50

Tsuchiyama, Learning from Children: A Philosophical Journey

Learning from Children: A
Philosophical Journey
ELAINE TSUCHIYAMAW

hen young children engage in dialogue which
focuses on philosophical content, interactingwith topics which have different possible answers, surprising insights into children’s thinking are revealed. Children think about what is bad or good, examine
who they are, and learn about criteria, to name a few.
Through the community of inquiry and the dialogue process, they gradually and naturally take responsibility for theirown thinking. It is the expectation of the children that theirresponses be supported by reasons. Beliefs and assumptions
are scrutinized by questioning what is being said. Examples
and counter-examples are part of the building blocks tological reasoning. It is through this process that the children
can and do make sense of the complex world in which theylive.
Besides the individual benefits of becoming responsible,reflective thinkers, through P4C children experience thepower of thinking as a community. They learn that they areinquirers in a community who together try to make sense of
the world around them. With this comes respect for others.
Children need to know that what they say is important. No
put downs are accepted. The children learn that respect isshown by how they respond to each other. Listening andspeaking are important parts of this dialogue. The children
become keenly aware of the language they use while communicating with others. Interestingly, when the children
participate in this philosophical dialogue in the classroom, I
become an equal partner in the thinking process as well.
I, too, transform. As I actively engage with the children
in this philosophic al dialogue, I question my own beliefs
and thinking. I catch myself making assumptions when I
respond to or relate an opinion to a colleague, family member, or a friend. Being the facilitator in this dialogue withthe children “forces” me to listen carefully to what the children are saying. I learn more about the children and the way
they view the world by being an active listener at all times.
There is power inherent in listening.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic have again taken center
stage in education. With the new legislation of the “NoChild Left Behind” act, there is little discussion about having our children become accomplished, thoughtful thinkers.
It is assumed that the children are thinking as they workwith the various content areas. But are we genuinely nurturing our children’s thinking? Furthermore, do we really want
our children to think? Therefore, a critical question arises:“Does philosophy warrant a place in the school’s curric ulum?” I strongly believe that the discipline of philosophy
and the process of doing philosophical inquiry support andempower children through dialogue to define who they are.
The dialogue which ensues in a philosophical context
brings a more connected understanding of what makes us
human.
I have observed first graders as well as sixth graders artfully dialogue with their peers. They question and look at
assumptions and the implications of their actions. However,this doesn’t magically happen. Time must be set aside on aregular basis for this kind of engagement to occur. The children need time to listen to their peers and practice articulating their thoughts and feelings. Over time, a transformation
does appear. It is really like seeing, in slow motion, a beautiful rose delicately blossom in front of me. Children are
awesome thinkers!
Six-Year-Olds Become Socratic Thinkers
Through Stories
In his passionate desire to ensure that children became
Socratic thinkers, Matthew Lipman wrote several novels
filled with philosophical ideas. Elfie (1988) was written forchildren in kindergarten through second grade. It begins:Hi! I wish I knew your names. I’m afraid to ask.
Maybe if I tell you my name, you’ll tell me yours.
My name if Elfie. I hardly ever ask anybody anyElaine Tsuchiyama (jag96789@aol.com) is currently a Special Education Literacy Resource Teacher with the state of Hawai’i Department of Education. She has been a teacher for thirty five years andinvolved with P4C since 1985.

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2thing. I don’t know why. I don’t have a good reason. I’m just afraid to. I’m afraid because people
might find out I don’t know anything. See, that’s
my secret. Or one of my secrets. One of my awful,awful secrets. (p. 1)
Elfie is a young philosopher who wonders about why she
feels she knows nothing while her friend, Sofia (whichmeans wisdom in Greek), seems so perfect. Elfie marvels at
how Sofia asks such wonderful questions while she, on theother hand says very little in class. Elfie senses something
special about Sofia but is unable to pinpoint what it is.
In my classroom, I helped the children make connections to Elfie’s stories by converting individual episodes
into letters written to the class. The letter format simplified
and personalized the episodes for my children. The contentof the letter then spurred the children to write questions. It
was the formulation of questions that created the atmosphere for philosophical wonder—questions that presumed
no single right answers, but produced multiple possibilities.
Group and personal inquiries initiated the search for truth
and a deeper understanding of what and how people
thought. It was in this search and journey as philosophersthat the children became a more cohesive community ofinquirers and more thoughtful, critical thinkers.
To Socrates, words were illusive. He re-examined meanings by asking questions to which he did not know the answers. Coming to know what these concepts (e.g. justice,piety, knowledge, or happiness) meant always brought him
back to the original position of not knowing. He then cheerfully proposed to begin again. Thinking through reasoning
was what he wanted to teach the young Athenians. The“unexamined life was not worth living.”
In The Life of the Mind, Hannah Arendt (1978) heralded
Socrates as the model of a thinker. She argued that thinking
was what made it possible for words to have meaning.
Words were like frozen thoughts. The thinking process iswhat unfreezes the thought that then helps us to make senseof the word in the context of our experiences.
Stories from First Grade rs’ PhilosophicalConversations
I wanted to make the invisible visible. Through this unveiling of the children’s inner self, I began to better understand their actions in the classroom. They showed me howremarkable their thinking was. The children became myguiding light, showing me how to make learning moremeaningful and pertinent. And I’d like to believe that when
they articulated their thoughts, they began to better understand themselves.
I started with this letter from Elfie. (Lipman, pp. 15-17)
Dear Class,Mrs. Tripp says, ‘We are going to get avisit today from Mr. Sprockett.’ Mr. Sprockett is51

the principal of our school.
Later in the morning, there’s a knock at
the door. Rat! Tat-tat! The door is opening. Ohoh, here he comes!
Mr. Sprockett is wearing a blue suit with agreen tie and brown shoes. He smiles and rubs hishands together. ‘Boys and girls!’ he says.
Cindy and Bruce are still whispering toeach other. Mr. Sprockett’s smile gets a littlesmaller. ‘BOYS AND GIRLS!’ he says. ‘I havean announcement to make.’ He waits and waits.
We are all very, very quiet. I think to myself, ‘Maybe that was his announcement, and now
he’ll leave without telling any more.’
But no! Mr. Sprockett says, ‘How would
you like to be on television?’
We clap our hands and say, ‘Yeah! Yeah!
Love,Elfie
The questions generated by the children as a result of
this letter presented a glimpse into the complex world ofchildren’s minds. Like narrative stories, these questions revealed how children thought about themselves and theworld.
I wonder where are you, Elfie. Are you fine?
I wonder why Mr. Sprockett said somebody is going to be on television.
How come he waited and waited?
How come he is wearing a blue suit and a green tie
and brown shoes? Why was the principal mad?
How come they got a visit from Mr. Sprockett?
I wonder if they have cookies.
I wonder if Mrs. Tripp likes to be a teacher.
I wonder if the principal likes shapes.
I wonder if you guys need to visit him.
What were Cindy and Bruce talking about?
Why are Cindy and Bruce whispering? They aregoing to get into trouble.
Why do Cindy and Bruce whisper? They can talkafter.
Is the principal mean?
How many friends do you have?
How does your class look like?
Do you have long recesses?
Is your teacher a cousin to your principal?
Could you go to the bathroom when the principal istalking to you?
Did your principal go to another country?
Are they talking about something important?
Is he (the principal) a bit nice?
Why do they like to whisper when the principal
comes to the class?
I know Cindy and Bruce like to whisper.
Why do do they like to whisper?

52

Tsuchiyama, Learning from Children: A Philosophical Journey

Why did they whisper when the principal was talking? Cindy and Bruce shouldn’t talk.
Why does the principal have to be mean? I wonder.
Dear Elfie, do you like your principal?
Would you like to be on T.V.?
Why is the principal getting mad?
Why did the class whisper?
Our community of inquirers then used these questions
to dialogue which challenged everyone’s thinking. Clarification (what do you mean by…”) and reason-giving became necessary thinking tools. Implications and assumptions were examined. To expand critical thinking and reasoning abilities, the children were expected to provide examples and counter-examples to support stances they weretaking. The community of inquirers questioned the validityof what was being said. Was it really true? Not all children
developed their thinking skills at the same rate, but I haveno doubt that the ones who were not speaking up were listening. This deep-level thinking took practice and commitment on the part of the students and me. This was a learningjourney with the clear goal being that eventually all students
would feel confident and safe to share their inner thoughts
and feelings.
Rhonda: I wonder where you are, Elfie. Are you fine?
Jocelyn: She sounded fine in the letter.
Wayne: You need energy to write letters. I don’t see
Elfie because maybe she’s gone away toheaven.
Emerson: I disagree with Wayne because if she’s inheaven, she wouldn’t be writing.
Wayne: Maybe someone else is writing for her.
Jocelyn: Wayne’s assuming. He doesn’t know if Elfie’sin heaven.
Emerson: He’s not assuming. He just doesn’t know if
she’s in heaven.
Jasmine: Jocelyn’s smart.
Emerson: Wayne’s not that smart.
Teacher: If you’re not assuming, does that mean you’renot smart?
Emerson: Yeah.
Dr. Jackson: (Director of the Philosophy in the SchoolsProject) What do you mean by assume?
Jocelyn: You don’t know but you say it anyway.
Trevor: I disagree with Wayne because Elfie wouldn’t
be writing in heaven.
Royce: Elfie’s smart because she writes nicely.
Elsie:I remember Elfie wrote letters last year.
Joanne & Royce: I remember.
Elsie :She was sick and didn’t write for a long time.
Teacher: I wonder why Mr. Sprockett said somebody’s
going to be on T.V.
Burt:I didn’t know what else to write.
Royce: Maybe the principal wants to be nice.

Jocelyn: Mr. Sprockett didn’t say that. He asked everybody, but Burt said only one.
Estelle: Lots of people want to be on T.V., so Mr.
Sprockett said it.
Teacher: (Rereads the part of the letter that refers to being on television.)
Wayne: I disagree with Jocelyn.
Teacher: Because…
Wayne: I forgot what she said.
Teacher: (Repeats Jocelyn’s idea.)
Trevor: Maybe Elfie asked the principal to be on T.V.
Elsie:I disagree with Trevor because Elfie doesn’tknow.
Trevor: Maybe some of them were poor and neededmoney.
Teacher: Trevor, I have a question. Why are you thinking that poor people go on T.V. when theyneed money?
Trevor: Sometimes you go on T.V. to make money.
Learning from Children’s Dialogue
I learned two things by listening to these first gradersduring this philosophy time. First, I learned that children
did connect thoughts about Elfie to their personal lives.
Secondly, I learned that children did use precise words toarticulate their thoughts and ideas. Particulars were important, but these particulars became interconnected. The children became theory-makers about the world they lived in.
Children Connect From and Through Narratives
About Elfie to Their Personal Lives
The questions reveal that the children make personalconnections to recent happenings in the classroom. For example, Jocelyn asked if Mr. Sprockett liked shapes. We
were examining the concept of shapes in math. To wonder
if Mr. Sprockett liked shapes seemed so natural. Alice was
not so much interested in the content of the letter but curious about Mr. Sprockett’s personal life and how the school
operates. Her curiosity showed sophisticated thinking andfeeling, sensitive to who another individual is. She seemed
to have genuinely accepted the character of Mr. Sprockett.
Even at this young age children were curious about people’s relationships, feelings, and the nature of good health.
Why was the principal getting mad? Rhonda asked, “I wonder where are you, Elfie. Are you fine?” Questions generated by these children inevitably contained questions connected with feelings—feelings they had encountered within
their lifetime. These questions sparked lively dialogue
amongst us.
About ten years ago, my first graders tackled the question about whether there was one sky or many skies.
(Lipman, 1988) Makanoe, a bright, sensitive, and articulate
youngster related that skies were for real. She believed thatskies were real because that was where her nana(grandmother) lived now. With poise and confidence, sheThinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

eloquently related her thoughts to us. No doubt, the sky wasa heavenly place where Makanoe’s nana could live inpeace. Her grandmother, whom she loved dearly, had recently died of cancer. Makanoe found comfort in thisthought. So did I.
As I related this story to her mother that afternoon, she
was delighted that Makanoe was able to console herself andarticulate her thoughts to her classmate. When asked towrite a note for the Fee-Lah-So-Fee Newsletter, this is what
Makanoe’s mother wrote of this story:
I think that it is wonderful for my daughter’s first
grade class to learn about philosophy and making it
a part of her studies in school. My daughter has
been able to express herself so deeply, using her
own thoughts and feelings about everything in andaround her. In particular, my mother had recently
passed away and during my daughter’s philosophy
discussion, she was able to share with her class thatthe sky was real because there was a heaven andthat her Nana lived there, so there was really aplace in the sky.
Socratic thinking unfolded that day ever so gracefully.
No one knew in advance—not me nor the children—thatMakanoe was going to share this touching story of her
grandmother. How could a dialogue of the existence of one
sky or many skies connect to Makanoe’s personal life andexperience? But it did. I’d like to think that her peers
bonded with her more deeply that day because she had
shared a story about death not being so sorrowful. I marveled how this six-year-old could be so incredibly spiritualand sensitive. I felt the inherent power of having philosophical dialogue on a consistent basis in the classroom.

53“I assume that Elfie has five friends.” The words seemed tobe just a natural part of his natural language. I was thrilled.
Immediately, one of his classmate wanted to know why heassumed Elfie had five friends. As Dexter thought about
this, his other classmates interjected, “Well, Elfie’s lettertalked about Diane, Steve, Ricardo, Sofia, and Linda. Elfie
must have at least five friends.” Isn’t this such wonderful
logical reasoning?
Another philosophical thinking tool used during our philosophy time was the examination of truth. Children scrutinized the claim being made—examining the truth or falsity
through the process of logical reasoning. Was it for sure?
Probably? Possibly? Unsure? Or no connection? How manytimes have you expressed a thought thinking it was thetruth, but upon examination of the statement, you discovered that it was false? False claims can be made if we donot think about the integrity of our statements. If left unchecked, false claims viewed as truths will lead to erroneous outcomes.
Engaging in daily dialogue during philosophy time afforded my first graders the opportunity to use language tothink. The skillful use of language expressed precise feelings and knowing. One day, Estelle thought about assumptions and truth as she wrote a story to me. It was only
through her story that I was privileged to see her thinking.
She made the invisible visible. Estelle wrote:
I love my teacher. Her name is Mrs. Tsuchiyama.
Of course, she loves me, too. She cares about us.
That’s why she scolds us. But is that true? Mymom scolds me because she loves me. I think I
assume too much. Mrs. Tsuchiyama, do you assume too much like me?
Conclusion

Children Begin to Use Precise Words to Articulate
Their Thoughts and Ideas
Elsie asked, “Is he (the principal) a bit nice?” She did
not want to know if he is nice or not nice. She wanted toknow if he was a bit nice. Stated this way, the question
posed a gradation of nicety. It opened dialogue for clarific ation. Their questions allowed us to see their realities, to see
the purity of their wonder and their thinking. Each childpresented a different view through how questions were formulated. Raising questions with “I wonder…” expressed asense of subtle puzzlement. The “I” personalized the question of their wonderment. The words “I wonder…” seemed
to freeze time momentarily, giving us pause to ponder.
Through regular philosophy time, the first graders began
to understand the concept of assumptions. This was a difficult concept to internalize, yet, by engaging in regular philosophical dialogues throughout the year, my first graders
intuitively grasped the meaning of assume. On one occasion, the class focused on Alice’s question, “Howmany friends does Elfie have?” Dexter quickly exclaimed,

My six-year-olds diligently worked hard at making
sense of their questions by using their own personal experiences as springboards. They demonstrated the ability toskillfully engage in philosophical dialogue. Their dialogue
contained evidence that they were thoughtful and reflectivethinkers. They gained, with practice, the confidence to use
these thought-provoking words to bring clarity and solid
reasoning to the community. I marveled at the language thatthese young children used. Their stories contained a refres hing look at the world. Simply delightful! Just imagine
what our world would look like with if we had a citizenry
who asked thoughtful questions and responded with intellectual integrity like these six-year-olds. What a wonderfulworld it would be.
References
Arendt, H. (1978) The life of the mind. San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Lipman, M. (1988) Elfie. West Cadwell, NJ: Typesetting Services.