In June 2016, Texas A&M University hosted its inaugural philosophy camp for teens. In this article, we address how running a philosophy camp for pre-college students can have a positive impact on both the campers and the staff, which included philosophy faculty, graduate students (Philosophy and English), and undergraduates. We designed the week-long (Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–4 p.m.) philosophy camp with three aims: to introduce pre-college students to philosophical thinking and dialogue; to develop an intellectual community among the campers; and to provide a space in which young people could engage as equal partners in a series of spirited philosophical discussions. Drawing chiefly from our local community, we enrolled a diverse group of campers. We organized the week around themes that we thought would be of particular interest to pre-college students while also providing a broad view of the discipline. What we did not anticipate was the intense friendships that were formed, based on a shared love of philosophical ideas.

This paper examines relationships between teaching critical thinking and teaching philosophy to adolescents (ages 12–17). The focus is on argumentation, especially on the method used to determine how well the premises of an argument support its conclusion. The method is the method of counterexamples. This article describes the results of teaching this method to adolescents (ages 12–17) who were participants in a summer enrichment program at Rutgers University-Newark, the Rutgers-Merck Summer Bioethics Institute. The participants were to learn about the philosophical ideas underlying current biomedical technologies. The article discusses the basic ideas of argumentation and the method of counterexamples for determining the support that premises give to conclusion for a given argument, and it discusses teaching this method to adolescents. The article describes how to assess that they have properly learned it, and, finally, it closes with a discussion of the cognitive skills adolescents acquire in learning philosophy. Teaching a reliable method of determining argument support for a conclusion prior to teaching philosophy to adolescents results in their achieving a deeper understanding of philosophy.

When critical thinking occurs in a collective context such as a Philosophy for Children workshop, it cannot be considered simply as an intellectual exercise, insofar as it depends on social interactions in the philosophical dialogue. This is why, in line with the works of Matthew Lipman, critical thinking should be taught and practiced as an exercise based on the development of caring thinking among children. Furthermore, open-mindedness, defined as the ability of the child to welcome intellectually and ethically divergent ideas, may constitute the very fundamental precondition for critical thinking as it permits the meticulous, analytic and authentic discovery of the idea.

Matthew Lipman befriended me at an APA meeting in 1974. Through more than twenty years of phone calls, I got to chat with, consult with, and learn from Matt the details and challenges of developing philosophy for children. He acknowledged that I convinced him that the program needed “branding,” lest anyone present similar-sounding programs—some of which might be good and others not. He got a snippet of a video of my teaching troubled sixth-graders with his book Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery on the Today Show with Bryant Gumbel. That did much to shape my future, as did branding for sustaining Matt’s program. Lipman and I spoke by phone several times every year from 1976 until the mid-1990s.

Some researchers have claimed that there is no significant correlation between students’ majors and their performance on standardized critical thinking tests. This paper provides both evidence and arguments that that claim may well be false. Besides arguments based on the correlation between students’ majors and other standardized tests, data from Baker University’s Critical Thinking and Writing Program show large differences in effect size gains relative to students’ majors.

This study assessed the International Critical Thinking Essay Test (ICTET-A) for inter-rater reliability, internal reliability, and criterion validity. A self-selecting sample of participants (N = 100) completed the ICTET-A and a comparison test online. We found the ICTET-A items to have moderate to good levels of inter-rater reliability, and overall excellent inter-rater consistency for total test scores. The test had good internal reliability. There was a strong correlation between scores on the ICTET-A and the comparison test. Factor analysis showed that scores were best explained with one factor, suggesting the test measures a single construct. The ICTET-A can therefore be considered a valid measure of critical thinking. Additionally, we propose a short form of the test.