophical inquiry sessions benefit a group of children aged 5–7, from their perspectives.

Research lines of inquiry:

• How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?
• What are the benefits and challenges of philosophical inquiry sessions in this context?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

The data collection ran from May to July 2022, with a weekly one-hour philosophical inquiry session, every week for six weeks. Inquiry sessions happened during lesson time, so the day and time were agreed in advance with the head teacher and class teacher. The sessions followed a general pattern, and the topic of discussion was planned (see Appendix A.1 for further details).

2.2. The Researcher/Facilitator

The facilitator for the philosophical inquiry sessions was also the researcher, and subsequently the author of this paper, no other adults were involved in the sessions or data collection. The researcher is trained in philosophical inquiry with children and has many years of experience of running philosophy clubs with Key Stage 2 children, as well as over a decade of teaching experience of the EYFS and Primary phases. This experience and training undoubtedly make the study (and philosophical inquiry generally) harder to replicate for someone who has not been trained, which is a consideration in the Conclusion in terms of teacher education and training opportunities.

2.3. Mosaic Approach Methodology

The methodology used for this research is the mosaic approach (Clark & Moss, 2011), which emphasises children as experts on their own lives (Baird, 2013). Three stages of the mosaic approach, as theorized by Clark and Moss (2005) are as follows:

Stage 1: Gathering data from all participants, including children and adults.

Stage 2: Piecing together information for discussion and reflection.

Stage 3: Interpreting the data and using it to make decisions.

These stages are used in this section of the paper to scaffold understanding of what can be a complex process of analysis.

Mosaic Approach does have limitations but was chosen for this study because it centres children’s experiences the value of their knowledge about their own lives, and because the approach could answer the research questions from the perspectives of the community of inquiry (including the researcher herself). Merewether and Fleet (2014) identify several limitations:

• The lack of generalizability of both the methods and findings, particularly as Mosaic is often used in one setting;
• The large amount of time required to conduct Mosaic approach research;
• The cost of technological devices used in the research;
• The need for researchers to be skilled at interacting with young children.

2.4. Stage 1: Gathering Data

This approach provides opportunity for children’s participation using multiple methods (Sevón et al., 2023). Data collected through multiple methods present a metaphorical single tile, tiles are grouped together to form a whole picture; a mosaic (Rogers & Boyd, 2020; Sevón et al., 2023). Using multiple methods provides opportunities to appreciate children’s views (Brown & Kara, 2025). In this study, participants created drawings and models and had discussions between themselves and with the researcher. They also answered questions in the final session, and the researcher made observations during every session which the children added to. Therefore, the methods used can be summarised as creative methods, visual methods, observation and language-based methods.

2.4.1. Creative and Visual Methods

Children made artefacts in every session, utilizing drawings and notes, and using building materials such as Lego and modelling clay. These activities were built into philosophical inquiry session themes and gave children opportunities for expression and play to support their thinking. During these creative activities, children discussed their ideas and creations, and the researcher asked questions about their work, too. This meant that the creative method had blurred boundaries with visual and language-based methods, as Sevón et al. (2023) found regularly in their review of studies with young children.

Alongside creative methods, visual methods added to the mosaic of understanding because children’s choices on what to record in photographic and illustrated forms presented a ‘as a ‘useful lens’ for understanding children’s creative activity, and fostering their self-reflection, critical thinking, empathy, and creativity’ (Park et al., 2024, p. 600). Visual methods also give agency in deciding on what to record and provide perspectives on complex ideas and emotions (Sevón et al., 2023).

2.4.2. Observation

Observations were carried out by the researcher whilst facilitating the community of inquiry sessions. This was in a naturalistic observational setting, in the school environment, in a room next to the children’s classroom. Observations involved the researcher as participant in the activity and were overt observations. Children took an interest in the note-taking activity and would often contribute ideas for observations, asking the researcher, “did you write that down?’ and make their own notes. Observations were unstructured, with the discussion recorded by annotating the session plan, and notes written up shortly after the philosophy session. No audio or video recordings were made, due to the intrusive nature of such recordings and the potential for them to impact on behaviour and trust (Höpfner & Promberger, 2023).

2.4.3. Language-Based Methods

Talking with children is a key part of the mosaic methodology (Clark, 2001). Children discussed topics and ideas with each other in every session, and throughout every session, and discussions also occurred frequently between the researcher and the children. The loose structure of the inquiry sessions meant that children were directed to talk to a partner, and then to the wider group.

Children were also asked to feedback in their final session, specifically how they felt about the sessions, what was good about them, bad about them, and whether they would like to do more philosophy.

2.5. Stage 2: Piecing Together Information for Discussion and Reflection

In mosaic methodology, the analysis of data begins with what is described as piecing together the mosaic of data to be interpreted (Clark, 2001). In this project, the researcher pieced together information by literally constructing a giant mosaic of the data collected, by laying out photographs, observation notes, drawings and sometimes models made in sessions where these could be preserved. As part of this activity, the researcher used a process of uncomfortable reflexive practice (Pillow, 2003) to examine her own place in the data, and biases that she brings to the analysis in terms of what she values and finds interesting, which may not be the same aspects of the sessions that the children valued and found interesting. Children’s comments and their choices of subject and focus for photographs supported this piecing together, emphasizing what the children felt were important aspects of the session. The mosaics for each session typically included 20–50 tiles of data. Once each mosaic was assembled, analysis was used to draw out answers to the research inquiry foci from the mosaic, considering all the assembled tiles of data—from researcher field notes, including children’s own words, and artefacts from observed sessions with children. In the Results section, examples of data mosaics are shared, and in Figure 2 an example of the process of assembling these full pictures is visualized, on a smaller scale than the full session mosaics.

Figure 2. An example of a mosaic fragment (session 3).

Figure 2. An example of a mosaic fragment (session 3).

2.6. Stage 3: Interpreting the Data and Using It to Make Decisions

In mosaic methodology, analysis of data is described as piecing together the mosaic of data to be interpreted (Clark, 2001). The analysis of the data gathered in this way can be challenging, as there is no simple model to follow when analysing data, and complex assemblages of findings emerge. I allowed themes from the mosaics to emerge, constructing and dismantling mosaics after each session, with reflections and themes from previous sessions informing the analysis of each subsequent session (Beattie, 2023). I then followed Beattie’s model, continuing data analysis more formally, looking for ‘repeated patterns, or themes, which emerged from the data corpus’ (Beattie, 2023, p. 4), including looking carefully at children’s choices of subject and methods of recording. I made a conscious effort not to identify themes in advance, although over the series of sessions, themes I had already identified in early sessions are likely to have been more apparent; my own values, beliefs and identity are likely to have influenced the selection of themes and another analyst is likely to find different themes in the mosaics.

Stage 3 also includes making decisions about future practices in the setting, and is where children’s perspectives can influence adult practices (Beattie, 2023), bringing about changes in the setting (or in this case, school). Stage 3 for this study took the form of final analysis of mosaics, reflection on the themes that had emerged, and consideration of how these data could be used to change adult practice. Because of the school context, making changes to practices was beyond the power of the researcher, but recommendations for practice are made in the final section of this paper.

2.7. Participants

Consent was sought from the head teacher and class teacher for the research project, and once this was granted, information sheets and consent forms were sent home via the school’s own online communication platform to the whole class (29 children). Parents of eight children sent their completed consent forms to the researcher. A brief survey was circulated to participating children’s parents to confirm the age and gender of their child, along with their general interests and any topics that would be sensitive. Participant information is detailed in

Table 1. Participant information.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender
Reuben	7 years 3 months	Male
Charlotte	6 years 0 months	Female
Rhiannon	5 years 11 months	Female
Jack	7 years 2 months	Male
Nina	7 years 0 months	Female
Belle	6 years 11 months	Female
China	6 years 5 months	Female
Rosie	6 years 11 months	Female

, below.

To give some context, the school setting is small (around 90 pupils, aged 4–11) and has a pre-school on site for children aged 2–4. The school is in a small rural village in a part of the country that is isolated in terms of public transport; the nearest town is 10 miles away; the nearest city is over 30 miles away. The main industry in the area is agriculture and many of the children in the participant group are from farming families. This school was chosen because the researcher had a link with this school through teacher education partnership and geographical proximity, and the researcher had also been a school governor at the school, which provided an existing relationship with the school that was helpful in setting up a study with young children (e.g., criminal records checks had already been carried out). The school had been impacted by COVID-19, with some children absent throughout lockdowns, and some children (who had parents in key worker jobs) attending throughout, but with social distancing in a physically small setting.

2.8. Ethics

Throughout the research design, data collection and analysis, the British Educational Research Association (2018) were followed, with reference to guidelines on research with children, and university ethics committee approval was sought and gained for the project. Consent and information sheets were sent to parents of participating children, and child friendly consent and an information picture book were constructed to share the project with children and give them an opportunity to opt in or out. The information picture book, in the form of PowerPoint slides, was sent to the class teacher to share with the children, coinciding with information being sent to parents (see Figure 3). At the beginning of each session, children were given the option of coming to the Philosophy Club or staying with the rest of their class. On one occasion, a child decided to stay in their class to finish some artwork, and it was reassuring that the option was ‘real’ to the children and that potentially they felt empowered to make a choice.

Figure 3. Two slides from the information shared with children by their class teacher.

Figure 3. Two slides from the information shared with children by their class teacher.

There is an opportunity for children to talk about distressing situations and experiences as part of inquiry sessions. Kennedy notes that when it comes to the big questions such as death, ‘five- and six-year-olds discuss these questions as passionately as do their mothers and fathers’ (Kennedy, 2022, p. 128). Whilst the participants had the freedom to decide what they wish to contribute to inquiry sessions; these were facilitated and could be steered or stopped if any member of the group was distressed for any reason. Any disclosures of distressing experiences would have been reported to the appropriate safeguarding person and school protocols would then be followed; however, no disclosures were made during the data collection period. This protocol was shared with parents as part of the research project information and explained to the children in appropriate terms as part of their first session.

Positionality of the researcher was an ethical concern, particularly regarding the potential for the researcher to interpret the experiences and ideas of children through their own adult lens. The use of mosaic methodology may safeguard against this to some extent, as the children are active participants in the research, but the researcher is still in a position of power in terms of decision-making, and ethical approval processes mean that some elements of the research are pre-determined and agreed. It has also been suggested that communities of inquiry, such as Philosophy Club, encourage a challenge of inequality and power structures (Love & Randall, 2023).

3. Results

The findings shared here come from three of the six sessions, which have been selected to give an overview of the study. This should give the reader a sense of how the session ran, and an idea of what it was like to be there. Sessions 1, 3 and 6 are shared here. Figure 4 presents some of the notes and drawings from the session.

3.1. Session 1: All About Me: What Makes Me Special, What Makes Us the Same

Session Summary:

In this session, children explored their own identities and what makes them the same as each other, and what makes them different.

Belle: My hair colour is different to all of you! But when I am grown up I can change the colour. And it might go grey one day.

Jack: I have changed since I was a baby. Loads.

Initially, the similarities and differences reported were observable; eye colour, number of limbs; but then children began to think about caveats to these. Rhiannon explained that a family member had needed an operation that changed their appearance; discussions then shifted to whether we can say we are the same when there are exceptions to these features. The discussion then moved to less obvious differences and similarities—Reuben talked about how people have different dreams and ideas and we cannot see these to compare them.

Reuben: What is in your head is different but we can’t see in there. My dreams are different to yours but we can’t look at them both to decide.

Nina: There are lots of things that are the same about us. We are in the same class. We are all in Philosophy Club now.

Rosie asked if anyone in the group had a family member who had died, which presented another difference and similarity, as some of us had experienced a death in the family. The children then led the discussion to talk about pets, both living and sadly deceased, and whether animals and humans are the same or different.

Observations of the Session—Researcher

In the first session, children seemed excited, but perhaps a little confused about what Philosophy Club might be about. The walk from the classroom to the ‘club room’ provided a few minutes of transition.

The theme of identity—children all contributed to ideas about what we have in common and what is different—specific examples were shared. All children listened to each other. There were some notable allegiances in the group—Reuben and Jack, Belle and Rosie—who were more likely to agree with each other, and build on each other’s ideas.

The children were used to working in the same class as each other, so I was the only ‘stranger’ to the group. There were some clear friendships within the group (e.g., Reuben and Jack, Belle and Rosie) and these pairs of children were more likely to agree with each other, nod at the other’s contributions and build upon what their friend had said, rather than starting a new topic.

Even though this was a first session, some challenging topics were raised, physical disability, death of loved ones and pets. I was mindful of allowing the children to explore the discussion, but was also ready to ‘step in’ if anyone seemed upset by the discussion.

Rosie was probably the dominant speaker in this session, although all children contributed verbally and creatively.

Observations of the Session—Children

Everyone did good thinking today. Jack

I liked drawing me and talking. I think we should do this again but maybe for longer next time. Charlotte

You have good pens. That made the drawing much better. China

Figure 4. Session 1 notes and drawings, which contributed to the mosaic.

Figure 4. Session 1 notes and drawings, which contributed to the mosaic.

Summary of Analysis: Session 1

Line of Inquiry: How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?

Children interacted with the group in Session 1, but this was limited in some respects and is demonstrated in the session observations and drawings that children made; there is an emphasis on existing relationships, agreeing with friends, and depicting trusted friends and relatives in their illustrations. Children commented on the session, in terms of others doing ‘good thinking’ and expressed the need for more time to spend on discussion in future sessions.

3.2. Session 3: The ‘Bluebird’—Building a New Boat

We used Lego in this session to explore identity (see Figure 5 below for photographs of some of the models). In Session 2, children had worked in pairs to build a model, based on a plan they had made together. In this session, they used the same bricks to build something different. We talked about how the same blocks can make different things, and I asked the children if it would be right to point at the house, and say ‘here is my boat’. At first, the children thought this was a funny idea; the ‘house is a house’. But then ideas started to be discussed. In some ways, the boat is still there! Nina shared a memory of two children using the same bricks to build different models over the course of a day, and how one child had said ‘you have ruined my castle’ because the blocks had been re-used to make something else. We talked about whether the castle had been ruined or not. China commented that ‘the castle is still in your brain, you remember the castle’, and children disagreed about whether the castle was still there or not. Reuben said ‘but the castle in your mind can’t be seen by anyone else, so it is not there any more’ and the group generally agreed with this conclusion. I then shared a story of a boat called ‘The Bluebird’, that was replaced piece by piece, until every part of the boat was new. I asked the children if the boat was still The Bluebird. Then, the old pieces were put back together to make another boat. We discussed which one should be called ‘The Bluebird’.

Nina: It is still the same boat as it’s been called that name all the way through.

Rhiannon: The old pieces are the Bluebird too?

Rosie: It isn’t the same boat because it looks a bit different now. One piece is shinier. It has changed.

Reuben: We look different towhen we were babies but we aren’t new people.

China: We are different AND new.

Belle: I have got new shoes and everyone is asking me why. They are treating me like a new person.

Then, the old pieces were put back together to make another boat. We discussed which one should be called ‘The Bluebird’.

Nina: They are both The Bluebird. You can call them both Bluebird.

Rhiannon: The second boat is the real Bluebird, it has all the pieces it started with.

China: The first one is the Bluebird, it was the Bluebird all the way through.

Sample of Observations of the Session—Researcher

Some friendships now allow for disagreement—Belle and Rosie—and some children are chosing to work with others when building models.

Disagreements have been respectful. Children have had opposite views about the Bluebird, and have been able to offer explanations and examples from their own experience, but no one has suggested anyone else is wrong.

The children had many more differences of opinion in this session than they had in Sessions 1 and 2, and the allegiances of friendship seemed to have less influence on opinions than they might have in Session 1, for example Belle and Rosie, who in this session were comfortable to disagree with each other.

Reuben, who was more quiet in Session 1 and 2, now seems to offer views that the majority of the group support. There is some evidence of children changing their opinion after listening to others, will watch out for this in future sessions.

Observations of the Session—Children

I liked changing our model around. We worked together pretty good. Charlotte

Can you write down what we said about the Bluebird? I think my mum would like to read that. Rhiannon

I have my new thinking friends now. I didn’t know Jack and Reuben had so many ideas. Belle.

Figure 5. Session 3 notes, drawings and models which contributed to the mosaic.

Figure 5. Session 3 notes, drawings and models which contributed to the mosaic.

• Summary of Analysis: Session 2

Line of Inquiry: How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?

By session 3, children are more likely to disagree with their long-term friends, and to work with other children when drawing, modelling and discussing ideas. Whilst this is difficult to identify in their photographs for someone who was not at the session, the partners children chose to build their models showed that they were interacting more widely. Children made comments about their changing group, referring to their ‘new thinking friends’, showing their own awareness of changes in the group.

3.3. Session 6: Are We Philosophers?

The children shared their ideas about what a philosopher is (see Figure 6 below for examples of their drawings).

Reuben: Me and my Dad looked at some books about ancient Greek philosophers. They are people who think hard and sometimes get angry when they don’t agree.

Rhiannon: Philosophers can be any age and from anywhere in the world. I think animals could be philosophers.

It was interesting that four children reported talking about philosophy at home, and Reuben had done some research with his Dad, too. By session 6, the group felt quite different in terms of dynamics, and children were beginning to build upon each other’s points rather than adding unrelated comments (although this did still happen at points in the discussion). I asked them what philosophers look like (see Fig. for drawings). The children built upon Rhiannon’s point, with many pictures emphasizing the range of people who could be philosophers.

I asked if they feel like they are philosophers, because they are doing some hard thinking about the world and themselves.

Rosie: I think we are philosophers. I am not sure if we will always be…I hope so.

Belle: We are the Philosophy Club, so that tells you we are the philosophers.

Nina: I agree with Belle. It would be better if we had badges.

As this was our last session, all the children expressed their disappointment that there would be no more Philosophy Club. Children were asked about their experiences of Philosophy Club. These comments are representative of the responses.

How do you feel about the Philosophy Club sessions?

Rhiannon: I loved Philosophy Club, I wish we could have more time.

Belle: I learnt a lot at our club. I think it would be good to do more, maybe with the others (rest of the Year 1/2 class).

Jack: I liked our club. I am going to do philosophy with my brother and sister when I get home.

What was good and bad about the sessions?

Nina: I think maybe the club should be longer. Like, maybe from dinner to home time.

Charlotte: Sometimes we missed things in our class when we were at Philosophy Club, it would be better if we didn’t miss anything, I love Art and sometimes we missed it.

China: I liked the Lego and drawing and when we got the clay. I liked talking when we were working.

Would you like to do more philosophy?

Reuben: Me and my Dad are going to do Philosophy at home. We have got some books about Greeks.

Rosie: I want to do philosophy. I liked talking to everyone. I like the big questions. I really liked it when we listened to music and drawed our ideas (session 5).

Rhiannon: I think we should do philosophy every day. It helps you to think about things carefully. It is better than rushing around.

Sample of Observations of the Session—Researcher

Session 6 was interesting, as there were fewer opportunities for differences of opinion, perhaps—none of the children felt they were not philsophers, for example. Some differences came up around what philosophers do. It was interesting that some children had been talking about this at home.

The dynamics of the group feel quite different from Session 1—this might be because they are more used to me being around, but the children seem more comfortable with disagreement and less likely to conform to friendship allegiances… although it could be that they would do this in other contexts anyway, and Philosophy Club has brought about the change in their behaviour at the start.

Observations of the Session—Children

Did you write that down, Dr. Q? China

I think everyone has got better at drawing. I like looking at the philosophers. Charlotte

Figure 6. Session 6 drawings, which contributed to the mosaic.

Figure 6. Session 6 drawings, which contributed to the mosaic.

Summary of Analysis: Session 3

Line of Inquiry: How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?

In this final session, children talked about themselves as philosophers, working in a group to think about the big questions. Their drawings communicated their thoughts about what philosophers do, but also who can be a philosopher. Some children talked about disagreements and how philosophers are not afraid to disagree, which represents a shift in thinking around being part of a group, particularly in contrast to the first session.

3.4. Summary of Analysis: Sessions 1–6

Research lines of inquiry:

• How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?

Over six sessions, children’s expressions of interaction and communication changed, and this was evident through their drawings and observations, but also in how they chose to work. For example, from session to session, children generally became more open to choosing a different partner for making Lego models. Children who had been less likely to communicate their ideas in early sessions were sometimes the most communicative by the final sessions, and some children appeared to become ‘thought leaders’, depending on the topic of discussion. All the group participants appeared to become more confident in sharing their ideas over the series, perhaps in part because they were more comfortable with the researcher and the format. Session notes also support the changing dynamics of the group, particularly around children being more open to disagreement, and more likely to work with someone who was not their best friend in the group.

4. Discussion

Whilst this was a short series of sessions, there were some notable changes over the sessions, which were noted by the children and the researcher, and evident through their discussions and creative work. In this discussion, the lines of inquiry set for the project are explored in depth, building on the session analysis from the Findings section.

Research lines of inquiry:

• How do children express their social interaction and communication in this community of inquiry over 6 weeks?
• What are the benefits and challenges of philosophical inquiry sessions in this context?

In terms of social interaction and communication, the format of the sessions, including discussions and working as a team or in pairs encouraged children to express their thoughts and feelings in a safe environment. Children encouraged each other, and over the weeks this became more targeted, with children praising each other for interesting ideas. Observations suggest philosophy club is helpful in building relationships between children who would otherwise not naturally interact with each other.

Over the sessions, children gained confidence in their opinions, and their friendships became more elastic. For example, by Session 3, established friends like Belle and Rosie seemed comfortable to disagree with each other. Building key skills of friendship maintenance (Carter, 2021), like negotiating differences in opinion, could be a benefit of regular philosophical inquiry sessions. This opportunity for disagreement and prolonged focus on an idea or question is unlikely to occur in other sessions in this way, as the National Curriculum centres the learning of facts and it has been argued that the heavy assessment schedule in England for Primary children (DfE, 2013) means that content dictates ‘(a) what was taught, (b) how it was taught and (c) how often’ (Hargreaves et al., 2023, p. 547).

Interestingly, children referred to themselves as philosophers from Session 1, noting that this was something they all had in common, but this built up over the weeks to what Belle referred to as having made ‘new thinking friends’. Belle’s comment that she had not realized that Jack and Reuben had such good ideas might also signal a breaking down of social barriers between boys and girls. When children talked about where they might have philosophical conversations in future, they suggested playtimes, lunchtime and after school—but notably, they described their single-gender social groups for these times. Whilst this group might not be representative of other Key Stage 1 classes, it is encouraging to think that philosophical inquiry may break down some social boundaries.

The communication and interaction between adult and children changed over the course of the sessions. Of course, this could be explained by the children getting to know and become comfortable with the researcher, but the relationship between children and adults in philosophical communities is often different to traditional classroom roles, as some of the hierarchy is stripped out of the activities and the children have an equal input and voice in the session in some models (Cassidy & Christie, 2013). As the adult in Philosophy Club, I felt that my role changed over the weeks, from guiding the session quite a lot at the beginning, to being more of an observer and notetaker as weeks went by. When working with young children, the shift in these exchanges, from the adult imparting wisdom to the children leading the discussion and informing each other and me, felt like a shift in power that is usually difficult to achieve (Clark, 2005). Another opportunity for the adult in the group is getting to know the children in a different situation. Children share their experiences and beliefs, their hopes and fears—this can be insightful for the adult but could also be a useful reminder of why working with children is important and impactful.

The COVID-19 experiences of this group, and the potential limitations on their social interaction and communication that this may have caused (Cattan et al., 2023; Egan et al., 2021; Pascal et al., 2020), are difficult to ascertain and this was beyond the scope of this study, but it is arguable that any opportunity to discuss, disagree, and interact in a safe environment will would be, at worst, of low positive impact on social interaction and communication and at best, as with this group, an opportunity to make new friends, to see other children in a different light and to find fulfilment in an activity that may not be familiar in the National Curriculum. The children noted these benefits as readily as the researcher did, and this is also of note. The sessions gave an opportunity to think about their learning and interactions in depth.

Whilst research on philosophical inquiry and young children is scarce, this study adds a case to the literature, in which younger children have engaged meaningfully in philosophical discussion and activity. Adapting classic philosophical inquiry topics, such as identity, permanence and change by using apparatus and working together did make philosophical debate accessible to this group of 5–7-year-olds. Children tackled challenging philosophical concepts such as the Ship of Theseus (which we re-branded as The Bluebird) together, using familiar manipulatives like Lego. Whilst they were one small group in one school, it seems likely that other groups of a similar age would be able to take on these challenges, too, given the findings of this and other studies, such as O’Reilly et al.’s (2022) work on critical thinking with children as young as 3 years old.

There are limitations inherent in this study. This Philosophy Club happened in one school, with one group of children. Whilst it was never the intention to generate replicable data, or to generalize to a wider cohort, the small participant number means that even generalizing to another class in the same county is not realistic. The children had six one-hour sessions of the club, which is again limited in terms of assessing impact, and it isn’t possible to say that a long-term benefit had been achieved as has been in other studies with older children (e.g., Topping & Trickey, 2007). The mosaic approach to data analysis also presents some challenges, given that there is no ‘recipe’ to follow, and much interpretation of data rests with the researcher. What is included in the mosaic, what is given most prominence, and what is left aside, in this case, was decided by the researcher. Other studies have referred to participants and in some cases parents, to sense-check the mosaic of data (Clark, 2001) but this was not possible for this research. More broadly, a limitation of using philosophical inquiry with Key Stage 1 children is the crammed curriculum, which may not provide many opportunities for prolonged discussion, or the pupil autonomy required for these sessions to be successful (Hargreaves et al., 2023).

5. Conclusions

This was a small-scale study, as noted previously; however, tentative recommendations can be made.

Further research should be undertaken into using philosophical inquiry with young children. It seems likely that with careful adaptation, young children can grapple with big ideas, and it also seems likely that there may be wider benefits that were noted in and about this group: new friends, a new appreciation for others, increasing interaction across the group and insights for the adult involved too. Whilst this was one small-scale study, the findings here support the work of other case studies and larger projects with older children, such as Cassidy and Christie (2013), Hedayati and Ghaedi (2009), Murris (2000), and Siddiqui et al. (2017).

Teachers, teaching support staff, and early-years practitioners would benefit from having professional development opportunities to support them with critical thinking and philosophical inquiry with their children. The opportunity to undertake this research, and to be trusted to take children out of their usual lessons, only came about because I could demonstrate my training as a philosophical inquiry facilitator, and starting a community without any training would be daunting for most practitioners. From my own experience, I would recommend that this is not crammed into initial teacher education, which is already very crowded in England, but offered and encouraged in early and middle careers to re-engage with the professional role.

Whilst it is not possible to claim that Philosophy Club helped this group gain ground on their COVID-19 social interaction deficit, philosophical inquiry seems like a good bet for an activity that would, at worst, do no harm to children’s communication and social skills and at best, could have positive outcomes. Making ‘new thinking friends’ seems like a goal worth aiming for, particularly in the wake of a pandemic that robbed young children of opportunities to learn to disagree amicably.