Polónia
Brief description of the project (general purpose/objectives, number and dates of the meetings, timeline, proposed activities, starting points for discussion selected in each of the meetings, etc.)
The observations were conducted in one preschool setting (Sowa Zuzu), operating within a Montessori approach, in a mixed-age group of children aged approximately 3–6 years. The group structure created opportunities for varied levels of participation, peer interaction, and differentiated engagement.
The project consisted of 10 sessions conducted between March 17th 2026 and April 20th 2026. Each session was documented separately and formed part of a continuous sequence of activities. The duration of sessions varied depending on the type of activity and group dynamics, typically ranging between approximately 45 and 60 minutes, with some shorter sessions (around 45 minutes) and extended sessions lasting up to 105 minutes.
Across the 10 sessions, the number of children varied from 9 to 20 participants, with an average group size of approximately 15 children per session. Attendance fluctuated depending on the day and activity, resulting in varying group dynamics and levels of participation.
All sessions were led by Wiktoria (lead teacher). Depending on the session, additional adults were present, including Anna and Aleksandra (supporting teachers) and Emilia (therapist), who supported group organization and participation.
The observations were conducted by Julia (6 sessions) and Emilia (4 sessions).
Each session was organized around a specific topic and starting point for discussion, often introduced through a visual, narrative, or experiential prompt. These included:
Across the timeline, the project developed through a sequence of interconnected thematic explorations, including:
Activities across sessions combined:
The project was implemented primarily through indoor, mediated experiences, supported by visual, digital, and material resources, with selected moments of direct observation of natural phenomena (e.g., observing butterflies, exploring the garden environment). These moments of direct engagement played a significant role in focusing children’s attention and supporting sensory experience.
Across the sequence of sessions, activities moved between observation, discussion, representation, and action, with varying levels of continuity and collective engagement. The educational approach can be characterized as multimodal, thematic, and strongly teacher-facilitated, with an emphasis on introducing environmental concepts through diverse experiences, while the development of shared understanding remained closely linked to the immediate dynamics of interaction within the group.
How have the children participated? How (if) has their participation changed throughout the sessions?
Children’s participation in the observed sessions in the Sowa Zuzu group presents a highly dynamic, emotionally charged, and structurally uneven pattern of engagement, characterized by intense verbal activity, strong affective expression, and a fluctuating alignment with the collective task. Participation here is not only diverse in form but also marked by constant tension between collective engagement and fragmentation, between interest and distraction, and between individual expression and shared meaning-making.
A striking feature of this engagement is the high level of spontaneous verbal involvement, especially in whole-group discussions. Children eagerly respond to prompts, often speaking simultaneously and without adhering to turn-taking structures. For example, when asked “What is nature?” children immediately call out: “trees!”, “leaves!”, “birds!”, “tomato!” These responses demonstrate both enthusiasm and associative thinking, wherein children draw on immediate, concrete representations of the concept. However, this participation is largely non-sequential and overlapping, which makes it difficult for ideas to be collectively developed or sustained.
This pattern continues across sessions, where children frequently attempt to contribute but struggle to do so within a shared conversational structure. Even when the teacher explicitly establishes rules — “who wants to speak raises their hand and waits” — children revert to simultaneous responses, indicating that participation is driven more by impulse and excitement than by dialogic coordination. As a result, participation becomes intensive but fragmented, with many voices present but few extended lines of reasoning.
At the same time, children’s contributions reveal an emerging capacity for conceptual and causal thinking, particularly when discussing ecological relationships. For instance, participants suggest: “You shouldn’t pull out flowers in someone’s garden,” “You shouldn’t cut trees,” or “We need rain and clouds so we can drink water.” These statements show an attempt to connect human action with environmental consequences, even if expressed in normative or simplified terms. In another moment, a child reflects more abstractly: “If there was no space, there would be no Earth and nobody at the beginning of the world,” indicating an emerging ability to reason about conditions of existence.
However, alongside these more elaborated contributions, participation often takes the form of minimal or non-reflective responses, such as “I don’t know,” “I forgot,” or repetitive answers like “all the Lego sets in the world” when asked about needs. These responses suggest that while children are present and willing to engage, their participation does not always translate into deeper cognitive involvement. Instead, it oscillates between meaningful contribution and surface-level reaction.
A particularly salient dimension of participation is its strong affective and imaginative character. Children frequently introduce humor, exaggeration, and playful thinking into the interaction. For example, when discussing historical cameras, they suggest that large cameras could be moved “by a crane,” “by a roller,” or even “with a big shovel.” Similarly, in the Robinson Crusoe activity, children propose taking “all the Lego sets in the world,” “a whole city,” or “everything from my house” to a deserted island. These responses reflect rich imaginative engagement, but they also indicate that participation is often oriented toward playful expression rather than shared inquiry.
Another important aspect is the presence of peer interaction and micro-collaboration, although these tend to be brief and localized. Children occasionally respond to one another, build on ideas, or engage in shared humor. For instance, when one child suggests building a bigger island from Lego, others react enthusiastically: “Yes!” or “That would be great!” In small-group or object-based activities, children also exchange observations, such as when handling cameras: “look, you can see yourself!” or “it’s upside down!” These moments suggest the presence of horizontal interaction, but they are typically short-lived and not systematically developed into sustained collaborative thinking.
Participation also includes significant forms of embodied and material engagement, particularly when children interact with objects such as cameras, photos, or physical props. In the photography session, children manipulate devices, look through lenses, and experiment with perspective, often expressing excitement: “Wow!” “Oh my God!” or “That’s huge!” Similarly, during the “Network of Life” activity, children physically engage with materials such as yarn and visual representations. These forms of participation are inclusive and engaging, but they do not automatically lead to collective reflection unless explicitly scaffolded.
At the same time, a defining feature of participation in this group is the persistent presence of distraction, parallel conversations, and disengagement. Observations repeatedly note increasing noise levels, off-topic comments, and difficulty maintaining collective focus. Children interrupt with unrelated remarks — “I need to go to the toilet,” “I saw a squirrel!” or “That’s pee!”— or shift attention to external stimuli. In later sessions, this fragmentation intensifies, with children lying on the floor, talking among themselves, or disengaging from the task entirely. This indicates that participation is high in energy but unstable in focus, making sustained collaboration difficult.
Another important pattern is resistance or withdrawal, particularly when tasks become cognitively demanding or insufficiently clear. For example, when asked to draw the kindergarten from a bird’s-eye view, children respond with confusion and frustration: “I don’t understand,” “I don’t know how to do this,” or “how am I supposed to think of this?” Some children openly express disinterest — “I don’t like it” — while others revert to familiar drawing conventions (side-view houses), indicating a gap between task expectations and children’s conceptual readiness.
Finally, participation is strongly shaped by group size and composition, including the presence of children with diverse needs (e.g., ADHD). The large number of participants (approximately 20 children) contributes to the intensity and unpredictability of interaction, making it difficult to sustain shared attention and equitable participation. As a result, participation becomes unevenly distributed, with some children dominating the interaction and others remaining peripheral.
Taken together, these observations suggest that children’s participation in this group is highly expressive, socially vibrant, and imaginative, but also fragmented, uneven, and only partially oriented toward collaborative knowledge building. While children actively contribute ideas, emotions, and experiences, these contributions rarely accumulate into shared lines of inquiry or collective understanding. In this sense, participation reflects an early and unstable form of Knowledge Building, where ideas are generated abundantly but not yet systematically developed or improved. At the same time, the strong social and affective dimension of interaction aligns with Lev Vygotsky’s view of learning as inherently social, even if the transition from interaction to shared knowledge remains incomplete.
Across the sequence of observed sessions in the Sowa Zuzu group, children’s participation does not follow a simple linear trajectory of development; rather, it evolves in a fluctuating and, at times, regressive pattern, shaped by task complexity, group dynamics, and the level of cognitive and organizational demand placed on the children. While moments of increased engagement and emerging reflection are visible, they are interspersed with episodes of fragmentation, fatigue, and declining collective focus.
In the initial session (“Network of Life”), participation is characterized by high enthusiasm and readiness to engage, particularly in response to open, familiar questions. When asked “What is nature?” children respond immediately and collectively — “trees!”, “leaves!”, “birds!” and “grass!”— demonstrating both eagerness and a shared experiential grounding. This early phase suggests a relatively low threshold for participation, where children can easily enter the discussion through associative thinking and everyday knowledge. Similarly, when discussing human responsibility toward nature, children produce normative statements such as “you shouldn’t pull flowers” or “you should water plants,” indicating a basic alignment with the topic and willingness to contribute.
However, even within this first session, signs of emerging tension between engagement and structure are already visible. Children frequently interrupt, forget their ideas (“I forgot”), or struggle to wait for their turn, and the facilitator repeatedly reminds them to raise their hands. This suggests that while participation is initially high, it is not yet regulated or sustained within a shared dialogic framework.
As the session progresses and introduces more abstract content—particularly through the film about ecosystems—participation begins to shift. Children’s engagement becomes more uneven and cognitively strained, as evidenced by statements such as “I don’t understand this.” While some children attempt to extract meaning (e.g., “we collect water after rain and use it when there is drought”), others disengage or provide unrelated responses. This marks the beginning of a pattern in which increased conceptual complexity leads to a decline in coherent participation, rather than its deepening.
A similar dynamic is visible in the structured activity with yarn representing connections within an ecosystem. Initially, children show curiosity and interest—reacting with excitement when receiving roles such as “squirrel!” or “flowers!” However, as the activity unfolds, participation becomes increasingly individualized and disjointed. Children wait for their turn, lose focus, and struggle to understand the underlying logic of the task, especially since the facilitator does not fully articulate the intended structure. This leads to visible frustration and disengagement: children begin to move around, talk independently, and eventually abandon the activity, while the facilitator concludes that “it doesn’t make sense to continue.” This moment represents a clear breakdown of the collaborative process, where initial engagement is not sustained due to a mismatch between task demands and children’s understanding.
In the second session (“Nature Detectives”), participation initially regains a degree of curiosity and engagement, particularly through the introduction of tangible objects such as cameras. Children respond with excitement — “Wow!” “Oh my God!” “That’s huge!”— and actively manipulate the devices, exploring their functions and sharing observations. This suggests that material engagement and novelty can temporarily re-energize participation, creating a more focused and exploratory atmosphere.
However, this renewed engagement remains largely experiential rather than reflective. While children interact with the objects and express enthusiasm, their contributions are often descriptive or affective rather than analytical. Moreover, as the session continues, familiar patterns re-emerge: noise levels increase, side conversations develop, and attention becomes fragmented. For instance, when asked to compare old and modern cameras, children express preferences (“modern!” or “old!”) but do not justify their choices, indicating a limited development of critical reasoning.
The third session reveals a more pronounced shift toward disorganization and declining collective engagement. During the activity involving satellite images and maps, children initially display curiosity—asking questions such as “Were you in space?” or “How did you take this picture?”—but quickly become distracted and disengaged. The group struggles to maintain a shared focus, with increasing noise, off-topic conversations, and physical restlessness. The facilitator’s attempts to regain control — “stop, stop, stop,” “I will come back when it is quiet”—highlight the difficulty of sustaining participation at this stage.
A particularly telling moment occurs when the activity is interrupted and replaced by a short relaxation exercise. This intervention suggests that the group has reached a point of cognitive and emotional overload, where participation can no longer be maintained without resetting the interactional environment. Even after this intervention, however, participation remains fragile and uneven, with children continuing to talk among themselves or disengage from the task.
The drawing activity that follows further illustrates this shift. When asked to represent the kindergarten from a bird’s-eye view, many children express confusion and resistance: “I don’t understand,” “I don’t know how to do this,” or “how am I supposed to think of this?” Participation here becomes polarized: some children begin working independently, while others disengage or revert to familiar representations (side-view drawings). The collective dimension of participation is largely lost, replaced by parallel individual activity and visible frustration.
At the same time, there are isolated moments of emerging reflection and conceptual development, particularly when children are invited to present their work. For example, one child explains: “I did it from a perspective where everything is small… here is the roof, here is the playground,” demonstrating an attempt to engage with the concept of perspective. Another child refers to their drawing as “my map of the kindergarten,” indicating a nascent understanding of representation. These moments suggest that, under certain conditions, participation can evolve toward more reflective forms, but such developments remain sporadic rather than cumulative.
In the final observed session (Robinson Crusoe), participation again becomes highly animated and imaginative, with children eagerly proposing ideas — “I would take Lego,” “I would take a whole city,” “I would take clothes and everything from my house.” However, this engagement is once again primarily expressive and individual, with limited connection between contributions. The transition to categorizing needs and wants introduces a more structured task, but children struggle to justify their choices, often relying on intuitive or collective responses rather than articulated reasoning.
Overall, the trajectory of participation across sessions can be understood as a movement between:
Rather than showing a steady development toward more collaborative or reflective participation, the process reveals the fragility of such development, especially in the absence of sustained dialogic structures and appropriately calibrated tasks.
From an interpretive perspective, this pattern highlights the gap between participation as activity and participation as knowledge building. While children remain actively involved at many points, their engagement does not consistently evolve into the kind of cumulative, idea-centered interaction described in Knowledge Building. At the same time, the fluctuations in participation underscore the importance of scaffolding and social mediation emphasized by Lev Vygotsky, as well as the need to align tasks with children’s developmental readiness, as suggested by Jean Piaget.
In sum, children’s participation changed over time not through linear improvement, but through cycles of engagement and disintegration, revealing both the potential for and the challenges of fostering sustained collaborative knowledge building in this context.
What was the role and the activities of the adult/guide/facilitator?
In the Sowa Zuzu group, the facilitator assumes a highly visible, interventionist, and multi-layered role, combining instructional, regulatory, organizational, and affective functions. However, unlike in the previous groups, this role is marked by a constant tension between strong pedagogical control and repeated loss of interactional coherence, which significantly shapes the nature of children’s participation.
A central aspect of the facilitator’s activity is the continuous structuring of discourse through questioning, sequencing, and topic control. The adult initiates almost every segment of interaction, typically beginning with a question that frames the direction of the discussion, such as “What is nature?” “Is a human part of nature?” or “What elements do people need to live happily?” These questions function as entry points for participation, but they are often followed by rapid shifts to subsequent prompts, limiting the time available for children to elaborate their responses or engage with one another’s ideas.
The facilitator frequently revoices and reformulates children’s contributions, translating them into more structured or conceptually aligned statements. For example, when a child says, “nature is sorting trash,” the facilitator responds: “what you are describing is ecology, not an ecosystem,” thereby correcting and categorizing the child’s idea. Similarly, children’s moral statements — “you shouldn’t pull flowers” or “you shouldn’t cut trees”—are acknowledged and reframed within broader ecological discourse. This indicates that the facilitator operates as a mediator of knowledge, but one who often redirects rather than extends children’s thinking.
Another key dimension of the facilitator’s role is direct instruction and explanation, particularly when introducing new concepts. This is especially visible during the use of films and demonstrations. When children express confusion — “I don’t understand this!”— the facilitator responds by summarizing the content: “We collect water after rain and use it when there is drought.” While this provides clarity, it also shifts the interaction into a transmissive mode, where knowledge is delivered rather than co-constructed.
In activities involving tools (e.g., cameras, globes, or digital maps), the facilitator assumes the role of a technical instructor and demonstrator. She explains how devices function, shows step-by-step procedures, and closely regulates access to materials, using instructions such as: “You can press this, but don’t put your fingers inside,” or “I will show each of you one by one.” Children’s interaction with objects is thus highly mediated, with limited space for independent exploration or peer-led discovery. Even when children express curiosity — “Can we open it?” or “What’s inside?”—the facilitator often restricts access, prioritizing safety and order over exploratory engagement.
A particularly prominent and time-consuming aspect of the facilitator’s activity is behavioral regulation and the management of group dynamics. Throughout all sessions, the adult repeatedly intervenes to control noise, restore attention, and enforce rules of participation. Typical utterances include: “Be quiet,” “Hands up,” “We don’t lie down in the circle,” “I will not talk over you,” and “It is too loud.” These interventions occur with high frequency, often interrupting the flow of the activity and indicating that maintaining order is a primary and ongoing concern.
This regulatory role intensifies in later sessions, where the facilitator explicitly expresses frustration and withdraws from interaction: “I will come back when it is quiet,” “I am not going to talk over you,” or “I am honestly sad that you are not listening.” These statements reveal a shift from proactive facilitation to reactive control, where the adult responds to breakdowns rather than guiding a stable process. In such moments, the facilitator’s authority is asserted, but not always effective in restoring sustained engagement.
The facilitator also plays a role in organizing participation and allocating turns, although this process is only partially successful. She frequently reminds children to raise their hands and attempts to select speakers: “who wants to speak?” or “I will listen to you now.” However, given the intensity of children’s responses, these structures are often overridden by simultaneous speech. As a result, participation remains loosely regulated and unevenly distributed, despite the facilitator’s efforts.
In more structured tasks, such as the “Network of Life” activity or the drawing from a bird’s-eye perspective, the facilitator assumes the role of a task designer and procedural guide. She introduces materials, explains instructions, and attempts to guide children toward a specific conceptual outcome. However, in several cases, the intended logic of the task is not fully made explicit, leading to confusion among children. For example, during the yarn activity, children struggle to understand the underlying system they are meant to construct, and the facilitator continues to ask guiding questions without clarifying the overall structure. This results in a situation where the adult maintains control of the process, but the children are unable to fully participate meaningfully within it.
A particularly revealing moment occurs during the drawing task, when children express difficulty and resistance: “I don’t understand,” “I don’t know how to do this,” “I don’t like it.” The facilitator responds by lowering expectations — “I also don’t know how to do it,” “you can try in your own way”— which introduces a more supportive tone but does not fully scaffold the conceptual challenge. This indicates a shift toward affective support, but without sufficient cognitive mediation.
At the same time, there are moments where the facilitator attempts to introduce reflective or imaginative framing, for example through storytelling (Robinson Crusoe) or guided visualization (“imagine you are on a deserted island”). These moments temporarily re-engage children and create a shared narrative space. However, the transition from imagination to structured reflection remains limited, as children’s responses tend to remain at the level of individual expression (e.g., “I would take Lego” or “I would take a whole city”) without further development.
Overall, the facilitator’s role can be characterized as intensively present but structurally overburdened, encompassing:
From a theoretical perspective, the facilitator’s actions reflect elements of Jerome Bruner’s scaffolding, particularly in the structuring of tasks and support for participation. However, the scaffolding often remains directive rather than dialogic, limiting opportunities for children to take ownership of the inquiry. While interaction is clearly socially mediated—consistent with Lev Vygotsky—the adult remains the central organizer of both behavior and meaning. As a result, the process only partially aligns with the principles of Knowledge Building, where ideas are collectively developed rather than primarily guided by the teacher.
In sum, the facilitator’s role in this group is crucial for maintaining any form of participation at all, yet the intensity of control and the demands of group management limit the emergence of more autonomous, collaborative, and sustained knowledge-building processes.
If different from the practitioner, what role did the class teacher play?
In the Sowa Zuzu group, the presence of additional adults (class teachers and supporting teachers) introduces a parallel layer of pedagogical action, which is primarily oriented toward regulation, emotional containment, and situational support, rather than direct engagement in the epistemic dimension of the activities. While the facilitator (Wiktoria) retains responsibility for structuring content and leading the sessions, the class teachers operate as stabilizers of the learning environment, intervening particularly in moments of disruption, overload, or individual difficulty.
A defining feature of the class teachers’ role is their active involvement in behavior management and the restoration of group coherence. In several instances, when the level of noise escalates or children disengage from the task, supporting adults intervene more directly and sometimes more assertively than the facilitator. For example, during the session with the globe and digital maps, one teacher explicitly addresses the group: “Stop, I do not agree with this, the teacher is trying to show you something interesting.” This type of intervention differs from the facilitator’s repeated reminders (“be quiet”, “hands up”) in that it carries a stronger normative and authoritative tone, reinforcing expectations of attention and respect.
Similarly, class teachers frequently redirect individual children, especially those who are particularly active or disruptive. Children are asked to return to their places, reposition themselves, or, in some cases, are moved away from the group (e.g., being asked to sit at a table). These actions contribute to maintaining a minimum level of order but also highlight the extent to which participation requires external regulation rather than internalized group norms.
Another important dimension of the class teachers’ role is emotional and physiological support, particularly in response to signs of fatigue, frustration, or overstimulation. A key example is the introduction of a short relaxation exercise led by a supporting teacher when the group becomes visibly dysregulated. The teacher guides children through a calming visualization: “Close your eyes… imagine you are a stone… the world moves around you, and you stay still.” This intervention acknowledges the children’s state — “I see that today it is very difficult for you”— and attempts to reset the group’s emotional and attentional capacity. Such moments indicate a sensitivity to children’s needs that goes beyond task completion and supports the conditions for re-engagement.
Class teachers also provide individualized scaffolding during tasks, particularly when children encounter difficulties. During the drawing activity, when many children express confusion — “I don’t understand,” or “how am I supposed to think of this?”— a supporting teacher moves between tables and offers guidance, suggesting strategies such as imagining flying above the kindergarten and seeing it from a bird’s-eye perspective. This form of support is more adaptive and responsive than the facilitator’s general instructions, as it addresses children’s needs at the level of individual understanding.
In addition, class teachers contribute to the organization of the learning environment and transitions, including seating arrangements, distribution of materials, and the grouping of children. For example, during the drawing session, a teacher deliberately assigns children to specific tables, suggesting an intentional structuring of interaction, even if the criteria are not explicitly stated. These actions help to manage the logistical complexity of working with a large group, ensuring that activities can proceed despite disruptions.
At the same time, class teachers remain largely absent from the conceptual and dialogic core of the sessions. They rarely initiate questions related to the topic, extend children’s ideas, or engage in the co-construction of knowledge. Even when children produce potentially rich contributions — such as reflections on cooperation (“it’s hard to decide together”) or imaginative explanations (“if there was no space, there would be no Earth”) — these are taken up, if at all, by the facilitator rather than the supporting adults. This indicates a clear division of roles: the facilitator as the epistemic leader, and the class teachers as regulators and supporters of participation conditions.
An additional, more subtle aspect of the class teachers’ role is their influence on the overall interactional climate. In some moments, their actions contribute positively to restoring focus or supporting individual children. In others, however, their simultaneous conversations or interventions may inadvertently increase the level of noise or fragmentation, as noted in the observation that adult conversations in the background made it “even harder to maintain children’s attention.” This suggests that the presence of multiple adults, while potentially supportive, can also introduce additional complexity into the interactional environment.
From an interpretive perspective, the role of the class teacher aligns with the idea of maintaining the social and emotional infrastructure for learning, which is a necessary condition for participation in socially mediated processes, as emphasized by Lev Vygotsky. However, their limited involvement in the epistemic dimension means that they do not actively contribute to the kind of dialogic inquiry envisioned by Matthew Lipman, nor to the collective advancement of ideas central to Knowledge Building.
In sum, the class teachers in this setting function as co-managers of the learning environment, providing essential support in terms of regulation, emotional balance, and task organization. Their role is crucial for sustaining the possibility of participation in a highly dynamic group, yet it remains largely peripheral to the processes of meaning-making and knowledge construction, which continue to be centered on the facilitator.
What fostered the collaborative-participative process? Which were the factors impacting on social, critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills?
Despite the evident challenges in sustaining collective focus, the observed sessions in the Sowa Zuzu group reveal several important factors that enabled and, at times, intensified the collaborative-participative process, particularly at the level of social engagement, emerging reasoning, and early metacognitive awareness. These enabling conditions, however, operated unevenly and often in tension with structural constraints.
One of the most powerful fostering factors was the use of narrative and imaginative framing, which created a shared symbolic space for participation. The Robinson Crusoe story, for instance, immediately generated engagement, emotional involvement, and a sense of collective immersion. Children reacted enthusiastically — “Yay!” “Read it again!”—and actively entered the imagined scenario. When invited to think about what they would take to a deserted island, children produced a wide range of responses — “Lego,” “a whole city,” “clothes and everything from my house”—revealing both imaginative thinking and personal meaning-making.
This narrative-based engagement aligns strongly with John Dewey’s emphasis on experience as the foundation of learning, as well as with Matthew Lipman’s idea of inquiry emerging from meaningful, shared contexts. The story provided a common reference point, enabling children to participate not only individually but within a shared imaginative framework, which is a key precondition for collaborative thinking.
A second important factor was the use of concrete materials and artifacts, which supported participation through action and sensory engagement. The introduction of cameras, photographs, yarn, globes, and visual representations generated immediate curiosity and involvement. Children responded with visible excitement — “Wow!” “Oh my God!” “That’s huge!”—and engaged physically by manipulating objects, looking through lenses, or pointing at images.
These materials functioned as mediating tools, anchoring attention and enabling shared exploration. For example, when children observed photographic negatives or images on a projector, they collaboratively interpreted what they saw — “that’s a tower,” “someone is in a hospital,” “this is probably a sphinx”— demonstrating emerging forms of collective interpretation and hypothesis-making. This reflects principles associated with Maria Montessori, where learning is grounded in interaction with materials that invite exploration and meaning-making.
Another key factor supporting participation was the presence of shared tasks with a collective goal, even if these were only partially realized. Activities such as building a network of connections or grouping objects into “needs” and “wants” created a common problem space, requiring children to position their ideas in relation to others. For instance, when discussing whether certain items were needs or wants, children responded collectively — “water is a need!” “a teddy bear is not necessary!”— and engaged in simple forms of classification.
Although argumentation was limited, these moments indicate the emergence of proto-critical thinking, where children begin to distinguish between categories, evaluate relevance, and make judgments. Similarly, when asked whether animals need humans, children produced conflicting responses — “yes!”, “no!” —creating a potential space for reasoning and comparison, even if it was not fully developed.
The sessions also fostered social learning and interaction, particularly through shared enthusiasm, humor, and peer presence. Children frequently reacted to one another’s ideas, laughed together, and engaged in collective expressions of excitement. For example, during collaborative photo-taking, children negotiated space, posed together, and expressed a desire to be included — “I want to be in the picture too!” These interactions supported the development of social awareness and group belonging, which are foundational for any collaborative process.
At the same time, there are indications of emerging metacognitive awareness, particularly when children reflect on processes rather than just content. A notable example is a child’s statement: “it’s hard, because when you work in a group you have to decide together.” This reflects an understanding of the structure and challenges of collaboration itself, moving beyond immediate participation toward reflection on how group processes function.
Another factor that occasionally supported deeper engagement was the facilitator’s attempt to connect ideas across contexts, for example by linking ecological concepts to everyday practices (“we collect water after rain and use it later”) or by connecting visual representations (maps, photos) to children’s lived environment (“this is our kindergarten from above”). These moments created opportunities for children to integrate new knowledge with prior experience, which is central to meaningful learning.
However, it is important to note that the fostering factors identified above were most effective when they:
In such conditions, participation became more inclusive, and children were more likely to engage not only individually but also in relation to others.
From a theoretical perspective, these enabling elements resonate with John Dewey’s emphasis on experiential and inquiry-based learning, Maria Montessori’s focus on material engagement and autonomy, and Matthew Lipman’s concept of a dialogic community of inquiry. At the same time, the observed processes represent an early and partial form of Knowledge Building, where participation creates the conditions for shared thinking but does not yet consistently lead to the collective advancement of ideas.
In sum, the collaborative-participative process in this group was fostered by narrative engagement, material mediation, shared tasks, and a socially dynamic environment, which together supported the emergence of social interaction, early critical distinctions, and initial forms of metacognitive awareness. However, these processes remained situational and fragile, requiring more consistent structuring to evolve into sustained collaborative knowledge building.
What might have hindered the collaborative-participative process?
While the observed sessions in the Sowa Zuzu group included several elements that supported participation, the collaborative-participative process was significantly constrained by a set of interrelated factors that limited the continuity, depth, and collective nature of knowledge construction. These hindering elements were particularly visible in the structure of interaction, the mismatch between task demands and children’s readiness, the instability of group dynamics, and the predominance of teacher-centered control.
One of the most prominent barriers was the fragmented and unstable interactional environment, characterized by persistent noise, overlapping speech, and difficulty maintaining shared attention. Across sessions, children frequently spoke simultaneously, shifted to unrelated topics, or disengaged from the task. For example, during discussions, children interjected comments such as “I need to go to the toilet,” “I saw a squirrel!” or reacted to environmental stimuli with remarks like “that’s pee!” which redirected the group’s focus away from the shared topic. In later sessions, this fragmentation intensified, with children lying on the floor, turning away from the facilitator, or engaging in parallel conversations. This lack of a stable communicative structure made it difficult to sustain any form of collective inquiry or cumulative dialogue.
Closely related to this was the limited internalization of participation norms, such as turn-taking, listening, and building on others’ ideas. Although the facilitator repeatedly reminded children to raise their hands and wait — “who wants to speak raises their hand”— these norms were not consistently enacted by the group. As a result, participation remained impulsive and individualistic, rather than coordinated and dialogic. This significantly reduced opportunities for children to engage in the kind of structured interaction necessary for collaborative knowledge building.
Another major hindering factor was the predominance of teacher-directed discourse, which constrained the development of shared meaning-making. The facilitator frequently controlled the flow of interaction through rapid questioning, evaluation, and topic shifts, leaving limited space for children to respond to one another or develop ideas over time. When children expressed divergent views — such as “yes, animals need humans” versus “no, they don’t”— these differences were not explored through reasoning or dialogue, but were instead quickly managed or redirected. This limited the emergence of argumentation, perspective-taking, and critical comparison, which are central to collaborative and critical thinking.
A further constraint was the mismatch between task design and children’s cognitive readiness, particularly in activities requiring abstract thinking or perspective-taking. For example, when asked to draw the kindergarten from a bird’s-eye view, many children expressed confusion and frustration: “I don’t understand,” “I don’t know how to do this,” “how am I supposed to think of this?” These responses indicate that the task exceeded the children’s current representational abilities, leading to disengagement or reliance on familiar strategies (e.g., drawing buildings from a side view). In such cases, participation shifted from collaborative exploration to individual struggle or withdrawal, undermining the collective dimension of the activity.
Similarly, in the “Network of Life” activity, the underlying logic of the task was not fully accessible to children. Although they engaged with materials and responded to prompts, they struggled to understand the intended system of relationships. This resulted in waiting, loss of attention, and eventual breakdown of the activity, with both the children and the facilitator showing signs of frustration. The lack of explicit scaffolding and shared understanding prevented the task from becoming a meaningful space for collaborative knowledge construction.
Another important barrier was the dominance of expressive and imaginative responses without sufficient scaffolding toward reflection. Children frequently produced creative and enthusiastic ideas — “I would take all the Lego sets in the world,” “I would take a whole city” — but these contributions were rarely followed by questions that would deepen or connect them. As a result, participation remained at the level of individual expression, rather than evolving into shared inquiry or conceptual development. This limits both critical thinking (e.g., evaluating feasibility or necessity) and metacognitive engagement (e.g., reflecting on why certain choices are made).
The uneven distribution of participation also hindered the collaborative process. Some children were highly active and vocal, while others remained silent, hesitant, or disengaged. In several instances, children explicitly expressed reluctance — “I don’t like it,” “I don’t want to say”— or avoided participation altogether. Without consistent strategies to include these children, participation remained asymmetrical, reducing the diversity of perspectives and weakening the collective nature of the process.
Time management and pacing further contributed to these limitations. Activities were often interrupted, shortened, or shifted before children could fully engage or complete their work. For example, during the drawing task, children were asked to stop after only a few minutes, despite expressing a desire to continue — “but why?” or “I didn’t finish.” This disrupted the continuity of engagement and limited opportunities for reflection, sharing, and discussion of outcomes.
Additionally, the presence of multiple adults, while supportive in terms of regulation, sometimes contributed to increased noise and divided attention, particularly when adults engaged in parallel conversations. This added another layer of complexity to an already demanding interactional environment, making it even more difficult for children to maintain focus on the shared task.
From a broader pedagogical perspective, these hindering factors point to a partial misalignment with the principles of John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and Matthew Lipman. While the activities themselves were often experiential and engaging, the structure of interaction did not consistently support inquiry, autonomy, or sustained dialogue. In particular, the absence of a stable “community of inquiry” limited the development of critical and metacognitive skills, as children were rarely invited to justify their ideas, question others, or reflect on their own thinking.
In relation to Knowledge Building, the process remained at the level of idea generation without systematic improvement. Children contributed many ideas, but these were not collectively developed, connected, or refined over time.
In sum, the collaborative-participative process was hindered by a combination of interactional instability, teacher-centered control, insufficient scaffolding, task complexity, uneven participation, and disrupted continuity. These factors did not eliminate participation, but they significantly limited its transformation into sustained, collective knowledge building, highlighting the importance of carefully aligning task design, facilitation, and group dynamics in order to support deeper collaborative learning.
Have children generated a shared knowledge about environmental issues? What was the process?
Across the observed sessions in the Sowa Zuzu group, children engaged with environmental topics primarily through teacher-led discussions, material-based activities, and interactions with visual content. The process of generating shared knowledge was dynamic and situational, with ideas emerging frequently but not always being collectively developed or sustained over time.
Environmental concepts appeared most clearly during whole-group discussions initiated by the teacher. When asked open questions such as “What is nature?” children responded quickly and often simultaneously, calling out “trees,” “leaves,” “birds,” or “grass” at the same time. These responses indicate a shared familiarity with elements of nature; however, they tended to form a collection of parallel contributions, rather than a jointly developed line of thinking.
Children also referred to human actions in relation to the environment, often in the form of normative statements. For example, they stated that “you shouldn’t pull flowers” or “you shouldn’t cut trees,” framing environmental care in terms of rules and appropriate behavior. In one more elaborated contribution, a child connected environmental responsibility with everyday practices, mentioning watering plants, choosing a bicycle instead of a car, and avoiding unnecessary purchases. While such examples demonstrate emerging awareness, they were typically not taken up or expanded by other children.
Moments of shared meaning-making were more visible in activities involving materials and physical interaction, particularly the “Network of Life.” Children were assigned elements of nature and asked to establish connections using yarn. Some actively proposed relationships (e.g., linking grass to cows or clouds to rain), and one child supported others by suggesting how to hold and pass the yarn. At the same time, the activity required waiting, and several children remained passive or disengaged while others were involved. This uneven participation affected the clarity and continuity of the collective understanding.
Children also engaged with environmental topics through visual and digital representations, including films, photographs, and projected maps (e.g., Google Earth). In these situations, they reacted with curiosity and attempted to interpret what they saw, for example identifying continents, naming places, or recognizing environments such as deserts or Antarctica. When locating familiar places, such as their city, children showed particular excitement and shared attention. However, these exchanges were often brief and followed by quick topic shifts, limiting the development of more sustained discussion.
In narrative-based contexts, such as the story of Robinson Crusoe, children reflected on human needs and survival, suggesting what would be necessary to live on an island. Their responses included both basic needs and personal preferences, often expressed individually rather than negotiated collectively.
Peer interaction included moments of shared reactions and brief exchanges, but was frequently characterized by simultaneous speaking and interruptions. At several points, multiple children spoke at once, while others disengaged—for example, lying on the floor, turning away from the group, or expressing that they did not understand the task. Such dynamics made it difficult to maintain a shared focus or develop ideas collaboratively over time.
The process was strongly influenced by the role of the teacher, who introduced topics, structured activities, and guided attention through questions, instructions, and explanations. The teacher frequently reformulated children’s responses, repeated or clarified their statements, and used them as a basis for further prompts, often moving the discussion forward at a relatively quick pace. At the same time, this resulted in a pattern in which children’s contributions were primarily addressed and developed by the teacher, rather than taken up within peer interaction.
In several instances, the teacher attempted to maintain the flow of the activity by redirecting attention, giving instructions, or re-establishing order when children became distracted or spoke simultaneously. This was particularly visible in situations where noise levels increased or when children disengaged from the task. As a result, the teacher’s role included not only facilitating discussion but also managing group dynamics and participation.
The pacing of interaction, shaped by frequent questioning and transitions between topics, supported ongoing engagement but also contributed to the short, response-based structure of participation, in which children’s answers remained brief and situational. While this allowed many children to take part, it limited opportunities for longer exchanges and for children to build on each other’s ideas.
Across sessions, children showed fluctuating levels of engagement. They expressed curiosity and enthusiasm in response to materials (e.g., cameras, images, maps), but this was interspersed with moments of distraction, off-task behavior, and fatigue. In some instances, the level of noise or loss of focus led to interruptions or changes in the planned activity.
Overall, children generated elements of shared environmental knowledge, particularly in relation to identifying components of nature, recognizing simple relationships (such as the needs of living beings), and expressing basic norms related to environmental care. At the same time, this process was shaped by short and parallel contributions, shifting attention, and a fragmented flow of interaction, as well as strong teacher mediation. As a result, shared knowledge emerged primarily through situational and ephemeral interactions, rather than through a sustained and collectively developed understanding.
What fostered children's environmental awareness and the promotion of their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?
Children’s environmental awareness was supported by a learning environment that combined multiple modes of engagement—verbal, visual, embodied, and experiential—allowing children to approach environmental topics from different entry points. This multimodal structure created a broad field of participation in which children could contribute through speaking, observing, imagining, or acting.
In terms of knowledge construction, one of the foundational processes observed was the collective generation of shared semantic fields. During whole-group discussions, children responded to open questions by naming elements of nature, such as “trees,” “leaves,” “birds,” “grass.” Although these responses were often produced simultaneously and not sequentially developed, they contributed to the emergence of a common pool of references, which functioned as a shared starting point for further activity.
A shift from naming to relational thinking was observable in activities such as the “Network of Life.” In this context, children were invited to establish connections between elements of the environment (e.g., grass–cow, cloud–rain). This activity introduced the idea that environmental knowledge is not only about identifying components, but also about understanding interdependencies. While not all children grasped the structure of the task equally, the activity created conditions in which ecological relationships could be materialized and negotiated rather than only described verbally.
Environmental knowledge was also constructed through a normative framing of human–environment relations. Children frequently expressed their understanding in the form of rules or prohibitions, such as “you shouldn’t pull flowers” or “you shouldn’t cut trees.” This suggests that their awareness of environmental issues was closely linked to socially mediated expectations about appropriate behavior. In some cases, this normative framing extended into more elaborated reflections, as when a child connected environmental care with everyday practices such as watering plants, using a bicycle instead of a car, and avoiding unnecessary consumption. These contributions indicate that children were able to position themselves as agents within the environment, even if this agency was primarily understood in behavioral terms.
The introduction of visual and digital representations (e.g., maps, satellite images, films) supported the emergence of a spatial dimension of environmental understanding. Children engaged in identifying continents, distinguishing between environments such as deserts or Antarctica, and locating familiar places such as their city. These activities enabled children to move between proximal (local) and distal (global) references, creating a form of early geographical awareness. However, the significance of these different scales was not explicitly articulated, remaining implicit in the activity itself.
Moments of direct sensory engagement with nature, such as observing real butterflies, played a distinct role in stabilizing attention and deepening involvement. In contrast to more fragmented discussion-based situations, these moments were characterized by collective focus, shared observation, and reduced distraction. This suggests that direct contact with natural phenomena can function as a centering mechanism, anchoring children’s attention and supporting more sustained engagement.
The use of narrative contexts (e.g., Robinson Crusoe) enabled children to explore environmental issues through imagination and projection. In these situations, children reflected on survival, needs, and living conditions, linking environmental elements (e.g., food, shelter) to human existence. Although these reflections often remained individualized, they opened a space for connecting environmental knowledge with human experience and dependency on the environment.
An important dimension of children’s active role emerged in small-group work, where the structure of interaction shifted from whole-group response patterns to more localized collaboration. In these contexts, children were required to negotiate, make decisions, and coordinate actions. Their explicit reflections—for example, that “it’s hard, because when you work in a group you have to decide together”—indicate an emerging meta-awareness of collective processes and shared responsibility. This is particularly relevant in the context of environmental education, where action is inherently collective.
Across these different modalities, children’s environmental awareness developed not as a single coherent system, but as a set of partially connected understandings, distributed across actions, representations, and interactions.
What might have hindered children's environmental awareness and their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?
At the same time, the development of children’s environmental awareness was shaped by several factors that limited the emergence of deeper, more integrated, and collectively constructed knowledge.
A central limitation was the non-cumulative nature of knowledge construction. While children contributed frequently, their ideas were rarely taken up, revisited, or extended over time. For example, when children named elements of nature (“trees”, “leaves”, “birds”), these contributions accumulated in parallel rather than being organized into shared explanations. As a result, knowledge tended to remain at the level of aggregation rather than integration.
The interactional structure, strongly shaped by teacher-led questioning, reinforced this pattern. The sequence of question–response–reformulation created a rhythm in which children’s participation was frequent but brief. This supported inclusivity in terms of turn-taking, but limited opportunities for extended reasoning, argumentation, or peer-to-peer knowledge building.
Although activities such as the “Network of Life” introduced relational thinking, the conceptual coherence of ecological systems remained fragile. The logic of interdependence was not consistently made explicit or collectively negotiated, and uneven participation (e.g., waiting, disengagement) further reduced the possibility of constructing a shared systemic understanding.
The framing of the human role within the environment was predominantly normative and behavior-oriented. While children demonstrated awareness of what should or should not be done, there was limited exploration of causal mechanisms, consequences, or systemic impacts. As a result, environmental understanding remained closer to rules of conduct than to explanatory models of human–environment interaction.
Similarly, while elements of a global perspective were introduced through visual materials, these remained largely descriptive. Children were able to identify places and environments, but the relationships between local actions and global environmental processes were not explicitly developed. This resulted in a form of juxtaposed knowledge, where different scales coexisted but were not integrated into a coherent framework.
Another important limitation was the restricted role of direct, sustained engagement with the natural environment. Although moments such as observing butterflies provided strong and focused engagement, they were relatively infrequent. The predominance of mediated forms (images, films, discussions) meant that environmental knowledge was often constructed at a representational level, with fewer opportunities for extended sensory and experiential grounding.
The instability of attention and group dynamics further affected the process. Frequent simultaneous speaking, interruptions, and visible disengagement—such as children lying on the floor, expressing confusion or lack of understanding—disrupted the continuity of interaction. This made it difficult to sustain shared focus and to develop ideas over longer periods.
Finally, although group work created opportunities for participation, it also revealed that collaborative competencies were still emerging. Difficulties in negotiating, sharing control, or maintaining joint attention meant that group work did not always translate into deeper collective knowledge construction.
How have children used Digital Technologies?
Digital technologies in Sowa Zuzu were used mainly as tools for provocation, visual exploration, documentation, and shared attention. Children engaged with them both as users and co-creators; they handled and compared analogue and digital cameras, experimented with taking photographs, explored zooming and movement in Google Earth, watched and interpreted short films, participated in creating and recording advertisements, and revisited their own photographs and videos through projection. In some activities, children used technologies to document and co-create; in others, they collectively interpreted digital materials. In this setting, technologies often mediated access to places, perspectives, and processes not directly available in the immediate environment, complementing rather than extending primarily outdoor experiences.
A significant strand of activity involved technologies as stimuli for curiosity and questioning. Films, projected images and Google Earth often served as provocations, generating questions, associations, and discussion. Children frequently responded to digital materials with wonder, humor, hypotheses, and imaginative speculation. Questions about whether someone had been in space, how Earth can be seen from above, or what exists in distant ecosystems suggest technologies often operated as prompts for inquiry. Teachers played an important role here by treating spontaneous questions as openings for dialogue rather than distractions, often extending them through follow-up prompts and comparisons.
Google Earth played an especially prominent role in supporting encounters with scale and unfamiliar environments. Children moved between their preschool, city, deserts, oceans, and forests, often comparing places and asking ecological questions. At the same time, observations suggest that while such technologies generated fascination and questioning, perspective shifts often required more scaffolding than activities allowed. The bird’s-eye-view drawing activity illustrated this well: although the aerial perspective generated curiosity and discussion, only a few children translated this perspective into their own representations, showing that exposure to a new viewpoint did not automatically become conceptual transfer.
Photography formed another important strand. Here digital and analogue technologies were not only used instrumentally but explored as objects in themselves. Children handled old cameras, examined negatives, engaged with instant photography and compared different technological forms. This created opportunities to notice differences between technologies—for example how images are produced, stored, or appear immediately or over time—and supported early reflection that technologies can work in different ways. The comparative potential of these activities seemed to be used mainly to foster curiosity and emerging awareness, rather than sustained critical analysis, but it opened meaningful first encounters with technology as a material and historical process rather than an invisible tool. Teachers often supported these comparisons by inviting children to predict, notice differences and discuss what each device could do.
Technology often appeared particularly meaningful when children encountered themselves through it. Looking at self-made photographs, viewing recordings, participating in creating advertisements, or seeing projected images of familiar places often generated visible joy, pride and lively discussion. Children showed clear satisfaction when revisiting their own productions, often commenting on them, recalling how they were made and sharing interpretations with peers.
The advertisement-making activities offered a particularly interesting dimension of digital engagement. Here technologies supported not only creation but reflection on mediated communication. Children discussed what advertisements are for, what makes them persuasive or attractive, and experimented with producing their own. Teachers played an important mediating role here by encouraging children to think about audience, intention and what makes a message effective, extending playful production into early critical media awareness.
Another notable feature was that digital exploration often moved into other expressive forms — drawing, storytelling, bodily play or philosophical conversation. Technologies therefore often functioned as triggers that fed into broader inquiry rather than self-contained activities. At the same time, observations suggest that technologies often functioned most strongly as tools for generating engagement and shared attention, while sustaining slower critical reflection was less consistent. In this sense their educational role often lay more in provoking inquiry than in supporting sustained critical analysis.
What fostered a critical approach to digital technologies?
What might have hindered a critical approach to digital technologies?
Financiado pela União Europeia. Os pontos de vista e as opiniões expressas são as do(s) autor(es) e não refletem necessariamente a posição da União Europeia ou da Agência de Execução Europeia da Educação e da Cultura (EACEA). Nem a União Europeia nem a EACEA podem ser tidos como responsáveis por essas opiniões.
All contents, in particular texts, pictures and graphics, are protected by copyright. Unless expressly stated otherwise, copyright is held by each.eduskills.plus and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-commercial - Distribution under the same conditions 4.0 International license. They may be subject to the terms of the license.
© 2026 each.eduskills.plus | Impressum