Deep thinking and high ceilings: Using philosophy to challenge ‘more able’ pupils

At different times in their school career and across different subject areas, some pupils may require additional and/or more complex tasks from their teachers, since they find the work set to be insufficiently challenging. Recommendations for coping with these pupils’ needs are varied, but among other responses, it is common, in the field of ‘gifted and talented’ education, to advocate the use of critical thinking programmes. These can be very effective in providing the missing challenge through helping develop pupils’ facilities for building and defending rational argument. However, the exercises can be just that; mental agility tasks that lack relevant context. When children engage in learning philosophy in school, they benefit from the experience of developing logical, rigorous argument; but the subject can offer more than critical skills practice. Since philosophy attends to questions about things that matter in pupils’ lives, discussions can have an ethical and moral dimension and as such can be more than an intellectual exercise. Pupils of all abilities and propensities can become involved in the discussions, but the open nature of the areas of debate lends itself particularly well to providing challenge for pupils who need enriched and extended tasks in order to remain engaged. Some of the well-rehearsed Philosophy with/for Children methods are also designed to help develop mutual respect and understanding and so philosophy not only appeals to the cognitive and intellectual in children, but places this development in a context that fosters positive personal qualities.

can be notoriously difficult; it will only succeed if teachers have a positive attitude to the more able as well as being well-trained and highly motivated (De Corte 2013).
However described, at different times in their school career and across different subject areas, some pupils are likely to require additional and/or more complex tasks from their teachers, since they find the existing set work to be insufficiently challenging. This does not mean that such pupils are high achievers. Even if the intellectual aspect of the task in question is easy for the pupil, they may be struggling with barriers to their work arising from learning difficulties, sensory impairments or disabilities; others have cultural disadvantages to manage and some have become disaffected through a combination of complex factors. Wallace et al. (2010) break down different typologies of underachievement among more able pupils, showing the range of behaviours frequently observed in classrooms, from disruptive or disengaged pupils, through risk avoiders and those who start a lot of tasks but never actually see them through to completion, to pupils choosing to coast along, and others struggling with specific learning problems. Different approaches will be needed to encourage participation and ensure some degree of success for these pupils, but most of these tactics can be adapted to various different curriculum subjects. For example, in order to integrate a disengaged pupil, allowing some independence, trust and ownership of tasks can be helpful, whilst those avoiding risk need additional peer and teacher support to move out of their comfort zone and realise that stumbling over a task is a learning opportunity rather than a disaster (Montgomery 2009;Wallace et al. 2010).
Given all of these complex issues, it is important that we consider how we talk and think about children, their abilities and needs. Howe emphasises this, observing: the ways in which we adults think about abilities have practical consequences that affect the lives and fortunes of numerous children. If the beliefs that guide our decisions and actions are faulty, it is entirely possible that we could be denying children opportunities that would help them to thrive, by putting them off from valuable learning experiences and effectively slamming doors in their faces. (1990, p. 28) I contend that all pupils merit equality of challenge (Winstanley 2004(Winstanley , 2010. No matter whether the abilities are established or developing, I advocate any activities that allow pupils to express their interests, passions and to open up possibilities for further development. Although others in the field would limit provision to those with proven aptitudes, I am not alone in my view, as other researchers agree that challenge is key for all (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown 2007;Treffinger 2009;Gallagher et al. 1997;Splitter 2007;Scager et al. 2013, etc.) 2 . Merry states: the gifted are owed what all children are owed, namely, a quality education that adequately challenges them. Defining both adequate and challenge is itself difficult, but we can say this: to be adequately challenged is to be presented with tasks that demand substantial growth in ability, understanding and the ability to flourish. (2008, p. 57) Pupils are entitled to engage in work at school that accounts for their level of understanding, knowledge, skills, experiences and interests. 'Gifted students may not deserve more attention than students generally; but they don't deserve less either' (Splitter 2007, p. 207).
In the case of some pupils, this may imply opportunities that are additional, or alternative, to the common curriculum.

Are some curriculum subjects optimal for more able pupils?
Differentiated provision in the mainstream classroom has been postulated above as the optimum way to provide varied challenge for pupils, but what kind of curriculum should the mainstream classroom comprise? All school subjects can be taught in ways that extend and enrich the more basic concepts that tend to make up the expectations of the common curriculum. Well-tested ways of extending some subjects are a key part of most schools' offer. These are frequently provided as extra-mural opportunities and are generally available for children who exhibit enthusiasm for particular activities, as well as being for those who already demonstrate an apparent aptitude. They include, for example, local and national-level sports competitions for more able pupils in physical education, choirs and orchestras for the more able musicians, drama performances for the more able actors and so on. For those who have a propensity for philosophical ways of thinking, suggestions tend to be made for partaking in debating activities or chess club, but these do not quite hit the spot. 3 2 From their interviews with pupils designated as more able, Gallagher et al. note: 'Consistent themes stated by the students about the curriculum's lack of challenge included a slow pace, too much repetition of already mastered information, inability to move on after mastering the regular curriculum, few opportunities to study topics of personal interest, and an emphasis on the mastery of facts rather than the use of thinking skills. ' (Gallagher et al. 1997, p. 132) In an oft-cited exemplar about challenging curriculum, renowned gifted education scholar Van Tassel In addition to philosophy as a curriculum subject providing challenge, it is possible to argue for the inclusion of philosophy as a critical thinking programme; another popular response to meeting the needs of able pupils ( focus on values, nor do they address moral behaviour and ethical understanding, being, as they are, exercises in logic, rationality and reasoning. They tend to consist of abstract or 'fun' puzzles, often unconnected or loosely grouped activities, unlike philosophical discussions where issues may relate directly to a real-life situation or conundrum.

Why philosophy for more able pupils?
Whether considered as a curriculum subject in its own right, or as a critical thinking programme, perhaps with an emphasis on ethical issues, philosophy can meet many of the requirements of teachers wanting to work with mixed groups, providing for the needs of all pupils including challenging the more able. So, how can this be the case?
Well, philosophy matches the requirements for an adaptable method or subject that can be accessed by all pupils, whilst allowing the more adept to work to a high level, particularly in abstract areas, but not divorcing these tasks from real-life moral concerns.

Philosophy can be taught flexibly
As shown in the contributions to this special issue, a range of different approaches to teaching philosophy in schools exists, and this flexibility allows for the adaptation of pedagogy to meet the varying needs of diverse pupil cohorts. These various approaches allow for teachers to search for a pedagogy that suits their pupils, providing varied options to support pupils with different strengths and needs. In this article, no particular approach is exclusively recommended above another; it could be that an empirical study would provide some definitive answers about which methods are most effective in maximising engagement for children of particular age groups and/or with specific propensities, interests, abilities and preferences. However, with ethical aspects in mind and as suggested by Splitter, writing about undertaking philosophy with 'intellectually gifted' children, it is likely that: Robinson 2014; Cassidy 2012), both areas that could be helpful for able pupils, including underachieving able pupils in particular.
Another practical advantage of philosophy as a flexible subject, is that it can easily be run as a lunchtime club, or as an extra class, if that is most appropriate for a particular context. If there is someone who is able to facilitate, because philosophy can use a wide range of stimuli, or even none, it can be taught without the need for expensive resources or the need for a large space. The impact of the next four points discussed in this article presupposes that an appropriate pedagogy for philosophy is used to match pupils' attributes, requirements, propensities and preferences. Just as the needs of pupils will vary, so will the optimum pedagogy depend on the teacher knowing their students and considering how to match the activities to the individuals and to the group. As Splitter observes, 'it may be true that gifted students take to philosophy like ducks to water, but the former, unlike the latter, still need to be taught to swim ' (2007, p. 217).

Deep thinking: critical thinking, abstraction and metacognition
Depending on the pedagogy used, the nature of philosophical discussion can encourage the development of deep thinking. In her detailed review of dialogue (largely using Lipman's materials), Gardner asserts: the facilitator must be encouraged to push for more in-depth thinking on the part of his/her students. That is, the facilitator needs to be persistent in ensuring that students not only justify their answers but justify their justifications . Significantly, pupils adopting deep learning approaches showed a likelihood to 'engage in talk at the conceptual, analytical, and meta-conceptual levels, beyond the procedural and observational levels that the surface approach learner typically engaged in ' (ibid: 126). This willingness to become absorbed with in-depth dialogue links to social constructivist 'active' ways of learning (Sternberg & Davidson 2005). As Lipman (1991) notes, 'in dialogue, the aim is for disequilibrium is creating opportunities for renewed understanding that comes from difference' (cited in Davey Chesters 2012, p. 13).
Abstraction is part of philosophical method. The subject matter of philosophy is similarly abstract, and tends to chime with pupils who are interested in existential questions such as those about life, love and death. What marks out the (potentially) talented or able pupil in this regard, beyond their initial perhaps slightly unusual heightened level of curiosity, is the dogged manner in which they pursue answers to their difficult questions. Most children will engage with these abstract ideas, but not all will choose to explore in depth and really get to grips with finding possible explanations. Some of the most common descriptors for more able pupils include the early propensity for dealing with complex ideas, the abilities of abstract thinking.
Alternatively, if we frame high ability as 'talent development', opportunities for abstract thinking can be helpful in affording learners the opportunity to hone a range of skills. In the psychological literature, metacognition generally refers to two complementary strands (1) knowledge about cognition -about cognition in general and one's own cognition -involving some degree of awareness; and (2) self-regulation or the ability to plan, to monitor and adjust one's thinking in relation to task demands and to evaluate thinking outcomes (Flavell, 1979;Brown, 1987;Kuhn, 2000). The practice of self-regulation helps pupils develop a more productive way of learning (De Corte 2013) and they positively enjoy a focus on how they think (Gallagher et al.

Philosophy is appropriate for both higher and lower achieving pupils
As outlined earlier, more able pupils are not a homogenous group. They are not always high achievers, for a range of reasons. Teachers and managers in school settings have a responsibility to identify and alleviate any concerns preventing a child from flourishing and for underachieving able children; this means supporting the problem areas but also providing stretch where there is interest and ability. Philosophy can therefore be a popular subject for children who have palpable gaps between their competent, good, or excellent oral expressions of complex high level thinking, and their less remarkable attempts at written work. Since PwC is frequently a dialogic, oral activity, pupils can rely on their abilities to listen, to think and to argue, rather than struggling yet again with the usual written tasks they customarily dislike. Engaging with cognitively challenging discussion allows them to participate fully, helping to combat underachievement (Montgomery 2009, pp. 127-128). The refreshing variety of using a different pedagogy is also helpful for underachieving pupils since building a Community of Enquiry, say, or utilising another type of pedagogy for philosophy is an attractive change from typical classroom work. There is no requirement to record what happens in a session; it is an experience that does not (usually) need to be written-up.
Interestingly, whilst philosophy can be unsettling in a positive way for pupils who do not tend to enjoy more conventional schoolwork, it can sometimes prove difficult for those who typically do very well in regular classroom activities. Some high performing pupils relish the additional challenge and take it in their stride, but others are dismayed to discover that their usual approaches need to be significantly adapted for PwC. Their strengths in writing or strictly adhering to step-wise instructions are less useful here, and unlike other subjects in school, fewer clear answers can be ticked and verified, rendering feedback different and potentially disturbing for those used to consistent and unambiguous 'very good' grades. Philosophy disrupts the common classroom experience where there may be only a narrow range of optimal answers to a task and so the culture of the high-achiever is threatened, often allowing different pupils to shine.
Here, Whalley reflects on the reception of her philosophy sessions: Interestingly, the few dissenting voices often come from those children who are clever in the traditional academic sense. They are puzzled and resentful when they realise that philosophical questions are not amenable to simple, straightforward answers -even from the teacher! Such children have unfortunately been trained to perceive educational value only in what can be examined and tested. (1987, p. 73) These pupils tend to contribute willingly in many classes and so being made to listen to their peers through the adoption of particular dialogic methods can be helpful. At first, some can find this tricky, but being out of their comfort zone is valuable for developing resilience and for learning to adapt their abilities to overcome different types of obstacles (Montgomery 2009;Wallace et al. 2010;Winstanley 2010).

Philosophy has a 'low threshold' and a 'high ceiling'
The phrase 'low-threshold-high-ceiling' (LTHC) is adopted from Papert (1980) and is being increasingly used in the field of gifted education, notably in mathematics. The organisation NRICH 7 is highly regarded for the provision of very helpful resources for 7 UK Mathematics Enrichment Centre, established in 1996. 'NRICH is a team of qualified teachers who are also practitioners in rich mathematical thinking. This unique blend means that NRICH is ideally placed to offer advice and support to both learners and teachers of mathematics. NRICH is directly and indirectly involved with educational policy makers. This means that we can offer informed guidance and practical advice about working in schools.' https://nrich.maths.org/ teachers who want to challenge all their pupils, from the less confident and novice learners to the more accomplished and experienced, and they prefer to keep everyone together in the classroom, avoiding pull-out activities for some. These types of activities allow for a whole group to work on the same task, taking things at their own level, but then come together to share ideas and experiences, which can be very motivating. Here is one example of a low-threshold-high-ceiling mathematics activity for young children: Noah saw twelve legs walk by into the ark. How many creatures could he have seen? How many different answers can you find? Can you explain how you found out these answers? (NRICH.maths.org) For this activity, the threshold is simply counting to twelve. Some children will stay with this level and find answers by playing with toy animals or using fingers or other counting materials. Other children will use addition, or multiplication and division, and others still may work out formulae for possible numbers of mammals versus birds or types of insects.
The complexity of philosophical concepts allows for tasks that can be significantly extended and deepened. In an enquiry with young children, it is unlikely that there will always be clear, fixed and absolute answers to tasks, although there will certainly be better or worse responses. The depth and scope of the philosophical enquiry depends therefore on the propensities, interests and abilities of the children involved, rather than a particular pre-determined external goal. So, with the careful choice of initial stimuli, gentle guidance or leadership from teachers, and appropriate management of the classroom space and groupings of children, it is feasible to provide low-threshold-highceiling work and so keep the whole class together.
There is a plethora of 'Finished Already?'-type books, activities and web resources for teachers of able children who struggle to find enough complex and interesting work for their high achieving able pupils. Philosophy offers relief in this regard by providing myriad topics with very high ceilings that can keep pupils gainfully engaged in discussion or other forms of investigation. As noted by NRICH: LTHC tasks … offer many possibilities for learners to focus on more sophisticated process skills rather than more knowledge. It's often mistakenly thought that the only way to challenge learners is to offer them content at a higher level; in LTHC tasks the content often remains quite simple but the level of thinking required can become very sophisticated. (McClure 2011, p. 1) It is possible to pursue philosophical questions with little factual information, allowing young, or inexperienced learners with a lack of knowledge to engage fully, pursing an idea in depth without being encumbered with complex facts. That is not to say that the More recent studies have identified positive impact on elements such as 'confidence to speak, listening skills and self-esteem' (Gorad et al. 2015, p. 32) and through these studies have raised questions for further research around non-intellective elements, such as 'confidence, well-being, and self-esteem' (Gorad et al. 2015, p. 33).
It would be wrong to suggest that philosophy is the only subject that can be turned to ethical matters, as it would be reductive to imply that ethical deliberation is the only significant aspect of philosophy with which children should be involved. However, some philosophical themes can be used to help foster positive personal qualities through developing moral understanding and discussing moral, immoral and amoral behaviours in a structured and reasoned fashion.
This opportunity that philosophy can afford, the opportunity to go beyond the intellectual, could be helpful in relation to working with more able children (Splitter 2007 Given that issues of social justice and equity represent fundamental problems that we face in today's global world, concern for the common good ought to be Philosophy is an obvious fit for this aim and, as Splitter notes, for such development, 'a disciplinary context which thrives on the interplay between rationality and the emotions is particularly appropriate ' (2007, p. 211). Haynes also recommends the pedagogy of philosophy as one that appears to 'hold clues as to the ingredients of [such] a restoration of intellectual, psychological and social freedom ' (2007, p. 236 ideas, they will become better at active listening, and learn to tailor their responses thoughtfully, considering how their classmate could improve an argument, for example. Some tried and tested, but very simple practices can be used in order to smooth this process. Pupils are able to assert a disagreement or point out a fallacy without focusing on an individual, but by drawing attention to the argument by applying the rule where everyone starts each sentence by saying: 'I dis/agree with that point because ... '. This makes the agreement or disagreement less personal, allowing pupils to separate the person making the point from the idea they have raised. For all pupils, whether selfassured or less confident, this can be a very helpful tactic, providing a good way of asserting views, and a respectful way of arguing, both for the quiet pupils and for those whose voice might habitually be quite strident in general class discussions.
An additional, oblique benefit could also be the opportunity for the pupil with quirky or outlandish ideas to express themselves in a safe space, which can be of comfort to the more able pupil, particular if they are displaying atypical development. Some of the themes and directions of philosophical discussions can be unusual and those who are more reticent and nervous of sharing odd notions, for fear of ridicule, are more likely to find their voice when the philosophic method commands and demands respectful listening and thoughtful responses (Winstanley 2008(Winstanley , p. 2010.
So, the power of using philosophy to develop an ethical dimension to learning and foster ethical characteristics depends largely on the pedagogical tactics employed by the teacher. Such development is not guaranteed with philosophy, but since ethical ideas and democratic strategies do not have to be uncomfortably shoe-horned into such lessons, developing these characteristics is certainly highly possible.

Conclusion
The nature of philosophy is such that it provides stimulating opportunities for pupils with a propensity towards abstract reasoning and dialogue. It also allows pupils who have not explored such activities to discover potential high abilities. For those researching in the controversial field of gifted education, philosophy can provide a partial solution to the quest for suitable activities for some pupils.
Education for gifted students should focus on the design of powerful learning environments that enable them to achieve through intensive practice and with appropriate support the highest possible level of adaptive competence in one or more domains of knowledge and/or skill. We should thus evolve toward a 'school without a ceiling' wherein gifted -but other students as well -can develop and go on as far as they can cope with. (De Corte 2013, p. 16) Additionally, for those who are not persuaded that we should provide challenge for those pupils who say (or behave as if) they are unsatisfied with the common curriculum, philosophy can of course be harnessed to provide opportunities for all pupils to explore their own interests, capabilities and propensities. As with mathematics -and NRICH's take on low-threshold-high-ceiling tasks-we cannot say to what levels of complexity pupils will ascend if we do not allow them space to soar: LTHC tasks … allow learners to show what they can do, not what they can't. As teachers it's very easy to predict how well our learners will cope with a particular piece of mathematics, and sometimes that prediction can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the ceiling is raised it can be surprising what heights learners can achieve. (McClure 2011, p. 1) It seems that undertaking philosophy in school has many advantages for a wide range of pupils. For a subset of pupils who require additional challenge, philosophy suits them particularly well. Nothing else in the common curriculum comes close to providing the level of stimulation and depth of thinking they need, coupled with opportunities for a positive impact on ethical self-development.