philosophy for children in saudi arabia and its impact on non-cognitive skills

Introduction

Educational systems usually start with comprehensive aims that try to enhance the well-being of students (^{Graham, Powell, & Anderson, 2018}; ^{DeAngelis, 2019}). Since schools are unique places where students experience a variety of social and cultural factors, expectations are high that schools achieve such aims (Siddiquie, ^{Gorard, & See, 2017}). In schools, students encounter and interact with people from different backgrounds and experience society and its complexities in a more controlled environment. The complexities of sociocultural factors mean that schools aim not only to transform knowledge but also to cultivate skills and attitudes that help students deal with life in the general sense of the word (^{Cassidy, Marwick, Deeney, & Mclean, 2018}). These skills and attitudes include critical thinking, collaborative thinking, caring thinking, and ethical sensitivity toward others.

The teaching of critical thinking and philosophy to students in the European School of Madrid was introduced to satisfy the comprehensive aims of education (^{Colom, Moriyon, Magro, & Morilla, 2018}). Studies show that teaching critical thinking and philosophy is reported to enhance both cognitive skills and non-cognitive skills (^{Trickey & Topping, 2004}; ^{Yan, 2017}; ^{Rahdar, Pourghaz, & Marziyeh, 2018}). Other studies show improvements in students’ ability to read, write, and do math (^{House, 2016}; ^{Auriac-Slusarczyk, Maire, Thebault, & Slusarczyk, 2018}; ^{Gorard, Siddiqui, & See, 2015}). Studies also show improvements in students’ personal and social skills (^{Trickey & Topping, 2004}; ^{Gorard, Siddiqui & See, 2015}). The interest in this pedagogical approach, which seeks to train students in critical, creative, collaborative, and caring thinking and philosophy skills, has its foundations in the history of education. Philosophers of education such as John Dewy and sociologists such as Lev Vygotsky emphasized the importance of adopting a comprehensive view of education and the role of philosophy in realizing such a view (^{Dewey, 1990}; ^{Daniels, 2016}). This paper examines the role of philosophy in enhancing non-cognitive skills in particular. Non-cognitive skills include a variety of skills such as communication skills, motivation, assertiveness, confidence, resilience, determination, and self-esteem. These skills are sometimes referred to by titles such as soft skills, personal characteristics, personality traits, life skills, or social and emotional skills (^{Jagannathan, Camasso, & Delacalle, 2019}; ^{Gorard, Siddiqui, & See, 2015}). This paper specifically focuses on social and communication skills, self-confidence, determination, social responsibility, democracy, diversity, empathy, fairness, justice, and happiness. The development of such skills is an essential goal for educational systems that aim to provide children with a comprehensive educational experience. In this paper we study how philosophy for children might help achieve such an aim.

Empirically, Philosophy for Children (P4C) became a worldwide movement in its own right, with the implementation of programs for children to study philosophy and critical thinking more systematically (^{Gregory, Haynes, & Murris, 2017}). Matthew Lipman (1923-2010) is considered the founding father of this movement, which spread to many countries worldwide (^{Lipman, 2008}). The main idea of P4C centers on introducing children to philosophy from an early age. Most countries offer students philosophy courses at the college level, but P4C argues that philosophy is suitable for children well before college. P4C works to challenge two assumptions rooted in traditional education: first, that philosophy requires a level of cognitive development that is beyond the reach of young children; and second, that philosophy might encourage students to be skeptics more than learners (^{Pritchard, 2018}). Concerning the first point, P4C offers much empirical evidence from educational experiences that children can and do philosophize (^{Sanders, 2017}). As for the second point, P4C distinguishes between skepticism and critical thinking and aims to enhance the latter rather than the former (^{Zulkifli & Rosnani, 2020}). Pedagogically, at least as developed by Mathew Lipman, P4C represents a dialogical inquiry facilitated by reading novels and picture books, such as Harry Stottlemeir's Discovery and Lisa, that present the child with situations designed to stimulate thinking (^{Lipman, 1983}). The aims of P4C include (but are not limited to) improving cognitive and epistemological skills. P4C works toward advancing social objectives such as democratic communication (^{Echeverria & Hannam, 2017}); ethical and political goals such as equality and justice (^{Chetty & Suissa, 2017}); and an array of aesthetic and artistic experiences (^{D’Olimpio and Teschers, 2017}; ^{Fletcher & Oyler, 2017}).

Such programs are highly influenced by socioeconomic and cultural factors (^{Chetty, 2018}). Scholars continue to study how these factors affect these programs in terms of policies and implementations (^{Tian & Liao, 2016}; ^{O'Riordan, 2016}). However, not all economic, cultural, and social contexts are the same. Each educational system deals with different contexts and hence offers a unique experience. While some contexts have been studied more than others, others have been ignored. The educational system in Saudi Arabia had been shaped by it own experience (^{Rajab & Wright, 2020}), which includes a unique experience with philosophy. For a long time, the Saudi system took a critical and sometimes hostile attitude toward philosophy as such, not to mention toward teaching it. Philosophy was seen as a threat to the correct understanding of Islam. As a result, philosophy was banned not only in K-12 education but also in higher education. That is, not only was philosophy not taught in schools and universities, but students were also taught that philosophy represented an incorrect way of thinking about important issues such as life and existence.

However, outside of schools, philosophy was increasingly receiving more attention from the public, and organized philosophical circles started to hold regular meetings and public events on philosophical matters. Educationally, private centers such as Baseera,² an educational consultancy organization that uses internationally-accredited programs to introduce philosophical thinking and Socratic dialogue, were established and started to attract public attention. In addition to these earlier developments, a recent change has taken place. Within the more general economic and social reform program introduced in Saudi Vision 2030,³ the Ministry of Education introduced its new critical thinking and philosophy curriculum for high school students in 2019. The Minister of Education introduced this curriculum at a public event, and the media reported the announcement widely (^{Al-Kinani, 2019}). Because there were no philosophy instructors among the ranks of Saudi teachers, the Ministry of Education implemented a curricular training program for about 200 teachers that was led by a professional international philosophy for children program.⁴ After being trained, teachers were sent to teach the new curriculum in two hundred designated schools all around the country as an experimental first step. This new curriculum introduced students to critical thinking and philosophical skills not through a systematic study of philosophical approaches but rather by offering examples and stories that raise questions and dilemmas. The new curriculum aims to develop both cognitive and non-cognitive competencies, such as the ability to lead a virtuous life, speaking and listening skills, the capacity to ask questions, and an improved pace of reading, writing, and calculating (^{Ministry of Education, 2019}).

This development is part of a larger vision that sees education as a means of accomplishing economic and social change. The economic goal is central to this vision, and the new curriculum will be evaluated based on its success in advancing that goal. The effects of implementing this curriculum remain to be seen. This study predicts the effects of teaching P4C in the Saudi context, but on a smaller scale and to younger children. Although the benefits of P4C in terms of academic attainment are very important, this study explores the more general effect of P4C on non-cognitive skills. We attempt to answer the following question: What are the effects of teaching philosophy for children in a context where philosophy is not only new to the general public but also preceded by the active discouragement of philosophy?

method

The researchers used the posttest-only control group design, which is one of the ways in which the true-experimental design can be implemented (^{Morgan & Renbarger, 2018}). This method was implemented at an elementary school in the western suburb of Riyadh in the second semester of 2019-2020. We chose this school for several reasons. First, one of the researchers is a teacher at this school, which made it easier to get the school’s authorization to do the experiment. Second, this school is a public school, and most students belong to middle-class families, ensuring that all students are familiar with similar curricula and are at the same educational and learning level. Third, this school is in a new neighborhood where families belong to a variety of cultural and racial groups. These characteristics help reduce the odds of having students with previous training in philosophy or that certain social groups will be represented more than others. Equalizing other factors is important to relate the changes that students might have to the new way of teaching.

After acquiring the parents’ permission for their children to participate in this study, as well as securing the children’s consent, the researcher/teacher equipped the classroom with the materials needed for facilitating the P4C sessions according to the guidelines of Bassera and Dialogue Works. These included paper, cards, name tags, a sponge ball for dialogue circulation, colored markers, colored A4 paper, photos, and video clips. The teacher also used materials offered by the Society for Advancing Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE).

We facilitated 10 sessions with 14 12-year-old students. Each session took around 80 minutes. The first five sessions focused on introducing philosophical thinking and reasoning, building arguments, the Socratic method, and distinguishing between favorable and regular questions. The last session focused on creating a community of inquiry around a stimulus. Specifically, the first session contained an introduction to the program and a discussion about the roles that students should adopt during the inquiry, followed by some practice with asking questions to inspire dialogue with others. The next session started with a question about the previous session to ascertain whether students wanted to add something about it. The third session started with introductory practices in philosophy containing “agree/do not agree,” “Would you rather X or Y,” using drama, thought trains, question banks, silent acting, and “art or not art” and “I care/I don’t care” questions. The audiovisual aids consisted of photos, video clips, stories, and drama.

Then, the teacher presented the philosophical stimulus, which aims to introduce the topic as indicated in the lesson plan. The whole class then took a minute for silent reflection before starting to work to develop the main concepts in the stimulus. Next, students were divided into groups and asked to create questions with the characteristics specified to them during the first session. For example, opining questions that make us think it over and general (life) questions. After that, students voted to select the questions they found most interesting philosophically. Finally, the class engaged in a discussion around that question. The teacher worked as a facilitator with minimal involvement. In other words, he modeled what it is to be a good listener.

A simple random sample was collected from the sixth-grade male students (the students in the school are all male). The sample contained 28 students, 14 of whom participated in the experimental group, while the other 14 students represented the control group that did not participate in the P4C program (Table 1). The evaluation of the equivalence between the two groups in terms of social and economic status was achieved by using the data provided in students’ files. The control group was originally composed of 15 students, but one student withdrew because his parents did not approve of his participation. His parents explained that it was because they did not want this experiment to disturb his usual schedule; they did not express any negative attitude toward philosophy per se.

The program consisted of ten sessions offered over the course of eight weeks. In the first two weeks, students participated in four sessions, and in the next six weeks, students participated in six sessions, one session per week. After finishing the ten sessions, students in both groups took a post-non-cognitive capabilities scale test.

Not all the students were able to participate in all the sessions for a variety of reasons. For example, the sessions were conducted during the regular school schedule, and sometimes students preferred to go to their regular classes. Four students were able to finish all ten sessions, and the participation of the other students ranged from four to nine sessions (Table 2).

measurement tools

In this study, we used the non-cognitive survey developed by the research team at Durham University in collaboration with researchers from Leicester University (Siddiqui, ^{Gorard, & See, 2017}; Siddiqui, Gorard, & See, 2019). The researchers emailed Dr. Siddiqui and obtained permission to use the survey. Then, the researchers translated the survey into Arabic and contextualized it to fit Saudi culture without altering the main concepts. For example, we used “mosque” instead of “church” and changed names to Arabic names. After that, the translated survey was reviewed by faculty members from the Psychology Department at the College of Education at King Saud University and the Educational Policies Department at the College of Education at King Saud University to judge the appropriateness of the survey, its language, and phrasing for use with Saudi students. The survey was modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions and ultimately contained three main sections related to non-cognitive skills. The first section contained 11 statements about non-cognitive skills related to communication skills, sociability, cooperation and teamwork, self-confidence, determination, social responsibility, well-being, and empathy. The second section included five vignettes with a choice of three possible scenarios. Pupils had to select one of three options. The vignettes were about imaginary characters the same age as the students, and the questions provided did not seek to elicit closed answers like yes or no but rather required a judgment based on students’ understanding of social responsibility, empathy, and genericity and their understanding of democracy, justice, and social diversity.

analysis

Because the conditions of the Independent Samples t-Test regarding the sample size and the nature of the dependent variable were not met, the researchers used the Man Whitney U Test to analyze the data of both the experimental and control groups. The researchers relied on the value of Asymp. Sig 2 Tailed to measure the statistical differences between the two groups at the level of significance 0.05, noting the differences between the two groups’ mediums. In addition, the results contain the frequencies and percentages related to other variables.

first section: attitudes

This section measured non-cognitive attitudes for both the experimental and control groups in order to ascertain the effects of teaching sixth-grade children philosophy using the P4C method. This section included 11 statements designed to measure a set of non-cognitive abilities: communication skills, sociability, cooperation and teamwork, self-confidence, determination, social responsibility, well-being, and empathy. Because of the small sample size, because students did not respond to some statements, and to get as the most accurate results possible, the researchers conducted three statistical measures using the Man Whitney U Test:

1) Exclude Cases

After excluding the participants whose responses to the first section were incomplete, the number of the experimental group was 9, and the control group was 12. The results showed higher means for the experimental group than the control group in all measures except empathy and social responsibility. However, the differences that the means showed were not statistically significant on the level of 0.05 except in four factors: communication skills, social responsibility, the courage to try new things, and problem-solving, via the statement, “I know where to go for help with a problem.”

Table 3 shows little difference between the two groups’ means, with the experimental group achieving higher means in 9 factors: (1) Communication skills. (2) Sociability. (3) Cooperation and teamwork. (4) Self-confidence. (5) Determination. (6) I like to be told exactly what to do. (7) I am not afraid to try new things. (8) Well-being. (9) Solving problems by asking the right person for help.

The higher means for the control group were limited to empathy and social responsibility.

2) Analysis by compensating lost values by series mean:

This analysis contains all members of the sample (28 students - 14 for the experimental group, and the same for the control group). We dealt with the lost values by using SPSS and the means of the chain of the responses using the order Series Mean. Five responses were missing from the experimental group and two from the control group. All were compensated for by measuring the mean of the chain. Table 4 shows that the experimental group was ahead in nine factors out of 11. However, the differences were not significant at 0.05, as shown by Man Whitney U Test, except (in part) for not being afraid to try new things.

We note the similarities between the first and second analyses on the level of the means to measure the effect of teaching P4C for the 11 factors. Regarding the statistical significance on the level of 0.05, we observe that the experimental group was ahead in one factor: not being afraid to try new things. However, the first analysis, which removed the lost responses, showed statistical significance on the level of 0.05 in four factors: communication skills, sociability, not being afraid to try new things, and problem-solving by asking the right person for help.

3) Analysis of responses by participants who attended only nine or ten classes.

In this analysis, the researchers removed the responses of those who attended fewer than 9 out of 10 classes that offered P4C and the cases where responses were missing and then compared the remainder with the results of the control group. The remaining sample contained six students in the experimental group and 12 in the control group. Table 5 displays the results of this analysis, which show the experimental group ahead in eight variables of the non-cognitive abelites. However, the differences were not statistically significant on the level of 0.05 except for two variables: social communication, and sociability.

Table 5 shows the eight items in which the experimental group scored higher. We note that cooperation and teamwork were not among the items affected by P4C. The rest of the items were similar in all three analyses. Moreover, there were statistically significant differences in communication skills (0.012) and social responsibility (0.02).

summary of the first section of the scale: personal characters

The results show the effect of teaching P4C to sixth-grade students in the categories based on the non-cognitive skills, as shown by Man Whitney Test means. The experimental group scored higher in social communication, sociability, self-confidence, determination, liking to be told exactly what to do, not being afraid of trying new things, well-being, and solving problems by asking the right person for help.

The results show that P4C did not have an effect on three items: empathy, social responsibility, and cooperation and teamwork. The statistical significance for the differences between the means of the experimental and the control group in the three analyses shows four significant factors on the level of 0.05: communication skills, sociability, not being afraid of trying new things, and solving problems and asking the right person for help. To measure the relationship between these differences, the researchers conducted Rank Biserial Correlations, and the results were all less than 0.50, meaning that the relationship was not strong except in communication skills, where it was 0.638, which is higher than 0.05.

The results in this section are consistent with other studies which support the slight effect of P4C on non-cognitive skills (Siddiqui, Gorard, & See, 2019; ^{Ventista, 2019}; ^{Gorard, Siddiqui & See, 2015}; ^{Colom, Moriyón, Magro, & Morilla, 2018}; ^{Trickey & Topping, 2004}).

part two: vignettes

The survey included five vignettes as measures of changes in students’ sense of social responsibility, empathy, generosity, understanding of democracy, justice, and finally, social diversity. The outcomes for the vignette results are presented in terms of odds ratios.

Table 7 shows students’ responses to the first vignette on social responsibility. Both groups demonstrated a higher sense of responsibility, since they chose the option to organize a team to clean up the playing field over moving with their friends to a cleaner space or complaining to their friends that nobody cares about the space. However, students in the control group ranked higher, at 79%, compared to 64% for the P4C group.

The second vignette was about empathy and generosity. Students were asked about a classmate who has fallen behind in reading and writing and finds it hard to keep up in class. The teacher has to spend a lot of time helping him. Table 8 shows that students in the experimental group ranked higher than the control group. 50% of the experimental group chose “It is fair that the teacher should spend more time helping the student in need, even if the other students have to wait,” as opposed to the other two options: “The student should work harder to keep up with the class,” and “The student should be taught in a separate class,” compared with the 14% of the control group who chose the empathetic option. However, the odds ratio is 6.14, and thus the intervention effect is weak.

The third vignette focused on students’ attitudes toward democracy. The vignette is based on whether a leader for a group task should be picked randomly, selected by an adult, or voted on by all students. The results show that the control group was ahead compared to the P4C group. 50% of the control group chose to vote for a leader, whereas only 43% of the P4C chose to vote for a leader. The ratio odds value was 0.75, which is less than (1), which means the intervention was effective, as shown in Table 9.

The fourth vignette focused on the concept of fairness by presenting the following situation: One student spends all evening doing his homework. He searches on the internet and books, and then writes up his findings in his own words. Meanwhile, another student quickly scribbles down some answers to the homework on the way to school. When the homework is marked, the first student gets a lower grade than the second. Table 10 shows that both groups scored low in understanding the concept of fairness. Only 14% of the P4C group described what happened as not fair (that the first student gets a lower grade despite putting in a lot of effort) compared to the 36% of the control group that chose the same option, which focuses on effort more than talent. The other choices were, ‘The second student must be smarter than the first student, so it is fair that he gets a higher grade even though he did not put in as much effort,’ and ‘Both students should get the same grade on this homework.’ The odds ratio value was 0.28, which is less than (1), which means the intervention was effective.

The last vignette focuses on social diversity. Students were asked to consider this situation: Yasser’s family follows a different religion from most people in their country, and they want Yasser to be taught in a school that is based on that different religion. This means that he will not go to his local school. Table 11 shows that both groups scored less than 50%. However, the P4C group scored higher when they chose the statement, “This is fair because people who are different should have the opportunity to attend different schools,” with 43%, compared to the 29% of the control group that chose the same option. This means that 71% of the control group chose either the statement, “That is not fair because school is one place where people who are different should be able to work alongside each other,” or, “I can’t decide if it is fair or unfair that Yasser be taught in a school based on that different religion.” The odds ratio value was 1.84, which is larger than (1), which means the intervention was not effective.

In conclusion, the results show that teaching philosophy via P4C was effective in two aspects: empathy/generosity and social diversity. Both groups scored above 50% in the case of social responsibility. Moreover, both groups scored low in the case of justice. The P4C group ranked lower on democracy. We will offer some explanations for these results in the discussion section.

discussion