Italia
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 10 planned sessions were held at “Progetto 1-6” school on a weekly basis, from 24 November 2025 to 18 February 2026 (with a break for the Christmas holidays). Sessions with the group of 4-year-old children took place every Monday (facilitated by Carola, from Filò Association), while those with the group of 5-year-old children were held every Wednesday (facilitated by Beatrice, from Filò Association).
In order to foster the active participation of each child, as well as attentive listening and dialogue, each group was further divided into two sub-groups (including children of the same age, but from different classes). The group of 4-year-old children was divided into sub-groups A (11 children, including 1 with autism spectrum disorder) and B (11 children). The group of 5-year-old children was divided into sub-groups A (12 children, including 1 with oppositional defiant disorder and 1 with ADHD) and B (10 children, including 1 with autism spectrum disorder).
Overall, 40 sessions were delivered (10 for each sub-group), involving 44 children. In addition to the facilitator, at least one teacher from the school and one external observer were always present at each session.
The aim of the project was to promote collaborative educational approaches and practices which – also through the use of digital technology as a tool to support inquiry, discovery and discussion – would help to develop sensitivity, awareness and critical thinking on issues related to environmental sustainability and the climate crisis.
The pedagogical approach selected was Philosophy for Children (P4C). The group of 4-year-old children had not previously experienced this approach, whereas the group of 5-year-old children had been introduced to it during the first year of experimentation.
Each session included a welcoming phase, a recap of the previous session, the presentation of a “prompt”, and a collective closing phase involving reflection on both group and individual activities, followed by farewells and a reminder of the following meeting.
How have the children participated? How (if) has their participation changed throughout the sessions?
For each sub-group, the first session was about collaboration and cooperation. Indeed, the P4C approach is grounded in mutual listening, dialogue and the co-construction of knowledge within the Community of Inquiry. Based on the characteristics of the educational approach adopted by “Progetto 1–6” school (which does not systematically employ collaborative and participatory methodologies), it was useful to support children in exploring the meaning and purpose of the proposed educational setting, delivered in a workshop format with the involvement of external experts. The objective of the first session was therefore to reflect on the meaning of cooperation and mutual listening, elements which then characterised all following sessions. A range of stimuli was used (illustrated books Insieme, gli animali fanno squadra; Insieme; the “Chinese whispers” game; the ball-on-cloth challenge).
Throughout the project, children’s participation and their active engagement were evident.
For example, children were able to argue and justify their points of view, as illustrated in the following cases:
It was interesting to observe how the encouragement to provide justification was initially mainly prompted by the facilitator (who would ask, “can you help me understand why you say that?”), and then gradually began to emerge spontaneously. As workshops progressed, children also became more willing to accept a degree of uncertainty, accepting that they were sometimes unable to explain the reasons behind certain statements.
Children also formulated and justified hypotheses (“I think it might be…, because…”), as illustrated by the following examples:
When the facilitator presented a view of the planet from approximately 4,000 km above the Earth, the outline of underwater reliefs became visible. In response to the question “what do you think you are seeing?”, the following hypotheses were put forward: “it is a giant dead animal in the sea”; “it is water of a different colour, perhaps because it is very deep”; “they are algae”; “they are rocks”.
What was the role and the activities of the adult/guide/facilitator?
The facilitators from the Filò Association led all P4C sessions in their entirety. Their primary role was to initiate and stimulate dialogue and reflection (particularly in encouraging participants to justify their points of view), as well as to ensure that each participant was given a voice. They also performed an important role in providing continuity and meaning-making, by making explicit the different stages of each session.
If different from the practitioner, what role did the class teacher play?
Class teachers were always present, assuming an observational role and providing support in the implementation of practical activities. Their contribution was particularly important in supporting children with formally diagnosed disabilities.
What fostered the collaborative-participative process? Which were the factors impacting on social, critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills?
The factors that facilitated the collaborative process and supported mutual listening and dialogue were:
Children, stimulated by this type of questioning, gradually began, over the course of the sessions, to no longer take certain facts for granted and to question the elements around them.
What might have hindered the collaborative-participative process?
The factors that limited the development of a co-construction of knowledge process were primarily as follows:
P4C sessions can represent an inclusive, positive and engaging experience for:
In such situations, alignment between the aims of the P4C session and the adult’s mode of intervention is crucial, avoiding overlap with specific educational objectives typical of other contexts, in order to maintain coherence with the dialogical and non-performative nature of the activity. P4C sessions are not centred on “doing”, but on “being”, and they promote a relational stance among children. It is not always easy to refrain from introducing specific expectations and objectives from Individualised Education Plans into P4C sessions, and this may risk hindering the collaborative and participatory process for children with these forms of disability.
Forms of disability that hinder interaction and relationships with others and with the surrounding environment, and that significantly limit verbal or paraverbal communication (thus substantially reducing the possibility of expressing and justifying one’s point of view), represent a limitation for the type of process fostered by P4C. In such cases (e.g. certain manifestations of autism spectrum disorder), the approach may prove insufficiently inclusive and less effective in promoting active participation.
Have children generated a shared knowledge about environmental issues? What was the process?
Overall, it proved challenging to stimulate reflections on environmental sustainability and issues related to climate change. Some observable elements included:
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, to some extent, supported a connection with nature, the environment, its characteristics and its challenges was the possibility of linking these themes to children’s own “intimate”, personal and emotional sphere. For example, during the session on 14th January (5-year-old group) – within the reflection proposed on the function and importance of homes for both humans and animals – it clearly emerged that, beyond and more than material aspects (“a home is for eating, drinking and resting”), it was the emotional and psychological dimensions that were most emphasised by the children (“a home is important because it provides safety and affection”). Similarly, during the session on 10th December (5-year-old group), predominantly socio-affective motivations emerged in support of the idea that it is right to care for animals (“Because they cannot manage on their own”; “Because otherwise they feel sad”; “We need to help the hippopotamus who is angry because there is no more water”).
A second element supporting the development of ecological thinking and environmental awareness was represented by sessions (for example, 2nd and 9th February; 4-year-old group) guided by prompts encouraging children to recognise that their own point of view and way of observing things are not the only possible ones, and that many others exist. Understanding that what is seen from one’s own perspective does not constitute the whole, and that there is much more beyond it, can help to relativise and reframe one’s viewpoint, and to consider it in constant relation to everything that surrounds us. At the same time, the use of Google Earth made it possible to view the world from a different perspective and to develop an awareness that – despite many differences – there is only one planet.
What might have hindered children's environmental awareness and their active role in addressing climate change issues and promoting environmental sustainability?
The factors that limited the development of critical environmental awareness were primarily as follows:
This can be observed, for example, in the session of 17th December (5-year-old group), during which the facilitator asked provocatively: “You told me that it is important to take care of plants and animals. But are you interested in taking care of all animals, even those that are less ‘pleasant’? I understand that you like elephants, koalas, dolphins, cats, dogs and bears, but are all animals the same to you? For instance, what do you think about snakes, venomous spiders, mosquitoes?”. In response, children stated that they would like to eliminate all flies, red ants and cockroaches from the Earth.
A similar pattern emerged during the session of 18th February (5-year-old group), in which children – prompted by the facilitator – said that they would help Atlante by “watering plants”, “feeding animals”, “adopting animals”, “not throwing rubbish into the sea”, and “not picking leaves and flowers”. These appeared to be “adult-derived” responses that children had adopted without problematisation and without attributing specific meaning to them (they take the form of “blocks of words” whose meaning is not fully understood; indeed, when the facilitator asked the final question “so, why should we take care of the Earth?”, the only answer given was “to help Atlante”).
It is therefore important to identify ways of approaching environmental sustainability that do not rely on moral objectives and reasoning (since a conscious, common-good-oriented morality develops at later stages of life) or on rationales typical of the adult world. Instead, such approaches should be grounded in elements of children’s every day and concrete interests, including their personal, intimate and socio-emotional experiences (thus NOT starting from the question “what should we do to help the environment?” – which already suggests that doing so is right – but rather from the question “am I interested in caring for nature? If so, why and how?”).
Within this framework, a persistent dialectical tension becomes evident between one of the foundational pillars of the P4C heuristic-didactic approach (which values and promotes the bottom-up co-construction of knowledge, grounded in direct experience and its subsequent elaboration, verification and “validation” by members of the Community of Inquiry) and the need to provide children (in ways that – at this age and within formal educational contexts – are almost necessarily transmissive) with some basic knowledge that enables them to orient themselves and to develop their own autonomous and critical thinking. For example, if a child does not know the potential consequences of the total elimination of an animal species, how can they develop a reflection that goes beyond the mere repetition of a received precept (“all animals must be protected”) or a simple/superficial consideration of personal convenience (“I would like to eliminate all mosquitoes because they bother me and serve no purpose”)?
It is therefore crucial, in this type of projects, to include – to some extent – a component of “transmission” of basic knowledge (if such knowledge cannot be acquired through the re-elaboration of direct experience), understood as necessary and functional to the development of critical thinking capable of questioning received prescriptions.
For example, during the session of 10th December (5-year-old group), an interesting idea emerged regarding how one might understand what animals communicate or desire. One child stated: “We are human and we understand humans better. Animals do not express emotions in the same way”; another then suggested applying to animals the same interpretative criteria typically used for human beings: “if the mouth curves upwards, it means it is smiling and happy”.
Similarly, during the session of 9th February with the 4-year-old group – when the facilitator zoomed out on Google Earth to 63,000 km from Earth and rotated the globe using the mouse – one child remarked, fascinated: “Is that really the world? It would be wonderful to be able to control the world like you are doing”.
It would therefore be important to include opportunities for reflection on the idea that human beings are not the universal standard, nor the apex of evolution or holders of ultimate power. Consider, for example, desert environments, where human beings (in the absence of technology and/or infrastructure) would not survive: many plants persist there not because they are stronger, but because they consume less (leaves reduced to spines, extremely deep or horizontal roots, very slow growth), adapting to environmental rhythms rather than forcing them. In the desert, the dromedary does not simply “resist” the environment, but regulates it internally, storing reserves, controlling body temperature and tolerating levels of dehydration that would be fatal for humans.
How have children used Digital Technologies?
Children actively engaged with digital technologies, in some cases directly (for example, through the use of a digital camera), and in other instances indirectly or in a mediated way (for example, by participating – through suggestions and requests – in the use of Google Earth and a computer).
The type of interaction observed with the computer indicated that it is a “familiar” tool for them, although they do not always perceive it as such (they often associate computer use with adult professional contexts, while recognising tablets and smartphones as devices they have access to). In some instances (for example, during the sessions of 2nd and 9th February with the 4-year-old group), children clearly linked one of the activities proposed by the facilitator (drawing a landscape as it might be seen by a bee or a fly, i.e. in a dotted or “pixelated” form) to play experiences in the home environment involving digital devices (“Let’s draw like in Minecraft!”).
What fostered a critical approach to digital technologies?
The elements that supported an active and critical approach to digital technologies were as follows:
What might have hindered a critical approach to digital technologies?
The lack of knowledge and in-depth understanding regarding how children use and engage with digital technologies in their everyday lives (which devices they use, how they use them, and what experiences, thoughts and emotions are associated with such use) – both in the home and school contexts – makes it more difficult to promote a critical approach to their use.
Particularly when P4C is implemented as a workshop-based practice (with the involvement of external facilitators), it is essential to establish a dialogue with the school’s educational team in order to understand whether and how digital technologies are used in everyday practices (so as to strengthen, enhance, build upon and extend them).
With regard to children, their limited awareness of what constitutes a “digital device” (tablets and smartphones are perceived in the same way as other forms of play, without any perception – let alone awareness – of the specific risks associated with these devices) significantly reduces the possibility of engaging them in critical reflection on their use.
Across the three project areas, it emerged as crucial – particularly whenever the objectives are not consistently and systematically integrated into the school’s educational planning (i.e. when the project is “external”, delivered by external professionals) – to ensure:
Finanziato dall'Unione europea. Le opinioni espresse appartengono, tuttavia, al solo o ai soli autori e non riflettono necessariamente le opinioni dell'Unione europea o dell’Agenzia esecutiva europea per l’istruzione e la cultura (EACEA). Né l'Unione europea né l'EACEA possono esserne ritenute responsabili.
Tutti i contenuti di questo sito, in particolare testi, immagini e grafica, sono protetti da copyright. Salvo espressa indicazione contraria, il copyright è detenuto da each.eduskills.plus ed è concesso in licenza sotto la Creative Commons Attribution - Non-commercial - Distribution alle stesse condizioni di 4.0 International license. Essi possono essere soggetti ai termini della licenza.
© 2026 each.eduskills.plus | Impressum