Portugal
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 EACH project aimed to foster critical thinking by collaborative practices while introducing digital technologies in the classroom by focusing on climate change issues and environmental awareness more generally. The school applied it in three different classes (two of four years old and one of five years old). This present narrative summary refers to the five years old implementation as they had distinctive characteristics from the other two classes. There were ten sessions which were done by either Dina Mendonça (facilitator NOVA University), Aléxis Trindade (Facilitator of School) or Rita Rodrigues (kindergarten teacher) and an extra one done by Rita at the request of the children.
The use of P4C methodology grounded the promotion of dialogue and build upon the already visible installed habits of conversation of the group.
Observation of each session was done by Aléxis, Dina, Rita or by Susana Cadilha, the other member of NOVA.
The sequence of the sessions was thought and decided along the way by the team (Aléxis, Dina and Rita) in light of the children reaction and aiming to test as much material as possible from the portfolio.
Sessions lasted 1/1,5 hours, on a weekly basis.
With ten sessions it is hard to recognize the progression of collaborative thinking habits. Though it was clear that the class of 5 years old participated in dialogue in a more organized way than the 4 years old. The extra session (building of houses in the nature for animals) was a request from the children to do more stuff from the project.
Compare with the other two classes of 4 years old, the five years old class was able to experiment with more suggestions from the portfolio, and the kindergarten teacher did an extra session and plans to continue to explore the portfolio after the implementation period.
One of the sessions was to go outside to a park and take photos and this was notoriously very important for the children of all classes. However, the dialogue in the five years old was more philosophical than in the other classes. In this class the ability to reflect philosophically about issues was easily brough by the dialogue and facilitators (Aléxis & Dina) have several moments in which the philosophical enthusiasm for ideas was felt and could be connected to discussions carried out in professional philosophical debates.
In this session, for example, while trying to find criteria for why the same photograph could not be taken twice, one of the children explained that temporal ownership prevented the mere repetition. This opened the possibility of discussing the Heraclitus claim on not being able to step into the same river twice and, in that session, the children revealed being very attuned to giving each other time to think and reflect together, holding several times while waiting for one of the children to think through before participating.
Importantly, activities outside of the classroom were crucially vital for collaborative behaviour. And the play in the playground at regular times was one of the moments in which the impact of the project was felt. After the session of photographing outdoors the children asked Rita (kindergarten teacher) for her phone to take picture of an insect in the playground.
The children showed that the visits were important for them, and they expressed disappointment when they were reminded the 10th session was the last and reacted with enthusiasm at the suggestion that Dina would come one last bonus time to do a session in each class (after Easter).
In all classes the Google Earth observation, drawing the playground by imagining, after observation and after seeing it on Google earth was a very important session. Importantly, the comparison of various ways of experience perception by imagination, by observation and by observation with aid of a technological tool was decisive for changes in drawing. Overall, this reinforced the way in which drawing might be the best way to confirm when some progress in awareness has been achieved. The visualization of google earth was visibly transferred to the drawing ability and how taking a perspective from above changed the way a car, for example, was drawn (see power point).
Also, comparing the google earth with observing a globe, and looking at maps promoted dialogue among the children and it was welcome by the five years old.
In the session on “Can one step into the same river twice?” the variation on the force of reasons was also very clear, as reasons that felt stronger were taken up by other children, while reasons which were perceived as weaker were not repeated.
The focus on environment information diminished the reflection mode at times and was often only recovered by providing a specific mental task (comparing, voicing an opinion on a specific subject); also, some digital technologies took up the space of the activity making it hard to do anything else. Without comparison and follow up sessions to build upon the introduction of technological tools it feels impossible to build critical attitude towards the digital world, suggesting continuity might be key to ensure critical attitude for the digital transformation.
Though there was no time nor the space to focus on how to overcome the gap between saying it and doing it, the issues appeared when talking about how to take care of the planet. Children were already very knowledgeable about what to do, but not clear on how to promote those behaviours in others (besides their parents and other close people by repeating the message). Perhaps some material of the portfolio could focus on this difficulty of life.
Having the collaboration of the school staff (facilitator and kindergarten teachers) was decisive for the success of the sessions and the project. Alexis and Rita did a dissemination board for parents to show the activities the children had done in the sessions, and some activities made part of the classroom life (paintings and drawing were put up on the walls; planted seeds and watching the change was a daily focus after the session on putting seeds in pots to observe the change in nature).
Also, the children seemed to have really enjoyed visits from outsiders of the school (Susana and Dina) expressing their appreciation often.
Some concluding remarks:
How have the children participated? How (if) has their participation changed throughout the sessions?
Yes, but participation was not always the same. One effect of P4C methodology is to provide an environment in which people who normally do not verbalize reveal their ability to participate intelligently in an activity. And this was visible and noted by the kindergarten and in one of the sessions where the teacher shared as Rita was surprised on how this person participated often and spoke so well in a session.
What was the role and the activities of the adult/guide/facilitator?
By selecting an activity from the portfolio, the facilitator would design the best way to present it to the children given what had happened. The facilitator varied and thus the approach also changed but the children themselves made sure there was dialogue and listen to those who have more difficulty expressing themselves.
Even though there are always some children who are more vocal than others the facilitators helped children to share their thoughts offering moments in which everyone participated and gave their input.
If different from the practitioner, what role did the class teacher play?
Often the kindergarten teachers helped children’s behaviour for them to be able to focus on session subject matter either by direct verbal suggestions, or by using the referring to the common practice in the classroom.
What fostered the collaborative-participative process? Which were the factors impacting on social, critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills?
What might have hindered the collaborative-participative process?
Even though all children were within the 5-year-old bracket it was also visible in the dialogue that some children were more capable of expressing themselves with words and the variation in ability is a very important part of philosophical dialogue and needed more ongoing sessions to reinforce the collaborative participatory process.
Have children generated a shared knowledge about environmental issues? What was the process?
Yes, the focus on nature in the ten sessions and the activities they experienced made them much more aware of bugs in the playground and they wanted to digitally record the life they saw like they hadn’t done before.
Conversations also seemed to highlight the importance of experience and observation in experience.
What fostered children's environmental awareness and the promotion of their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?
The activities which help them verbalize what they already knew about taking care of the environment.
Fostering environmental awareness is now an ongoing concern of schools, and very present in school we worked at. This means the subject in itself was not new.
What might have hindered children's environmental awareness and their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?
After saying all the things (recycling, helping others, taking care of planet, etc.) the children (5 years old was very visible) did not know what else they could do, and the observer felt both kindergarten teachers and children were trying to find other things to name for promoting the active role and could not say more than what they had been told before the project.
It might be useful to know ahead of time what has already been done regarding environmental awareness as to engage in deepening their understanding of the issues they already know.
How have children used Digital Technologies?
The children took pictures with digital cameras (or phones and I-pads), explored as a group Google earth, looked at the photos they took in a power point presentation in the big screen of the class (that was visibly important in all classes), had several discussions prompted by digital power point presentation of images.
What fostered a critical approach to digital technologies?
What might have hindered a critical approach to digital technologies?
Too much information. Sometimes the digital experience had so much information for the children that it made it difficult for them to engage in any kind of conversation and often they asked to draw when they realized it was also a possibility.
Also, each session focused on a new item of the portfolio. Even though there was an effort not to rush and some tasks of the portfolio took up two sessions, exploring the material in the portfolio showed that ten sessions are too short to promote a durable critical stance for digital technologies.
Von der Europäischen Union finanziert. Die geäußerten Ansichten und Meinungen entsprechen jedoch ausschließlich denen des Autors bzw. der Autoren und spiegeln nicht zwingend die der Europäischen Union oder der Europäischen Exekutivagentur für Bildung und Kultur (EACEA) wider. Weder die Europäische Union noch die EACEA können dafür verantwortlich gemacht werden.
Alle Inhalte, insbesondere Texte, Bilder und Grafiken sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Soweit es nicht ausdrücklich anders gekennzeichnet ist, liegen die Urheberrechte bei each.eduskills.plus und stehen unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung -Nicht kommerziell -Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Lizenz. Sie dürfen im Rahmen der Lizenzbedingungen verwendet werden.
© 2026 each.eduskills.plus | Impressum