Italien

Scuola dell’infanzia Progetto 1-6, Bologna (Italy)

Gruppen

2

Kinder

22

Altersspanne

4 years old

Zeitraum

January – 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.)

Two groups of children (10 and 11 children respectively), from three different classes but of the same age (4 years old), participated in a 10-session educational program designed to explore questions and connections related to nature, the environment, and the tools used to investigate and deepen understanding of these themes. This exploration also included the use of digital tools, such as cameras and projection-based applications like Google Earth.

In the second group, named "Group 2", there was a child with a certified disability and special educational needs. Overall, she was able to participate in the proposed activities, although often through parallel engagement, as she does not use verbal language and experiences attention and visual attunement difficulties. These characteristics limit her active participation; however, she enjoys spending time with her peers, particularly during outdoor activities in the garden, where she is free to move around and interact, albeit under the constant supervision of a support educator.

The pedagogical-didactic approach selected for this program was Philosophy for Children (P4C), an approach that the children had not previously experienced.

Each session included an introductory welcome phase, a presentation of the activity to be carried out, an activation phase, and a collective closure with opportunities for both individual and group reflection, followed by a farewell and anticipation of the next session. Activation elements were varied and linked to specific thematic prompts, such as:

1. What does a nature explorer do?
2. What belongs to nature and what does not? Are things connected, and why?
3. What do I see in the school garden that I have never seen before?
4. How many details can we observe in a tree?
5. The sounds of nature
6. The sounds of nature and photographs of its elements taken by the children
7. What should the ideal garden include?
8. The other inhabitants of nature (animals)
9. Observing the world from above or from the ocean floor (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?

Throughout the entire program, both groups showed difficulty in establishing a conversation rhythm leading to respectful dialogue. Most often, the children responded individually to the facilitator's questions, with limited instances of extended conversations emerging from peer-to-peer exchanges or reflections. Nonetheless, by the end of the process, the children demonstrated an improved understanding of the steps proposed by the facilitator.

They showed a greater inclination toward activities that incorporated physical movement and embodied experiences. Overall, attention levels during circle-time sessions tended to decline after approximately ten minutes.

Carrying out certain sessions outdoors proved beneficial for prompting engagement and subsequently gathering more meaningful feedback during the closing phase. Conversely, conducting entire sessions indoors was almost always particularly demanding in terms of maintaining focus and participation. Peer collaboration was consistently more effective when the proposed activities allowed for or encouraged one-to-one interactions.

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

The facilitator from the association Filò fully carried out all P4C sessions. Her primary role was to activate and stimulate dialogue and reflection – particularly encouraging children to articulate and justify their own points of view – and to ensure that each participant had the opportunity to be heard. She also played an important role in synthesizing the content of each session, making the various steps explicit and helping the children to attribute meaning to them.

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

The role of the pedagogical coordinator – who was present at all sessions – was that of an external observer, albeit in close proximity to the group. In some instances, she supported group dynamics, particularly when children's attention began to drift. The classroom teachers participated only in a few sessions, and in those cases, their role was primarily focused on helping to regulate the children’s attention.

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?

Collaboration was supported through group feedback moments – such as the creation of posters – and by the facilitator’s consistent emphasis on the “here and now” and on the activity at hand. The children frequently provided decontextualized responses, often shifting to personal narratives unrelated to the initial prompt. The response process frequently showed signs of imitation, with children echoing one another's answers. As a result, it was often necessary to reformulate questions using more engaging and imaginative entry points.

Children’s responses were often limited to simple affirmations or negations ("yes" or "no"); however, in some cases, a few children articulated their thoughts more fully and hypothesized possible solutions to imagined scenarios (e.g., “If the garden had no more trees, I would call the gardeners to plant them again”).

Although each session was initially planned to last one hour, in several instances the duration was reduced to 45–50 minutes due to declining attention levels and a general lack of responsiveness to the facilitator’s guidance.

Certain activation tools proved effective in enhancing attention – for instance, the session involving cameras, videos, and printed photographs taken by the children. In general, the integration of digital tools supported concentration, particularly due to the element of surprise and wonder that characterized their introduction.

More broadly, collaborative processes tended to be short-lived and were effective only when accompanied by continuous facilitation from the educator leading the session. Visual aids – such as drawn "maps" to guide the children’s thinking (e.g., the “tree drawing”) – also proved helpful in supporting reflection and structuring thought.

What might have hindered the collaborative-participative process?

Overall, a key factor that hindered the collaborative process was the children’s limited attention span, which did not facilitate the exchange of opinions among peers, except in a few specific instances that were actively encouraged by the facilitator.

Furthermore, the indoor space used for the sessions – a transitional area with frequent passage of other individuals – did not support concentration. This negatively impacted both collaboration and active participation.

3 environmental and climate-change challenges

3.1 OBSERVATION

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

Given the difficulty in nurturing dialogue, it was equally challenging to perceive a cohesive group position in relation to the topics introduced. On several occasions, the facilitator asked the children to express support for one viewpoint or another by raising their hands. However, in many cases, the session proceeded with a change of question, as the group did not appear interested in exploring or expanding on the topic.

Only a few individual contributions led to thought-provoking discussions, though these were not followed up by the group. Rather, they unfolded within a “one-to-one” dynamic between the child and the facilitator, while the rest of the group displayed limited attention and engagement.

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 images and simulated travel experiences using Google Earth stimulated curiosity and openness toward exploring the characteristics of various locations around the planet. These tools also encouraged children’s proactiveness and narrative expression. Similarly, viewing photographs – both their own and those of their peers – fostered mutual exchange and interaction.

The structure of the sessions included an alternation between playful, physical activities and reflective moments: this alternation gradually fostered a connection between practice and thought.

With regard to the topic of climate change, reflections remained quite general or were guided by the facilitator, who prompted children to express preferences on specific questions (e.g., “more plants or more playground equipment in the garden?”).

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

Overall, the ten sessions should be considered as an initial introduction to basic reflections which – if they are to be deepened and made truly meaningful – would require greater continuity, regular practice in active listening, and a more in-depth understanding of the group itself.

The children’s attention span did not allow for more in-depth connections to be made regarding the topics addressed during the sessions.

4 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

4.1 OBSERVATION

How have children used Digital Technologies?

The children actively engaged with digital tools as protagonists of the learning process: they took photographs which were later printed and collaboratively reinterpreted within the group. Some digital applications also supported deeper exploration; for instance, viewing various locations through Google Earth prompted travel narratives, fostering immersive experiences for their peers.

4.2 EVALUATION: good practices and critical factors

What fostered a critical approach to digital technologies?

Digital tools were integrated into a process of dialogue and shared exploration of specific topics, promoting exchange and participation among all children during the sessions. A particularly noteworthy aspect was the complementary and mutually enriching relationship established between digital and analogue experiences.

What might have hindered a critical approach to digital technologies?

Limited attention spans often constrained the dialogue process and hindered equal levels of participation among all children.

Die Einheiten