Italy

Scuola dell’infanzia Abba, Bologna (Italy)

Groups

1

Children

13

Age range

5 years old

Term

December 2024 – March 2025

1 BACKGROUND: contextual information and educational approaches

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 ten scheduled sessions were held weekly (every Wednesday) from December 4th 2024, to March 5th 2025, with a break during the Christmas holidays.

The group consisted of 13 children, all five years old, from the same class. Among them were two children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and four with special educational needs (related to selective mutism or to difficulties in socio-emotional and/or verbal communication areas).

The objective of the programme was to promote collaborative educational approaches and practices which – through the use of digital technology as a tool for inquiry, discovery, and discussion – would support the development of environmental awareness, critical thinking, and sensitivity to climate change issues.

The educational and pedagogical methodology chosen for the intervention was Philosophy for Children (P4C), an approach that the children had not previously experienced.

Each session included a welcome and presentation of the planned activity, an initial activation phase, and a collective closing moment with elaboration of the experience (sometimes in the form of individual drawings), concluding with farewells and a preview of the next meeting.

The prompts used to activate discussion varied and were linked to key themes such as:

1. What does a Nature explorer do, and what belongs to Nature?
2. Which elements of Nature are interconnected, and why?
3. What do humans need in order to survive? Why? What do I need?
4. What is extraordinary and special about the school garden? Are trees alive?
5. Can we recognize sounds produced by the computer? Do sounds trigger emotions? Which ones?
6. Let’s observe the photos of a photojournalist and then let’s take pictures of our favourite tree.
7. If someone wanted to cut down all the trees in our garden, what would we say and how would we behave?
8. What do I see with my naked eye, through a magnifying glass, and what/how do animals see? The relativity of perspective.
9. Let’s observe the world from above using Google Earth.
10. The myth of Atlas.

2 COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE-BUILDING PROCESS

2.1 OBSERVATION

How have the children participated? How (if) has their participation changed throughout the sessions?

The first session was designed as an “ice-breaker” to allow the group and the facilitator – who was new to the children – to get to know each other in a playful manner. Each child introduced themselves by saying their name at different speeds (normal, slow, fast) and shared something they enjoyed doing.

Throughout the sessions, the level and type of participation evolved, particularly in how the children responded and gave meaning to stimuli. However, children rarely addressed each other directly; their verbal and non-verbal communication was primarily directed toward the facilitator. Many showed difficulty engaging in dialogical space and listening to others’ contributions. Overall, the children displayed significant interest in the activities, although this was more often motivated by a desire to be “seen and heard” individually, rather than by a shared commitment to collective dialogue or group growth.

What was the role and the activities of the adult/guide/facilitator?

All sessions were facilitated by a member of the Filò association, whose primary role was to stimulate dialogue and reflection (especially encouraging children to justify their points of view) and ensure that each child had the opportunity to express himself and to be listened. The facilitator also played a crucial role in synthesizing the session’s content, making each phase explicit and meaningful. Furthermore, the facilitator adapted the guidelines to the specific context, taking into account her external role relative to the class’s regular educational staff.

If different from the practitioner, what role did the class teacher play?

Classroom teachers were present throughout the project, observing and assisting with the practical activities.

2.2 EVALUATION: good practices and critical factors

What fostered the collaborative-participative process? Which were the factors impacting on social, critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills?

The following elements fostered collaborative knowledge-building and supported active listening and dialogue:

1. Shared rules for the discussion environment, including the use of a “talking stick” (a coloured wooden stick) to manage turn-taking and a silent signal for quiet. While the talking stick may have limited some children, it enabled others – such as the child with selective mutism – to participate. Holding the stick did not compel speaking, but no one could speak without it. These moments of silence and waiting created space for contributions from those who do not usually dominate group interactions.
2. A playful and relationally close facilitation style: the facilitator took a personally involved and friendly posture, ensuring everyone had a chance to speak.
3. The use of drawing as a valuable mediating tool for all children, including those with disabilities or special needs.
4. The ability to elicit wonder and surprise, for instance during the Google Earth activity, when the group observed Earth from 63,000 km above. This prompted awe and imaginative reasoning. Questions were addressed to the adults (e.g., “How did you manage to take a picture of the planet?”); the children formulated hypotheses (e.g., “With a rocket that had a phone attached to it”) and engaged in critically evaluating and refuting hypotheses provocatively proposed from the adult (e.g., “We tied a camera to a bird’s leg and made it fly beyond the atmosphere”).
5. The use of digital technologies, which effectively captured and maintained the children’s attention.
6. Time and repeated practice: dialogue is the outcome, not the starting point. During the 4th session, for instance, a child asked: “How can we remember that we need to raise our hand if we want to speak?” Classmates responded with several suggestions, such as: “You can ask a classmate,” “You can observe the example set by others,” and “I can remind V. to raise her hand if she needs help.” These interactions revealed more evident signs of active listening, mutual support, and a cooperative attitude. In the 10th and final session, when the adult asked, “Do you think we should help Atlas?”, it was possible to observe how listening to others’ perspectives led some children to reconsider their initial stance. One child, who had initially stated, “No, because he didn’t ask for help and we’re not strong enough,” revised his position after hearing others’ reasoning: “Yes, because he needs to rest. He needs to go home, have a snack, and relax. We are strong enough to help him.” The child subsequently stated, “OK, I’ve changed my mind.”
7. The nature of the stimuli proposed, which were open-ended and involved not only cognitive engagement but also emotional, creative and bodily dimensions. For example:

1. The activity of connecting various natural elements, which implied physically linking different images with adhesive tape, encouraged the articulation of individual viewpoints. It also brought out unexpected or unconventional connections (e.g., mouse–forest: the mouse hides among the forest leaves; hen–sun: the hen lives in the countryside, and there is sun in the countryside; bird–sun: the bird flies in the sky, where the sun is; cat–water: cats dislike water).
2. The use of digital sound stimuli (produced by a computer) prompted reflection based on a “both-and” mode rather than the “either-or” one: can a sound represent more than one thing? Could this sound be both a river flowing and rain falling? Could it be thunder or a firecracker? The fact that sounds could only be heard and not seen made their interpretation even more subjective.
3. The use of digital photographic images, which could be enlarged or reduced, enabled different perspectives, which were then articulated and justified (“It’s fog/It’s low clouds”; “It’s light from a fire/It’s a beam of sunlight”). Children also noticed specific details (“From the man’s hat and clothing, I can tell it’s cold”; “The sand-covered car tells me we’re in a desert”).
4. The picture book “Eye Spy: Wild Ways Animals See the World” facilitated perspective-taking. The children were invited to imagine themselves as a tiny snail, first on someone’s hand, then on the grass: what would they see and hear? Some responses included: “The grass would be huge,” “I’d be afraid of pigeons and all the other animals that might eat me.”
5. Google Earth, which enabled aerial views (“It’s like we’re an eagle, a bird, a seagull”; “It’s like we’re riding on an eagle’s back”) and fostered a new observational perspective (“The trees look like broccoli,” “The bushes look like lettuce,” “The school roof looks like melted chocolate”).

What might have hindered the collaborative-participative process?

Factors that limited the development of a co-constructive knowledge-building process were mainly:

1. Limited familiarity with collaborative and participatory learning processes. The lack of prior experience meant that – particularly in the initial phases – the focus of the sessions often remained on self-presentation, the assertion of one’s own point of view, and the defence of its uniqueness and correctness (e.g., “I already said that,” “What you said isn’t true”).
2. Occasionally excessive time dedicated exclusively to dialogue, without accompanying physical or creative engagement. In most cases, after approximately 10-15 minutes of purely verbal interaction, conversations became repetitive. For this particular group, relying solely on cognitive-verbal engagement (without bodily or playful involvement) represented a limiting factor. Consequently, the proposed activities – compared to those outlined in the official guidelines – were reduced both in terms of content and duration.
3. The typical use of the school’s outdoor space. Since the school garden is usually experienced by children as a setting for unstructured free play and physical activity – rather than as an extension of the indoor learning environment – it is difficult to reframe that space in a short time as an open-air classroom. As a result, it proved challenging to maintain focus during the initial outdoor activities: attention spans and levels of concentration were notably brief. Therefore, in the final three sessions, it was decided to conduct outdoor activities in a different setting (a nearby public park), which could take on a new and distinct meaning for the children.

3 environmental and climate-change challenges

3.1 OBSERVATION

Have children generated a shared knowledge about environmental issues? What was the process?

In general, it proved challenging to stimulate reflections on environmental sustainability and issues related to climate change. The following observations were made:

1. Children showed limited familiarity with elements of the natural world. During the sound recognition activity (using digital audio clips), children generally found it easier to identify human-made sounds than those from nature. For instance, the sound of crickets was described as “the sound of the night and the moon”, rather than being recognized as the sound of a specific animal.
2. Responses to adult questions about the environment and the importance of its protection (e.g., “Why should the mayor not cut down all the trees in our garden?”) often appeared “adult-like” and not really problematized (“because trees produce oxygen,” “it’s not good to leave the water running, cut down trees, or waste tissues,” “we wouldn’t have paper anymore”). It is important to recognize that children do not approach these topics with a neutral background, as they carry with them a set of acquired knowledge and norms. As a result, fostering the expression of personal ideas becomes complex, as children’s words sometimes come across as “empty and repetitive”: they recall rules and precepts they have been taught and feel the need to demonstrate to adults what they have learned, without necessarily understanding the reasoning behind certain environmentally responsible behaviours. This raises the question of whether they truly disagree with cutting down trees, or whether they are simply saying what they believe adults expect to hear.
3. A strong focus on the self and one’s immediate world. When asked, “What do you need to survive?”, children’s responses were highly personal and intimate (e.g., “my mom,” “my family,” “my favourite pillow,” “football”). At this developmental stage, such responses are expected. However, when the question was reframed as “What do human beings need to survive?”, answers shifted toward universal primary needs, with references to the natural world (e.g., “grass,” “air”), and biological conditions (“having blood, lungs, etc.”). It would have been particularly insightful to have time to compare these two types of responses, by asking children why they thought their answers differed depending on the phrasing of the question.

3.2 EVALUATION: good practices and critical factors

What fostered children's environmental awareness and the promotion of their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?

The element that most effectively fostered a connection with Nature, the environment, its features and related issues was the opportunity to link these themes to the children’s own intimate, personal, and emotional spheres. Examples include reflections such as: “The sound of traffic makes me feel anxious because it reminds me of when we’re in the car and we’re going fast”; “The sound of crickets reminds me of a phone ringtone: when it rings, it means I can’t play with my mom, dad, or siblings anymore because they have to answer it.”

Similarly, some children opposed the idea of cutting down the garden’s trees with arguments grounded in personal experience or emotional reasoning: “There wouldn’t be any more goals to play football,” “There wouldn’t be places to play hide and seek”, “The trees would feel pain and it would hurt the Earth”, “It would be dangerous because when the trees fall, they could destroy the school”.

What might have hindered children's environmental awareness and their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?

The factors that hindered the development of a critical environmental awareness were primarily the following:

1. The developmental stage and level of moral reasoning typical of children of this age group (see Kohlberg, pre-conventional level: Stage I — “what is right is what is defined as such by the authority figure who can punish,” i.e., the adult; Stage II — “what is right is what is useful or beneficial to me”). At the age of five, how can children perceive their own well-being and happiness (i.e., their personal utility) as being directly connected to Nature and environmental stewardship? It is essential to identify pathways that introduce children to the themes of environmental sustainability and to the question “why should I care about Nature?”, not by invoking adult-like moral reasoning, but by engaging them through their personal, intimate, and emotional-affective experiences. Questions concerning environmental ethics should not be posed through adult rationales (e.g., “what should we do to help the environment?”), as such questions often elicit responses that merely echo adult norms and lack authenticity or personal significance. Instead, stimuli that genuinely matter to children and activate their curiosity and attention should be prioritized.
2. The (often implicit and latent) tendency of adults to impose their own beliefs. In the domain of environmental sustainability and the climate crisis, this risk is particularly high, given that we, as adults, perceive our very survival to be at stake in relation to the environment. It is thus inevitable that a certain tension arises when using a community of inquiry approach in conjunction with an educational agenda aimed at transmitting specific values and ideas to children. On one hand, Philosophy for Children (P4C) values freedom of thought and aims to create the conditions for children to develop autonomous and critical thinking through dialogue. On the other hand, in the field of education for sustainability and climate awareness, we clearly hope that children will internalize specific values and beliefs.
3. The difficulty in identifying a coherent narrative thread that could link and give meaning to all the carried-out activities. Activities specifically related to environmental themes may have appeared somewhat disconnected or isolated from one another, lacking a unifying conceptual framework.
4. The limited time allocated to exploring each stimulus. Especially when stimuli are not integrated into the everyday school routine (for example, when the project is led by external experts who meet with children only once a week), it becomes crucial to dedicate more time to each activity, allowing for deeper exploration and reflection. Spending more time on each theme enhances both the attribution of meaning and the perceived relevance for children. Consequently, fewer but more in-depth activities are recommended. Ideally, greater continuity with the groups would allow for more substantial engagement and thematic development.

4 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

4.1 OBSERVATION

How have children used Digital Technologies?

Children actively interacted with digital technologies, sometimes directly (e.g., through the use of a digital camera), and other times indirectly or in a mediated way (e.g., by participating – through guidance and requests – in the use of Google Earth).

The kind of interaction they had with the computer indicated that it is a “familiar” tool for them (in response to the adult's question “Do you ever listen to sounds coming from a computer or tablet?”, the answer was: “Yes, music”).

4.2 EVALUATION: good practices and critical factors

What fostered a critical approach to digital technologies?

The elements that fostered an active and critical approach to digital technologies included:

1. The opportunity to engage in multisensory experiences, which also fully involved children with severe cognitive disabilities. Looking at photos also meant “feeling” the sounds, smells, and bodily sensations: “brrr, it feels cold”; “it’s really hot”.
2. The chance to reflect on the “advantages” offered by the digitalization of images, sounds, and information: “I like computer pictures because you can see places in the world where I’ve never been”; “I like computer pictures because they remind me of happy memories”.
3. The perception of self-efficacy. For instance, when taking photographs themselves, children showed great satisfaction: “I took this one!”, “I managed to do it myself!”. The ease and intuitiveness of certain digital tools support the development of self-efficacy.

What might have hindered a critical approach to digital technologies?

A lack of knowledge and deeper understanding of how children actually use and experience digital technologies in their daily lives (i.e., which devices they use, how they use them, what experiences/thoughts/emotions are linked to this use, etc.) makes it more difficult to promote a truly critical use of these technologies.

The sessions