1. 谢尔文,M.I & 凯尔,J.A (1993): “Collaborative inquiry research into children’s philosophical reasoning”. 分析教学,卷. 13, 2. PP. 11-32. It is a long report of a research on the implementation of the program. 目前还没有关于结果的确切信息, but an interesting reflection on methodology 和 on philosophical assumptions related to educational 和 psychological research.
2. DEND彭, 张SHIRA, LIAO BOQIN (1997): “Will Philosophy for Children take Hold in Mainl和 China”, in 思考 卷.13, n. 3. This paper questions if Chinese P4C is as legitimate as its American prototype 和 if it’s possible to have genuine dialogue between the two. It also evaluates Chinese teachers’ opinions about the educational values of the program.
3. 艾伦，亚瑟. “检讨新研究计划”. 对新泽西推理能力测验的评论. 复印.
4. 傻瓜,K.G.:《十大博彩推荐排名》，载于 思考 卷.13, n. 3. She describes the objectives of P4C after she had asked 9 to 11 year students on the first day of school. 没有数据.
5. 赫尔穆特·赖希，k. 从非此即彼到两者兼而有之，尽管认知发展 思考 卷. 12, n. 2. He analyses a particular rational 和 contextual reasoning (RCR) response, 讨论了RCR的组成和一些应用.
6. 亨德森,. (1988):“项目评估问题和分析教学”. 分析教学,卷. 8, 2. PP 43-55. The author does a theoretical analysis of the requisites 和 st和ards of any evaluation of the implementation of the program. 她的主要论文与我们自己的研究方法非常接近.
7. HEYNES, FELICITY ANN (2001): “Growing Communities”, Paper presented in Winchester, July 2001. Her main thesis is very critical of the use of st和ard 和 normative pen 和 pencil tests alone. She proposes to use a more complex model: a broader range of inclusive evaluation measures, 关注探究共同体自身的自我评价.
8. IAPC. 新泽西推理能力测验. 背景信息”. 一份非常详细的测试报告. 油印.
9. KENG LIM, TOCK (1994): “The Philosophy for Children Project in Singapore”. 思考,卷. 11, no. 2. 这是一个概论. She announces further information after processing the data from research. Feedback from teachers 和 students in previous implementation of the program are positive.
10. 豪斯,R. (1995):“儿童哲学研究”. 《十大博彩推荐排名》 批判性和创造性思维. 卷. 3, no. 2, 74-82. After a short reference to early research of the implementation of the program 和 its success, the author focuses on qualitative research as the best methodology to evaluate the kind of knowledge construction 和 community of inquiry dialogue that goes on in Philosophy discussions. He analyzes four directions (experience-based reflections; individual qualitative projects; theory-based individual projects; 和 an interdisciplinary team) 和 mentions the most important questions to be asked in new studies 和 researches, using qualitative methodology 和 offering suggestions to teachers to improve their practice.
11. 斯科特·莫里斯. & 理查德·P. DESHON (2002): “Combining effect Size Estimates in Meta-Analysis with Repeated Measures 和 Independent-Groups Designs”. A method for combining results across independent-groups 和 repeated measures designs is described 和 the conditions under which such an analysis is appropriate are discussed.
12. NICOL, DAVID (1991): “An Evaluation of the Lipman Project in an English Comprehensive School” 思考,卷. 9, no. 3. He offers generic 和 descriptive comments about the implementation of the program without any experimental research.
13. PÁLSSON, HREIN (1994): “Interpretative 研究 和 Philosophy for Children” in CAHMY, DANIELA G.: 儿童思维与哲学. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Philosophy for Children. 格拉茨:学术界.. pp. 343-361 In this paper it is argued that the stated aims of P4C require interpretative research. This kind of research is compared 和 contrasted; the main discussion is drawn from an interpretative study the author did in Reykjavik (1987)
14. 桑蒂, MARINA (1993): “Philosophizing 和 Learning to Think: some Proposals for a Qualitative Evaluation” 思考,卷. 10, No. 3. She offers a theoretical reflection on the evaluation of the program. 作者支持定性评价方法. 她提出了四种不同的方法, 和, in order to analyze the transcriptions of the philosophical discussions, 提出了六个论证要素(出自图尔敏), 十个认知范畴和教师与同伴的五个角色.
15. 桑福德,J. 科恩(s.d.):“新泽西推理能力测验. 维吉尼亚希普曼.“对NJTRS的审查. 复印.
16. 斯特恩伯格, ROBERT; BHANA, KASTOOR: “Synthesis of 研究 on the Effectiveness of Intellectual Skills Programs: Snake-Oil Remedies or Miracle Cures?” In 教育领导, v. 44, n2, pp. 60-67. 1986年10月. 回顾了五个领先的思维技能项目的研究, 包括Lipman的P4C课程, 和 concludes that more rigorous evaluation research is needed 和 that more attention should be given to outcome measures, 培训的转移性和持久性”. 引自亨德森(1988).
17. TORRE, SATURNINO DE LA Y VIRGINIA FERRER (1991): “Los estilos sociocognitivos en el programa de FpN”. 准备一个笔记本, nº 3. The authors analyze a questionnaire to discover the cognitive styles of students. Some significant differences between experimental 和 control groups are discovered, 但这项研究没有具体的数据.
18. WEINSTEIN, MARK (1989): “The Philosophy of Philosophy for Children. 《十大博彩推荐排名》 分析教学,卷. 10, No. 1. 提出了该方案的核心主张, followed by a series of statements 和 questions that are central to the analysis 和 assessment of the theory 和 practice of philosophy for children.
19. ZESALEGUI J. “Philosophy for Children: An Exploratory study of “Doing Philosophy” with a grade 7 class 和 first 和 third-year student teacher in Zimbabwe” in 思考 2 (1), (27-29) This paper describes the exploratory study which was carried out in Zimbabwe at a teacher training college using Lipman’s Pixie 和 哈利 小说. 它提出了一个关键的调查方法. 作者包括了参与者的看法.