Croatian Journal of Philosophy

Vol. XVI, No. 48, 2016

The Concept of Curiosity in the

Practice of Philosophy for Children
İREM GÜNHAN ALTIPARMAK
Department of Philosophy, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey

Philosophy for Children is, at its core, an educational movement that

started in the 1970s and it is currently practiced in over 60 countries.
Rather than teaching children philosophy, it aims to develop thinking,
inquiry and reasoning skills by means of intellectual interaction and
by questioning both with the facilitator and amongst themselves. Thus
it creates a community of inquiry. This movement has created a sound
literature within philosophy of education which indirectly relates to
issues in meta-philosophy, epistemology and philosophy of childhood.
Despite the fact that Philosophy for Children is a movement which is
predominantly based on questioning and inquiry, there is little empha-
sis on curiosity within its literature. This is not surprising because even
in philosophy literature the concept of curiosity was ignored until quite
recently. Producing the first book-length treatment of curiosity within
philosophy literature, İnan provides a philosophical framework on how
human curiosity is possible and how it finds expression. The notion of
inostensible conceptualization, which İnan has developed and central
to his theory of curiosity, could be utilized in order to demonstrate the
significance of curiosity within Philosophy for Children. Philosophy for
Children sessions are usually centered around a philosophical concept
such as fairness, egoism, and identity. In this paper I argue that the
in-class discussions in Philosophy for Children practice enable children
to realize that the concept in question is inostensible for them. That is,
they do not have all the knowledge about this specific concept. In order to
explain the concept of curiosity in P4C sessions, I have developed two no-
tions: the first notion is curiosity-arouser, which I utilize to explain how
the community of inquiry could better concentrate on and discuss the
inostensible concept. The second notion is joint curiosity, which I have
developed in analogy to the trans-disciplinary notion of joint attention.
Similar to the positive impact of joint attention on child development,
I argue that joint curiosity has positive outcomes for children’s inquiry
and questioning. I explain these notions in detail by providing examples
of Philosophy for Children sessions. My overall aim is to emphasize the
importance of curiosity in order for this practice to reach its fundamen-

361
362 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

tal aims. The practitioners and those who prepare materials have to take
into consideration the concept of curiosity and must equip themselves
with an understanding of it.

Keywords: Philosophy for children (P4C), philosophy of curiosity,

philosophy of education.

General Information about Philosophy for Children

Philosophy for Children, abbreviated as P4C, is an educational move-
ment that includes in its background the philosophies of John Dewey,
Gareth Matthews, Lev Vygotsky, George H. Mead and Charles Sanders
Pierce (Lipman et al. 1980, Murris 2008).1 It has arisen from the phi-
losophy professor’s, Matthew Lipman, concern about the poor reason-
ing abilities of university students, and so as to find a solution to this
he wished to improve critical thinking, to develop the inquiry about
philosophical questions and to enhance making reasonable judgment
at a younger age (Lipman 1985, Gregory 2011). In collaboration with
Ann Margaret Sharp, he founded and became the director of Institute
for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC), where the phi-
losophy textbooks for children and the Philosophy for Children pro-
gram were prepared.2
Lipman and P4C followers believe the fruitful outcomes of the de-
velopment of thinking and reasoning skills at an early age in the pro-
cess of education. Lipman (2003) acknowledges that children are curi-
ous and inquisitive, and thus introducing philosophy to children and
discussing philosophical issues with them have the benefit of improv-
ing their certain skills. This is because “philosophy is the finest instru-
ment yet devised for the perfection of the thinking process” (Lipman
et al. 1980: xi). Philosophy for Children practitioners aim to develop
children’s cognitive and communicative skills by bringing philosophy
into their school curricula. According to Lipman, getting acquainted
with philosophy enables children to develop thinking skills, such as for-
mulating concepts precisely, drawing inferences, making appropriate
generalizations, recognizing consistencies and contradictions, clarify-
ing ideas, identifying underlying assumptions, giving reasons, making
distinctions, making connections, analyzing values, identifying falla-
cies, instantiating, constructing definitions for familiar words, taking
differences of perspective into account, constructing arguments and
formulating questions (Lipman 2014).

1
The original name of this practice is Philosophy for Children (P4C). Some
writers prefer to use the phrase “Philosophy with Children” when referring to this
practice. I acknowledge both phrases and use the abbreviation “P4C” in this paper
for brevity.
2
Matthew Lipman prefers to call those textbooks “philosophical novels”.
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 363

Children develop these skills by means of discussing a philosophi-

cal concept or issue.3 The quality of P4C sessions rests on the fact that
children scratch beneath the surface of a philosophical issue with the
help of questions and dialogues that are initiated with the help of the
materials appropriate for children’s age and understanding. In order
to fulfill this, some constitutive elements are essential to P4C sessions.

P4C Session
For a better understanding of my claims regarding P4C practice, it is
necessary to know what takes place in a session. Briefly, P4C session
is defined as a typical session that consists of a group reading a source
text, followed by the gathering of students’ questions stimulated by
the reading.4 There are certain elements in a P4C session, and these
are indispensable factors of a session; namely, Socratic Dialogue, the
Facilitator, and Community of Inquiry.
All these distinctive factors have different and complementary roles.
The discussion method is grounded on Socratic Dialogue. Originally in
Socratic dialogues, Socrates is “tirelessly pursuing intellectual inquiry
by method of question and answer” (Kahn 1998: 72). Bringing this type
of dialogue into the session helps children to enhance their dialogic
skills, to hear each other’s ideas and to make inquiries. “The dialogic
skills the Socratic Dialogue employs are listening, formulating and re-
formulating, asking for clarification, checking for understanding, fol-
lowing on from probing assumptions and explicating them, abstracting
and concretizing” (Knezic et al. 2010: 20).
In the Socratic method of systematic questioning and dialogue, chil-
dren are encouraged to talk and listen to each other within a communi-
ty of inquiry that is not controlled, but is facilitated by the teacher. The
P4C practitioner is called a facilitator because she is not in a position of
transferring knowledge. On the contrary, the facilitator is responsible
for leading the sessions in order to enable children to experience philo-
sophical discussions and to gain equity for talking and sharing as well
as for the use of compatible discussion plans, exercises and activities.
This is also pointed out by Murris, she says: “the philosophical dimen-
sion of an inquiry depends, to a large extent, on the facilitating skills
and attitudes of the teacher” (Murris 2000: 40).
The children and the facilitator engaged in a Socratic Dialogue
constitute a Community of Inquiry, abbreviated as CoI. With all its

3
Although the concepts discussed in the sessions are mostly philosophical,
there can be concepts or issues that are not philosophical; such as the concept of
“cooperation” or “work”. The issue of what a philosophical concept is, is a topic in
itself. Nevertheless, philosophical questions could be generated from the concepts of
cooperation or work. The underlying issue here is that the children are philosophically
discussing them in the sessions.
4
You can find the definition of a P4C session and more information on the
website; www.p4c.org.nz.
364 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

members, including the facilitator, this inquiring community sits in a

circle. Sitting in a circle is a significant aspect of a P4C session, because
this aspect makes it possible for all members to fully see each other
as peers. Thus, they are encouraged to share on the same platform.
The aim is to give children an opportunity to share thoughts with each
other. Having discussions in this inquiring community that requires
sitting in a circle gives everyone the opportunity to hear one another’s
ideas, experience each other’s thinking processes, help build up their
thoughts by listening to each other, asking questions and be able to
think within a community. This arrangement of the session promotes
open-mindedness, self-expression and furthermore, intellectual cour-
age, and respect for others.
Through embracing all these constitutive elements, a P4C session
improves cognitive and social skills. On the whole, a Philosophy for
Children session includes Socratic Dialogue and enables the commu-
nity of philosophical inquiry to engage in discussions with the help of
the facilitator so that children could inquire, ask questions, respond to
each other, and hence become an active member.
Coming to the end of this section, I would like to mention a session,
which I am going to refer throughout the paper, for illustration. The
community of inquiry of this session was composed of ten people includ-
ing the home room teacher, the facilitator and the primary school chil-
dren aged 8. The video of a story book about the gingerbread man was
introduced to the group.5 In the video, the gingerbread man managed
to escape from all the characters who said that they would eat him.
Then, he came across a fox who said to the gingerbread man that he did
not want to eat him. The gingerbread man was tired of running from
the others. He felt no threat from the fox and wanted to walk with him.
While the gingerbread man was enjoying his company, the fox played a
cunning game and ended up eating him.
The concept of lying was the topic of concern for the inquiring com-
munity.6 After watching the video, one of the members started the dis-
cussion with the following probing question: why did the gingerbread
man believe the fox, who was a natural liar? This question brought
up discussions on what lying is. Furthermore, inquiring community
discussed ethical problems about lying. The discussions went on with
commentaries, questions, answers and sharing experiences. In analyz-
ing the concept of lying, related issues such as deceiving, hiding and
keeping secrets were introduced by different members. By means of
5
The name of the book is The Gingerbread Man. There are different versions of
the book. I used a video version in this session. You can find the video on Youtube;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U89dkGrsYZY
6
I bring such materials to P4C sessions that a couple of philosophical issues can
be brought under light. In this example, some children share their opinions about
the behaviors of the characters. Although there is more than one philosophical issue
to discuss, the community of inquiry gave emphasis to the concept of lying because
children chose to discuss it.
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 365

dialogue, conversations, questioning and sharing ideas, the commu-

nity had discussions in order to understand better what those concepts
stand for. They pondered on these concepts. The children mentioned
their experiences. They thought about issues such as whether keeping
secrets is lying, whether hiding is lying and whether lying is always
bad. Some members changed their ideas and some others gained more
information about lying. Throughout this paper, I will touch upon this
sample and explain the concept of curiosity in the light of it.

Curiosity in P4C Literature

The general information about P4C reveals that the sessions are built
on discussion, inquiry, and questioning. Children are able to grasp
philosophical concepts (Murris 2000), inquire into them and ask ques-
tions about them. That being the case, discussing the concept of cu-
riosity and its importance for inquiry and questioning deserve great
attention. Although it is significant, the relationship between curiosity
and questioning is not discussed in detail in the P4C literature. The
importance of fostering curiosity and the success of P4C in fostering
curiosity are acknowledged.
As mentioned earlier, Lipman and some P4C followers draw atten-
tion to the fact that children are curious, as part of their natural im-
pulse, and inquisitive (Lipman 2003, Lipman 1976, Wartenberg 2007).
Lipman is influenced by the philosophers Gareth Matthews and John
Dewey, who both claim that curiosity is one of children’s dispositions.
The curiosities and wonderings of children are regarded so valuable
that adults are criticized for losing their natural sense of wonder. This
loss could be explained by giving several reasons, but, most impor-
tantly, implementations of wrong education techniques and programs
cause children to be on the edge of losing their natural curiosity. Ac-
cording to Lipman, the nature of schooling, intransigencies of the edu-
cational system and didactic textbooks generate a loss of curiosity (Lip-
man 2003, Lipman 1976). In his paper Philosophy for Children (1976)
he mentioned the underestimation of a necessary preparation to arouse
a child’s curiosity in education. He added that, in addition to arousing
it, educators have to guide the child’s responses. He said that “a curious
child is like a coiled spring in that he contains his own energy, his own
dynamism and his own way of opening or unfolding” (Lipman 1976:
15). At this point he did not elaborate on the importance of arousing
curiosity; instead he mentions the importance of finding the “proper
trigger”.
P4C movement takes these educational problems seriously. There-
fore, arousing and fostering children’s curiosity are among the main
concerns of P4C movement. The success of P4C, that is, getting children
to be curious, is explicitly mentioned in the literature. For instance, it is
argued that the P4C program not only benefits from children’s natural
curiosity but also fosters their original curiosity for intellectual inquiry
366 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

(Conlan 2013, Murris 2008). It helps children to be more curious by

asking appropriate questions, and the P4C groups are said to display
more curiosity (Oral 2012, Ndofirepi and Cross 2015, Trickey and Top-
ping 2004). At the same time, the methods in the practice such as So-
cratic Dialogue and Inquiry are regarded as a way to awaken curiosity
(Turgeon 2015). In addition to this, Ann Margaret Sharp sees curiosity
and questioning as necessary features of a facilitator (Gregory 2011).
Drawing attention to the fact that children are naturally curious
and the emphasis on the need of fostering it are pivotal gains for edu-
cation. Yet, the explanation as to why it is important and necessary to
foster curiosity in children is missing in the literature. From now on,
I will discuss the need of fostering curiosity and the importance of the
concept of curiosity in P4C with reference to İnan’s conceptualization
of curiosity.

Curiosity and the Asking of a Question

P4C is supposed to have children inquire and ask questions. As well
as aiming to develop the thinking and social skills of children, P4C
intends to enable children to be substantial questioners who will criti-
cally evaluate the information they acquire. There is a relationship be-
tween the asking of a question and being curious. Curiosity acts as a
crucial motivation for humans to ask questions (İnan 2012). When we
take İnan’s hypothesis into account, curiosity gains a respectable and
indispensible place in the process of asking questions and inquiry. Typ-
ically, we express our curiosity by the asking of a question. Although
there are other ways of expressing curiosity such as mimics and ges-
tures, the asking of a question is the fundamental way of expressing
our curiosity. This relationship between the asking of a question and
being curious renders the concept of curiosity significant for P4C prac-
tices in which questioning has an essential role.
In order to explain my claim, I refer to İnan’s book The Philosophy of
Curiosity which offers a theory of curiosity. İnan focuses on illuminat-
ing human curiosity. According to him, human curiosity has evolved
together or before interrogative sentences. He claims that curiosity is
one of the impetuses for our interrogative sentences. The mainstream
understanding regards the asking of a question as a speech act. How-
ever, we could ask questions to ourselves and answer them without
producing sentences. İnan takes into account the asking of a question
to oneself as a private mental act and thus, regards curiosity as a fun-
damental impetus for humans to ask questions.
He acknowledges the variety of ways in which a speaker could be
motivated to ask a question. “One may ask a question whose answer
one knows just to test someone’s knowledge of the matter, one may
ask a rhetorical question to make a statement, and one may even ask
a question whose answer one wishes to find out but not because one is
curious about it all” (İnan 2012: 40). Similarly, not all inquiries require
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 367

curiosity. “Someone may inquire into something, not because he is curi-

ous, but because his job requires him to do so, or he wishes to get some
satisfaction by it, or to find something novel, or to gain power, and so
on” (İnan 2012: 19). Although there are different kinds of motivations
behind the asking of a question and inquiry, these do not change the
significance of curiosity. This is because curiosity is a crucial motiva-
tion for questioning and questions asked out of curiosity tend to be
more in-depth and valuable in acquiring knowledge.7
In order to explain further how curiosity is related to the asking of a
question, I will give İnan’s description of curiosity. İnan says “for every
question a subject asks out of curiosity there is a corresponding term
for the subject that is inostensible for him and whose content is an in-
ostensible concept; this I take to be a requirement for asking a question
out of curiosity” (İnan 2012: 41). İnan provides us with a novel defini-
tion and defines curiosity as follows: it is the mental state one enjoys
by the entertainment of an inostensible concept about something that
is of interest. Then, what is an inostensible concept? According to him;
In order to inquire into something, and later to be able to discover it, one
must have at hand something that guides him…this guide, on my view, is
neither any kind of knowledge, nor any kind of true belief, but it is rather a
complex term that I call “inostensible” (relative to the inquirer).
He continues with an explanation of ostensible and inostensible terms
as follows:
In the first case the speaker may know what a term may refer to, in the
sense that he knows that a certain object as being the referent of the term,
and in the second case one may lack such knowledge. Let us call the first
kind of term relative to a speaker an “ostensible” term (for that speaker)
and the latter an “inostensible” term (for that speaker) (İnan 2012: 33).
At this point, it will be useful to exemplify İnan’s argument. One of
İnan’s examples is the term “the population of Peru”. I do not know
“the population of Peru”, in other words I do not know the number
the term “the population of Peru” stands for which is what makes this
term inostensible for me. However, for someone who knows what the
population of Peru—what the term stands for—the term is ostensible.
İnan says that the epistemic link to what the term stands for is what
makes that term ostensible or inostensible for a subject. İnan applies
this distinction to concepts that the terms express. “When we are en-
gaged in an inquiry, the thing that guides us in our search for the object
of inquiry is an inostensible concept” (İnan 2012: 35). He claims that
the inquiry will end when the inostensible concept is transformed into
an ostensible one.
7
Curiosity could give rise to in-depth questioning. Children, who ask questions
out of curiosity, ask not to be active, talkative, take attention of others or give
response but ask because of their interest in the topic and their natural wonder
about things in general. They are the ones who are willing to learn and think more
about the concept in question. Curious children are likely to think, inquire and
engage in a dialogue.
368 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

It is crucial to point out that there are degrees in ostensibility and

curiosity (İnan 2014). A concept being inostensible for someone means
that, there are (more) things to learn about that concept. Following
İnan’s example of the term “the population of Peru”, we could say that
for someone who knows the exact number of the population, this term
would be fully ostensible. Most likely, however, there is no person who
knows what that number is exactly. For me, this term is inostensible
because I do not even know an approximate number this term stands
for. Furthermore, even for someone who knows the population approxi-
mately, the term would still be inostensible but less so compared to my
situation. There is a difference between the one who knows the exact
number of the population and the one who knows it approximately.
Since there are degrees in ostensibility, there is to learn for those who
do not know the population and there is still more to learn for those
who know approximately. Acquiring knowledge and gaining new ex-
periences increase the degree of ostensibility. For concepts, especially
philosophical concepts, there is a fair amount of information to learn.
Thus, an increase in the degree of ostensibility, even if the concept is
not fully ostensible, is still a remarkable achievement.
In the light of İnan’s definition of curiosity, I would like to put for-
ward a new analysis for the P4C sessions. A P4C session enables chil-
dren to realize that the concept in question is inostensible for them.
The session allows children to discuss, to question, to provide answers,
to make comments and to evaluate on the inostensible concept, to listen
to each other’s interpretations and ideas and to hear their own voices.
By means of these, P4C aims to make children realize that the concept
in question is inostensible for them, and then make the concept as os-
tensible as possible for the members of the inquiring community.
Examining the session example in the light of the inostensible con-
cept is going to be helpful for a better understanding. The purpose of
that session is to make those children become aware that there are
many things that they do not know about lying than they thought they
knew. The concept of lying being inostensible for a child means that
she does not know certain things about what lying is. What the concept
of lying stands for was a topic of debate for that community of inquiry
because there were things that they did not know about lying.8 They
had different ethical claims regarding the action of lying. Throughout
the discussions children analyzed some cases. They shared their expe-
riences and tried to decide whether the cases in question fall under the
concept of lying or other concepts. Throughout this P4C session, the
concept of lying became more ostensible for the inquiring community.
If a child thinks that she knows the concept, most likely she will
not ask questions about it. For a child, becoming aware of the fact that
8
The concept of lying is a debatable topic of Ethics. Even for the grown-ups and
the philosophers, the concept of lying may not be fully ostensible. I believe some
philosophical concepts or issues are not fully ostensible even for the experts of those
concepts or issues.
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 369

the concept is inostensible for her is a threshold in the process of inter-

rogation and asking a question. If she thinks that she knows what the
concept stands for, why would she feel the need to ask questions about
it? We may argue that for children to ask questions out of curiosity,
they need to have a realization of the inostensibility of the concept. In
order to ask questions, they need to think that there are issues to ques-
tion. In the P4C sessions, the child may realize that there is much more
about the concept in question than her knowledge about it, that is she
has partial knowledge about the concept, or she realizes that she has
false beliefs about it.9 This realization shows us that the child reaches
a certain kind of an awareness of ignorance.10
In the session example sharing ideas, giving approval and counter
examples, commenting on each other’s sayings; namely having discus-
sions helped children to realize the inostensibility of the concept of
lying for them. Concept formation, differentiating the concepts lying,
deceiving and hiding by discussion and evaluating the cases helped
the community of inquiry to have clearer ideas about what those con-
cepts mean in reality. The conversation below shows that children were
having semantic disputes about the concept of lying. The conversation
went as follows:
A: The fox deceived the gingerbread man.
B: The fox said that “I did not want to eat you”. That’s a lie!
C: The fox hid something. He did not tell the truth that he wanted
to eat the gingerbread man. When we hide something from our
parents or friends, we lie to them.
B: Keeping secrets is hiding. But keeping secrets is not lying.
D: We have the right to hide. This is keeping secrets. If you say the
opposite of what you are hiding, this is lying.
A: The fox did not have a secret. He did not tell the truth. He want-
ed to eat the gingerbread man. He deceived him by lying to him.
With the help of this conversation, the community realized that mem-
bers had different understandings about the same issues such as
whether keeping secret is lying or not. The children wanted to con-
tinue discussing the concepts hiding, deceiving and lying in the light
of sharing different examples and their experiences. Without sharing
your ideas, hearing your own words and comments, it is not easy to
realize your false beliefs. Child A thought about the behavior of the fox
9
It is possible for the child to hear about the concept for the first time. However,
this is contradictory to the fact that it is fruitful to discuss the concepts, issue or
topics that children are already in search for their meanings. Although it is possible
for some member of the community of inquiry to hear the concept in question for the
first time, this is usually not the case.
10
It is possible to say that Socratic Dialogue helps this realization. Achieving an
awareness of ignorance is an aim of Socratic Dialogue. Socrates in his dialogues aims
at helping the others to achieve it. As Kahn says; “his (Socrates) own modest claim is
simply the recognition of his own ignorance; and his own endeavor in discussion with
others is to help them achieve this same recognition” (Kahn 1998: 73).
370 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

and analyzed it. By this, he came to a conclusion that the fox deceived
the gingerbread man. After child B gave him a reply, child C and D
joined the conversation. One of the members continued this discussion
by saying that;
D: The fox lied because he wanted to eat the gingerbread man.
Without this lie, he could not eat the gingerbread man.
C: So, he lied.
D: Yes, but he lied for himself.
F: We have to be honest and say everything. But if we protect
someone or try to save our life, hiding is not lying.
Facilitator: Is lying always a bad action?
G: There are different types of lies. For example, we tell pink lies.
Telling pink lies is not deceiving. We tell pink lies for making
our friends not to feel sad.
D: When we lie for our interest, no, this is not bad.
E: But it is bad for the gingerbread man!
D: But it is good for the fox. What could he do?
F: Something good for you can be bad for some others. So this is a
bad thing, you should not do that.
The children helped each other as being the members of the inquiring
community to differentiate the concepts and make them clear by giving
arguments, introducing new concepts and examples. Introduction of
“pink lies” was followed by the conceptualization of lies as black, pink
and white later in the discussion. They discussed cases and had ethical
discussions on whether lying is always bad or not. While child D legiti-
mized the action of lying, children E and F opposed to this legitimiza-
tion. The session enabled a realization of the inostensibility of the con-
cept of lying in ethical terms so that they asked questions and shared
their opinions about this concept. Constructing definitions for familiar
words and formulate concepts precisely is challenging. Throughout this
session, the community of inquiry tried to construct definitions for the
concepts in question and formulate them.
To make my argument clear, I would like to give another example
from a P4C session that I facilitated. In this session, the topic of discus-
sion was cooperation. The book that we read was about creativity and
cooperation.11 The characters achieve something good and favorable by
way of cooperating with each other. While we were discussing the con-
cept of cooperation, one of the members said that;
W: Thieves cooperate to steal. However, stealing is a bad thing.
This sentence reduced the members of the inquiring community who
were discussing the issue enthusiastically to silence. Every member
began to think about this remark. Although we were discussing the
cases where cooperation is not working and is not productive, none of

11
The material of this session was the book called Swimmy. Lionni, L. (1963).
Swimmy. New York. NY: Pantheon.
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 371

us mentioned achieving something bad and unfavorable by way of coop-

eration. Then, the members continued the discussion by giving similar
cases as examples.
X: For killing somebody, people can cooperate!
Y: They can hurt animals by cooperating.
Z: Before, I thought cooperation is always good. Now I changed my
mind. Bad things can happen by cooperating.
Homeroom Teacher: I realized that I’m teaching the concept of coopera-
tion in giving emphasis to the fruitful outcomes of cooperation.
I’m always giving examples of cooperative activities that have
positive outcomes. Now I see that my approach is missing some
aspects of cooperation. People can certainly achieve something
unfavorable by cooperating.
By way of cooperation, we may achieve something not only good, but
also achieve something bad. It is clear that, the members gained new
information about what the concept of cooperation stands for and some
members realized their false beliefs, such as the child Z, after consider-
ing this information. The children, who had thought that cooperation
was always good, realized that this was not true. By means of discuss-
ing the concept of cooperation child W came up with a remark. His
contribution affected the community of inquiry, and thus some mem-
bers declared that they had changed their ideas after evaluating and
accepting that remark.
In every successful session, children realize the inostensibility of
the concept in question. The materials of P4C together with questions,
discussions and hearing the thoughts and experiences of others about
the concept in question have the possibility to make the child realize
the inostensibility of the concept in her own intellectual journey. There-
with sessions serve the purpose of accomplishing the task to make the
inostensible concept as ostensible as possible for each child.
Do the sessions complete the transition of the concept from inosten-
sible to an ostensible one? Neither the session complete the transition
of the inostensible concept into an ostensible one, nor, the session aim
to complete it. The purpose of the program is to discuss the concept in
question philosophically in which a complete analysis of the concept
is not a requirement. In the sample session, the community of inquiry
did not come to a decision about what lying is or about whether lying
is always bad or not. However, they thought about these issues, shared
their ideas and heard each other’s ideas. For the children, these opened
the way to think about their own ideas and compare different thoughts
about the same issue. To put in a nutshell; fair amount of information
and opinion were shared by means of discussion in that session. Those
are what enabled the transformation of the inostensible concept, lying,
into a more ostensible one for the children. At the end of the session, to
a certain degree, they have an idea of what lying is and is not.
On the other hand, aiming to make the concept ostensible for each
372 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

child will bring up the issue of didactic teaching. Making a concept as

fully ostensible as it could be requires having all the knowledge about it
beforehand and the task of transmitting it during the session. Howev-
er, the community of inquiry with the facilitator discusses the concept,
finds out what the concept stands for and even may come up with new
ideas. The issue here is not to teach or transmit them all the informa-
tion about the concept but to make the concept as ostensible as possible
by discussing it.
In this respect, the midwife analogy sounds quite plausible for P4C
sessions. “A number of metaphors have been developed to illustrate the
role of the teacher…the teacher is seen as a…midwife” (Splitter and
Sharp 1995: 140). The facilitator leads the session, asks questions to
children and helps them to state what they have on their minds. Not
only the facilitator but also the discussions and the session in general
have the potential of acting like a midwife. Children are eager to talk
and share their experiences. They have opinions and want to hear the
thoughts and ideas of other members; that is to say they want to learn
what the other participants think. The session enables them to hear
the members and also their own thoughts by means of Socratic Dia-
logue, discussion and sharing ideas. P4C gives them the opportunity to
state what they think and give answers to the questions. Children have
the chance to take the thoughts out of their minds. By means of creat-
ing an inquiring community in which thinking and sharing opinions
are fostered, the session acts like a midwife.
P4C sessions act like a midwife and there is much more to it. In ad-
dition to acting like a midwife, that is creating an environment for the
children to take their thoughts and ideas come out of their minds, the
sessions work on those thoughts and ideas, paving the way for their
development. By enabling them to hear other minds, building up on
to other's thoughts, evaluating arguments, drawing inferences, finding
examples, sharing experiences and self-reflection, children come to a
certain decision or understanding regarding the philosophical concept
and get acquainted with philosophical discussions.
So far I touched upon the relationship between the asking of a ques-
tion and being curious. If my position is taken into account, then, an
analysis of the concept of curiosity would be essential for P4C sessions
in which there is a fair amount of questioning and inquiry. When P4C
sessions are analyzed under the light of İnan’s theory of curiosity, it
is seen that, P4C sessions have the power to foster children’s natural
inclination to be curious by offering them discussions that are centered
around a philosophical concept (or a concept which can be discussed
philosophically) which is an inostensible concept for them. The P4C
session helps children to realize that the concept in question is inos-
tensible for them. Through discussions, asking questions and inquiring
into the concept in question, the sessions serve the purpose of making
the concept as much ostensible as possible.
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 373

The crucial point is the occurrence of an awareness of ignorance,

that is a realization of the inostensibility of the concept, which may
lead the child to ask questions. When the child realizes her, the concept
is inostensible for her, it is more likely for her to question the concept
and be an active member of the community of inquiry thus, be able to
make the concept more ostensible for herself and also make the discus-
sion more fruitful by her contribution. Becoming aware of the fact that
the concept in question is inostensible is very crucial in the process of
becoming curious and asking questions. However, this is not enough.
As İnan suggests, “only when awareness of ignorance concerning a spe-
cific matter is accompanied by a certain kind of interest in that matter
could it result in curiosity” (İnan 2012: 126). It is also necessary to
draw the attention of the children to the concept and arouse interest,
in order to get them to be curious. For a better discussion of the concept
of curiosity and how to get children to be curious during the sessions
we have to mention attention and interest, and then examine the P4C
session in the light of these notions.

Attention Grabber
For children to be curious apprehending that the concept in question
is inostensible, that is an awareness of ignorance, is necessary but not
sufficient. To become curious, the child has to pay attention and more-
over, feel interested in the topic. The session and the materials have
to be arranged with respect to drawing the attention of the children to
the concept and making them feel interested in it. The important thing
is to prepare the materials according to the cognitive levels of children.
The materials help us present the concepts to the community of inquiry
at the beginning of the sessions. The important thing is to prepare the
materials according to the cognitive levels of children. The materials
and the way the concepts are presented have vital roles for the sessions
because the children pay attention to the concept and to the sessions
by means of the materials and their presentation. Paying attention will
prepare the way for a realization of the inostensibility of the concept.
For fulfilling this realization in children, first, the materials have
to draw their attention. According to Lipman, “the child has little fu-
ture to count on; they only know that the present makes sense or does
not make sense, on its own terms. This is why they would appreciate
having educational means which are meaning-laden: stories, games,
discussions, trustful personal relationships, and so on” (Lipman 1978:
256). If the materials designed according to the needs and cognitive
levels of the children are presented in the classroom, it becomes easier
to draw their attention to the concepts. Typically, short stories or pas-
sages from stories are used in the classroom in order to present the
concepts or the issues. Other materials such as videos, toys or skits
may well be used in the sessions in order to bring a concept to the class
and take their attention. In relation to that, “attention grabber” seems
374 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

a suitable umbrella term for P4C materials whether they are books,
passages, short stories, videos or skits. The aim of these materials is
to draw the attention of the children to the philosophical concepts or
issues contained in these materials.
For drawing the attention of the children not only the material itself
but also its presentation is influential. During the presentation of the
attention grabbers, it is useful to ask one or two questions for clarity.
When there are unclear or ambiguous points, it will be hard for the child
to grasp the issue, keep his interest, and thus become curious. Before
pondering on the concept, the child has to understand the content of the
material. Asking questions during the presentation of the material is
practical also to engage the distracted children to the story. The ques-
tions for summing up, such as, “what has happened so far?” and the
questions for emphasizing connections between two things are helpful.
As mentioned before, in the session example the video of a story
book was presented. The video includes lively images, colorful scenes
and animal characters. These make the video an appealing material for
children and thus, the community of inquiry watched it with enthusi-
asm. It was successful in drawing children’s attention because it was
appropriate for children’s ages and cognitive levels.
After the presentation, one of the children asked “how can a gin-
gerbread man run faster than a horse?” This question was about the
material. Another child asked “how does the gingerbread man believe
the fox who is a natural liar?” This question indicates that he under-
stood the story and questioned the actions of a character. What is the
difference between these two questions? In both cases, children paid
attention to the video. However, the child who asked the second ques-
tion both paid attention to the material and felt interested in the is-
sue. Both questioners were in an attempt to understand. However, the
child who asked the second question was curious about the issue which
opens a way for the discussion about the concept of lying.
Being perplexed may well be the case for the child who asked the
question “how can a gingerbread man run faster than a horse”. It seems
that she was perplexed about the logical issue such as how a cookie can
run faster than a horse. The distinction between curiosity and perplex-
ity is worth noting here. Perplexity is for the good of arousing curiosity.
When a child is perplexed, she is more likely to ask questions that are
supposed to make the issue clear for her. Children could ask questions
out of perplexity when they are in need of clarification. A perplex child
is also the attentive child who cares about the topic and needs a clari-
fication because she is on the way of grasping the issue. It is necessary
for the facilitator to take into account the reasons behind children’s
questions so that the facilitator could make the clarifications. It is use-
ful for the facilitator to distinguish between curious states and perplex
states of the child so that she could put an end to her perplexity. When
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 375

the issue is clear for more members, it would be possible to have a

sound discussion with more participants.

Joint Attention
Thus far, I claimed that for catching the attention of the children, the
materials and their presentations play crucial roles. The materials
that are suitable for both introducing the philosophical concepts (or
concepts that can be discussed philosophically) and drawing children’s
attention to the concept act as attention grabbers in the session. At
this point, providing the analysis of the concept of attention is going to
be useful. Paying attention individually and paying attention jointly
in a group or community are regarded as two different aspects. Since
children are members of an inquiring community in P4C sessions, joint
attention comes to the forefront.
Joint attention is used and defined by developmental psychologists
and linguists: joint attention which occurs when a group of people per-
ceive the same object together is attributed to mind functions in which
we understand the intention and goal-directed behaviors of other peo-
ple around us. Its effectiveness for improving human capacities is prov-
en (Timothy 2010; Kidwell and Zimmerman 2007). In a famous study
that is conducted on mothers and their children, Tomasello and Farrar
indicated that “during periods of joint attentional focus both mothers
and children talk more, the dyad engaged in longer conversations, and
mother used shorter sentences and more comments” (Tomasello and
Farrar 1986: 1459).
If we are striving for getting children to be curious and developing
their thinking and social skills, it is better to establish joint attention
during the session. Joint attention smooths the way for the members
of the community of inquiry in engaging to all parts of the session.
Joint attention must be established if the objectives of discussing in
a community are supposed to be reached. By means of joint attention,
members affect each other in a positive way and this enables more
sound and fruitful dialogues, conversations and discussions. Thus, it is
expected for an attention grabber and in general the session, to create
joint attention in the community of inquiry.
As aforementioned, every child, who pays attention, is not necessar-
ily curious about the topic in question. Paying attention and being curi-
ous are relational; however, paying attention is not always followed by
curiosity. If arousing curiosity is an aim of the session, then, I propose
that it is meaningful for an attention grabber to create joint attention,
and also be a curiosity-arouser. For the effectiveness of a P4C session,
it is more anticipated for the material to function as a curiosity-arouser.
For the effectiveness of P4C sessions, it is more anticipated for the ma-
terials to be a curiosity-arouser. To fulfill this, the materials and the
session have to make children feel interested in the topic.
376 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

Interest
In order for an attention grabber to be considered a curiosity-arouser,
children have to feel interested about the content of it. As İnan puts it
“to become curious one must also have an interest in the topic that the
concept is about” (2012: 42). The relationship between curiosity and
interest is a uni-directional one. “For everything we are curious about
we have an interest, but we are not curious about anything we have an
interest in” (İnan 2012: 126). A curiosity-arouser has to draw children’s
attention to the concept, make them feel interested in it, enable a real-
ization of the inostensibility of it and thereby, arouse curiosity.
Although drawing the attention of the children to the concepts pos-
es no difficulty with the proper materials, accomplishing the task of
both drawing their attention to the concept and arousing their interest
require greater effort. In order to accomplish these, it could be better
to introduce the philosophical issues or concepts that children are al-
ready acquainted with. Discussing concepts which children have been
instructed during other lessons or they encounter in their daily life
arouse their interest more easily. “Children look for meaning and they
are hungry for those that might be relevant to-and might illuminate-
their lives” (Lipman et al. 1980: 17). In this manner, discussing the con-
cepts that they are acquainted with would help enabling the children to
feel interested in those concepts.

Joint Curiosity
İnan’s conceptualization of curiosity elucidates the need of fostering
curiosity in P4C sessions. According to his theory, a child’s realization
of the inostensibility of the concept together with her attention and
interest get the child to be curious about it. I would like to introduce
a new concept to this picture with regard to P4C sessions. In a P4C
session, there is a special type of curiosity which is different than indi-
vidual curiosity. The term joint attention shows us that there is a fair
amount of difference between paying attention and paying attention
jointly regarding their outcomes. Joint attention is more influential for
developing skills and creating a sound communication. Taking into ac-
count the positive outcomes of joint attention, joint curiosity could ap-
pear to be more effective in comparison with individual curiosity, for
developing more fruitful discussions and creating a more productive
inquiring community. It seems the P4C literature and the literature
on curiosity could be enriched by a concept which I would like to name
joint curiosity. It is naïve to expect a philosophical study about joint
curiosity when there are too few articles on Philosophy of Curiosity.
For P4C, the ideal could be establishing joint attention and joint
curiosity during the sessions. Similar to attention and joint attention
cases, joint curiosity could be more effective for a sound discussion com-
pared to individual curiosities. Children listen to each other’s thoughts,
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 377

ideas, experiences and questions with curiosity and hence, the session
creates powerful discussions in which there is questioning out of curi-
osity. Theoretically, if joint attention is a more effective tool than at-
tention, then joint curiosity would be more effective than individual
curiosities in the sense of sharing, questioning each other’s thoughts
and building up ideas, and therefore would lead to more effective dis-
cussions. There would be more members who are willing to participate
to the discussions. The more the community of inquiry enjoys joint cu-
riosity, the more in-depth questions and fruitful discussions will come
out. When there is joint curiosity during the sessions, building up onto
each other’s sayings and asking questions to each other could bring
more fruitful discussions and analyses.
I would like to explain further the concept of joint curiosity with a
conversation from the sample session. As I said before, we were dis-
cussing the concept of lying and the community of inquiry differenti-
ated the concepts hiding, secrets and lying from each other. The con-
versation went as follows:
A: A close friend of mine saw me talking with another friend. She
asked me what we talked. I cannot tell her because we have
talked about her birthday party organization. It would not be a
surprise to her if I tell her our conversation! So I told her that
we spoke about something else. This is not a lie because we were
trying to make her a surprise. This is keeping secrets.
C: Keeping secret is not lying. Sometimes when you keep secret,
you do it for the sake of the other people such as the case in the
birthday example. The same thing happened to me and I was the
birthday boy!
A: Don’t you feel angry when they didn’t tell you what they talked
about?
C: Yes, I get angry at that moment but then they told me that they
were talking about which birthday present they will buy. When
I learn this I didn’t feel angry anymore. Also when I get the pres-
ent I felt happy.
A: Sometimes boys come near and ask us what we did talk about.
When there is a secret there, I don’t say it. I have to keep it be-
cause this is a secret and I have the right to keep it.
B: But this is telling a lie. Why don’t you just say this is a secret so
that I cannot tell you?
D: Yes I agree with B. Why don’t you tell the truth?
A: (thinks for a while) Because they will not give up and let me go.
They will harass me about it.
B: Have you ever tried to say this to them?
A: No, because if I say this, they won’t leave me alone.
D: How will you know this without trying?
A: (feeling uncomfortable, starts to move on her chair) I’m sure this
will happen.
378 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

B: But how can you know without trying!

A: Ok, I never thought about it that way.
C: Although you won’t be telling a lie when you say it is a secret,
you are still hiding something from someone.
The community was discussing whether the case that A exemplified
is lying or not. Some children agreed with her (A), and some did not.
They had a conversation and some children questioned her action. In
a sense, they bombarded her with questions. By means of these, she
began to think about her own action. The questions of these curious
children led to a fruitful discussion and clarification.
In this example there is joint attention; these children’s attention
was on the issue of what lying is. A, B, C, D are all attentive to this
concept. By means of their joint attention, the discussion became more
fruitful and vivid in the sense that more members of the community of
inquiry shared their thoughts about the concept. This discussion could
be effective also if only two children would have talked. But with the
contribution of others, new concepts were introduced and more ques-
tions were asked. Joint attention enabled more members to participate.
Thus, this made the dialogue and the discussion more fruitful.
Further, this example shows us the constructive effect of joint curi-
osity. B and D were not only attentive jointly but also curious jointly.
They were curious about the same concept and concentrated on the
same example. Their joint curiosity led them to question the issue to-
gether. They built up questions like building up ideas. C shared his
experience and thoughts while A was participating actively in the dis-
cussion. However, D and B were curious on the same topic so that they
asked questions. B’s questions out of curiosity and A’s answers, that is
their dialogue, created a proper condition for D to enjoy his curiosity
and ask questions. The harmony in these questions indicates a joint
curiosity.
This example shows how joint curiosity progressively affects the
discussion. By means of joint curiosity, the discussion became fruitful
and lively. In addition to having an influence on the discussion, joint
curiosity led children to formulate and ask questions, to reply each oth-
er’s comments and generate novel ideas and thus, helps to stimulate
the session. Not only at the beginning of the discussion but through-
out the session, joint curiosity enables children to formulate and ask
questions. As mentioned in the first part, Lipman emphasized the fact
that getting acquainted with philosophy makes formulating questions
possible for children. Questions raised by children during the session
both indicate this fact and help them to improve their critical thinking
abilities which is one of the main purposes of P4C.
All in all, emphasizing the significance of curiosity for P4C by pre-
senting a theory of curiosity could help this practice to reach its funda-
mental aims. The notions of curiosity-arouser and joint curiosity may
be expanded and used in additional areas of education. In my opin-
 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice 379

ion, using curiosity-arousers and getting children to be curious jointly

would produce effective outcomes not only for P4C but also for other
educational concerns.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the people who have helped me in the process of
writing this paper. I had the chance to share some of my ideas present-
ed in this paper on Philosophy of Curiosity Conference at University of
Maribor in April 2015. I would like to offer my special thanks to Nenad
Miščević and Smiljana Gartner for providing me that opportunity. My
special thanks are extended to Safiye Yiğit, Günfer Mendoza, Melisa
Mendoza and Ufuk Altıparmak for their valuable comments that great-
ly improved this paper. Advice given by Safiye Yiğit has been a great
help. I would also like to show my gratitude to Boğaziçi University and
Enka Schools for opening doors throughout my studies. I am immense-
ly grateful to Ayça Boylu for all her advice and guidance that broaden
my horizon. The completion of this paper could not have been possible
without my advisor İlhan İnan, whom I would like to express my deep-
est gratitude for giving me his invaluable support and guidance and
much more, which to name here would be very long. I am more than
grateful to him for fostering my curiosity.

References
Conlan, L. 2013. “Why Philosophy for Children.” Teaching Geography. 38
(1): 20–21. Retrieved from http://www.geography.org.uk/journals/jour-
nals.asp?articleID=1040
Gregory, M. 2011. “Philosophy for Children and Its Critics: a Mendham
Dialogue.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (2): 199–219.
İnan, İ. 2012. The Philosophy of Curiosity. London: Routledge.
İnan, İ. 2014. “Curiosity, Belief and Acquaintance.” In A. Fairweather (ed.).
Virtue Epistemology Naturalized. New York: Springer International
Publishing: 143–157.
Kahn, C. H. 1998. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use
of a Literary Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kidwell, M., and Zimmerman, D. H. 2007. “Joint Attention as Action.” Jour-
nal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 592–611.
Knezic, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E., and Hajer, M. 2010. “The Socratic Dia-
logue and Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (4):
1104–1111.
Lipman, M. 1976. “Philosophy for Children.” Metaphilosophy 7 (1): 17–33.
Lipman, M. 1978. “Can Philosophy for Children be the Basis of Educational
Redesign?” The Social Studies 69 (6): 253–257.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., and Oscanyan, F. S. 1980. Philosophy in the
Classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. 1985. “Philosophy for children”. National Forum 65 (1): 18–23.
Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
380 İ. G. Altiparmak, The Concept of Curiosity in the Practice

sity Press.
Lipman, M. 2014. “Thinking Skills Fostered by Philosophy for Children.” In
J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman and R. Glaser (ed.). Thinking and Learning
Skill Vol. 1: Relating Instruction to Research. New York and London:
Routledge: 83–108.
Martell, T. 2010. “Phenomenology of Joint Attention.” Indo-Pacific Journal
of Phenomenology 10 (2): 1–10.
Murris, K. 2000. “The Role of the Facilitator in Philosophical Inqui-
ry.” Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children 15 (2): 40–46.
Murris, K. S. 2008. “Philosophy with Children, the Stingray and the Edu-
cative Value of Disequilibrium.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42
(3–4): 667–685.
Ndofirepi, A., and Cross, M. 2015. “Child’s Voice, Child’s Right: Is Philoso-
phy for Children in Africa the Answer?” Interchange 46 (3): 225–238.
Oral, S. B. 2013. “Can Deweyan Pragmatist Aesthetics Provide a Robust
Framework for the Philosophy for Children Programme?” Studies in
Philosophy and Education 32 (4): 361–377.
Splitter, L. J., and Sharp, A. M. 1995. Teaching for Better Thinking: The
Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne: Acer.
Tomasello, M., and Farrar, M. J. 1986. “Joint Attention and Early Lan-
guage.” Child development 57 (6): 1454–1463.
Trickey, S., and Topping, K. J. (2004). “‘Philosophy for Children’: a System-
atic Review.” Research Papers in Education 19 (3): 365–380.
Turgeon, W. C. 2015. “The Art and Danger of the Question: Its Place within
Philosophy for Children and Its Philosophical History.” Mind, Culture,
and Activity 22 (4): 284–298.
Wartenberg, T. E. 2007. “Philosophy for Children Goes to College.” Theory
and Research in Education 5 (3): 329–340.