Good Practices Report

1. Children’s commitment has been highly driven by emotional engagement. In particular, wonder and surprise have been elicited by

1. Digital technologies, which proved effective in prompting and fostering involvement and attention.

For example, during the activity including the use of Google Earth, the observation of the Earth from 63,000 km above prompted awe and imaginative reasoning. Questions were addressed to the adults (e.g., “How did you manage to take a picture of the planet?”), children formulated hypotheses (e.g., “With a rocket that had a phone attached to it”) and engaged in critically evaluating and refuting hypotheses provocatively suggested from adults (e.g., “We tied a camera to a bird’s leg and made it fly beyond the atmosphere”).

Additionally, the images and simulated travel experiences using Google Earth sparked curiosity and willingness to explore the characteristics of various locations around the planet. These tools also encouraged children’s proactiveness and narrative expression.

During other sessions, looking at the pictures that children had taken on the big screen prompted several discussions.

Recording short videos or voice messages to document observations and explain ideas also proved effective in enhancing children’s engagement and commitment.

2. Open-ended stimuli, engaging children not only at cognitive but also at emotional, creative, and physical level enabled children to have embodied experiences.

Children had the opportunity to experience a combination of tactile engagement, open-ended material use, freedom of movement, all done in an emotionally safe atmosphere that encouraged spontaneous exploration. It is worth noting that in some of the classes – when excessive time was dedicated exclusively to dialogue, without accompanying physical or creative engagement – attention dropped very rapidly.

2. Practitioners and teachers should bear in mind that often dialogue represents an outcome of the process, rather than its starting point. Different results were observed among classes that had and had not previously experienced the Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach, as well as among classes consisting of children of different ages. In particular,

1. In the classes where P4C was introduced for the first time – and where practices of mutual listening and the co-construction of knowledge were not yet systematically embedded in daily classroom interaction – children initially rarely addressed one another directly. Both verbal and non-verbal communication were primarily oriented toward the facilitator, and spontaneous verbal participation often unfolded through rapid and overlapping exchanges. Contributions were characterised by enthusiasm, immediacy, and emotional engagement, but also by fragmentation and limited integration of peers’ contributions, with only occasional orientation toward sustained collaborative knowledge building. Participation frequently consisted of brief or minimally reflective responses (e.g., “I don’t know,” “I forgot,” or repetitive answers), resulting in a collective discourse that was rich in input but relatively limited in dialogic depth. As a consequence, ideas were rarely developed collectively or sustained over time.

The sessions often remained centred on self-expression, affirmation of one’s own point of view, and defence of its uniqueness or correctness (e.g., “I already said that,” “What you said isn’t true”). Personal narratives unrelated to the initial prompt, as well as forms of imitation or echoing of peers’ responses, were frequently observed. Overall, the children demonstrated considerable interest in the activities; however, participation appeared to be driven more by the desire to be individually “seen and heard” than by a shared commitment to collective dialogue or group development.

As the sessions progressed, participation gradually shifted toward more relational, reflective, and causally oriented forms. Whereas requests to formulate and justify hypotheses initially required consistent facilitation, children progressively began to engage in these practices more spontaneously. Similarly, processes of shared knowledge co-construction became increasingly evident, including attempts to integrate and synthesise different viewpoints expressed by peers.

Supporting this developmental progression required the introduction of clear rules and structured interactional frameworks. Although such structures may at times constrain forms of free expression – an aspect highly valued by P4C – they also create the conditions necessary for the effective functioning of the workshop.

2. In classes with 4-year-old children, difficulty and resistance in perspective shifting and taking were observed. Five-year-old children participated in dialogue in a more organized way than younger ones. Additionally, the observation of younger children’s interactions suggests a need for adaptive pacing and more varied modes of participation, particularly for kinaesthetic learners.

In sum, time and practice are crucial. It is essential to establish the foundations of the process first, and to carefully consider the socio-cognitive developmental stage reached by the children, adapting activities and goals accordingly.

Overall, the emotional tone of the sessions played a vital role. The sense of psychological safety and joy supported risk-taking, openness to feedback, and willingness to adapt. Trusting adult-child relationships and a non-judgmental atmosphere enabled children to express themselves freely. Thought-provoking questions helped children explore both concrete and abstract reasoning.

3. Disabilities and Special Educational Needs require careful consideration within P4C sessions, which can offer an inclusive, positive, and engaging experience for a range of children:

1. with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They often demonstrate heightened sensory and relational sensitivity, together with a strong desire to participate actively. In these cases, the adult’s role is to ensure that the child’s presence, voice, and contributions do not inadvertently dominate the interaction or limit the participation of other group members;

2. with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), who may particularly benefit from the dialogical nature of P4C sessions. Within this context, the adult acknowledges and gives consideration to all contributions, including those expressed in overtly oppositional ways. This approach can help to defuse confrontational dynamics and facilitate the child’s gradual engagement within the Community of Inquiry. Even participation limited to listening and observing should be regarded as meaningful involvement, without the need for additional pressure or performative expectations imposed by the adult.

In such situations, it is essential that the adult’s approach remains aligned with the aims and principles of the P4C session. In particular, care should be taken to avoid overlapping the activity with specific educational or therapeutic objectives, in order to preserve the dialogical, relational, and non-performative nature of the experience. P4C is not primarily centred on “doing”, but rather on “being” and on fostering a relational stance among participants.

At the same time, it may be challenging for adults to refrain from importing objectives derived from Individualised Education Plans into the P4C setting. Such expectations may risk interfering with the collaborative and participatory processes that the activity seeks to promote.

Certain forms of disability may, however, present significant limitations for the type of interaction fostered by P4C. In particular, conditions that substantially hinder relational engagement with others and the surrounding environment, or that severely limit verbal and paraverbal communication – and therefore the possibility of expressing and justifying one’s point of view – may reduce the inclusiveness and effectiveness of the approach. In some cases (e.g., particular manifestations of autism spectrum disorder), P4C may therefore prove less effective in promoting active participation within the Community of Inquiry.

4. When additional adults are present during the sessions alongside the facilitator (e.g., to support the logistics of the activity, assist with emotional regulation, or provide support to children with special educational needs), they should not necessarily remain in a secondary role. Their direct involvement in questioning, clarification, and processes of knowledge construction can be both valuable and consistent with the principles of the Community of Inquiry. However, their participation should be consistent with the facilitator’s approach and goals and should remain non-directive and not overshadow or override children’s contributions.

1. Fostering wonder, curiosity, and emotional engagement. A positive emotional and social environment – characterised by enthusiasm, humour, curiosity, and willingness to participate – proved crucial to the quality of group interaction. Technologies frequently acted as catalysts for questioning and discussion, serving as provocations capable of generating associations, hypotheses, and dialogue. Their use appeared especially meaningful when children encountered representations of themselves through technological media. Viewing self-produced photographs, recordings, or projected images of familiar places frequently elicited visible joy, pride, and active discussion. Similarly, narratives were effective in creating a shared symbolic space for participation. For example, the use of the story of Robinson Crusoe generated strong engagement, emotional involvement, and a sense of collective immersion. The enthusiasm shown by both the facilitator and the teachers when hearing a philosophical idea or reasoning from the children also represented an important factor in fostering a positive classroom climate.

2. Planning an introductory session to reflect on the meaning of cooperation and mutual listening. This can be helpful especially in classes who have a limited familiarity with collaborative and participatory practices.

3. Making connections among sessions explicit. This can support processes of memory and meaning-making. In Italy, for example, each group created a poster in the form of a caterpillar divided into ten sections, corresponding to the ten sessions. At the end of each meeting, children selected an image representing the experience of the session; this image was printed, cut out, and added to the poster at the beginning of the following meeting, thereby creating opportunities for collective reflection on previous experiences. Similarly, in Poland, several sessions incorporated documentation from earlier meetings, enabling children to revisit prior observations and extend shared reflection over time. In Portugal, a sense of continuity between sessions and a coherent common thread throughout the ten sessions were established thanks to an initial philosophy-focused session based on a book that embodied the essence of the EACH project.

4. Ritualising the experience. The ritualisation of the P4C setting can help make the experience recognisable and predictable, thereby supporting orientation and participation. Ritual elements – such as dressing up as scientists at the beginning of each session or reading messages from “Atlante” – not only structured the activity, but also fostered complicity, enjoyment, and group cohesion.

5. Promoting embodied, sensory, and material engagement. Participation and collaboration increased when activities engaged children not only verbally, but also physically, sensorially, and emotionally. Collecting natural materials, manipulating objects, moving through space, or using strings and yarn to represent relationships enabled children to participate involving their bodies. Sensory prompts (e.g., “What temperature do you perceive in this place?” or “What sounds and smells can you notice?”), as well as emotionally oriented questions (e.g., “What emotions does this image evoke?”), supported richer forms of engagement. Such multimodal participation often proved more inclusive, particularly for children who were less verbally active. Direct sensory encounters with and observation of nature – for example, observing butterflies or interacting with natural phenomena – also appeared effective in anchoring attention and sustaining engagement.

6. Using drawing as a tool for thinking. Drawing emerged as a valuable cognitive and expressive resource, enabling children – including those with disabilities or Special Educational Needs – to communicate ideas that might be difficult to articulate verbally. Drawing also became particularly meaningful in moments when verbal reasoning reached its limits and no further justifications could easily be expressed. In some cases, it represented one of the clearest indicators of developing awareness or conceptual understanding.

7. Alternating short and varied micro-activities. For groups displaying a strong need for movement and sensory stimulation (or for whom increasing conceptual complexity led to declining participation), the alternation of short micro-activities (approximately 8–10 minutes each) proved effective in supporting attention and engagement. Activities characterised by short and practical tasks helped address fluctuating concentration levels. These tasks were most effective when they required collaboration, negotiation, and collective decision-making around shared goals. In such contexts, children were encouraged to listen to others, evaluate alternatives, and accept outcomes that were not always in line with their own preferences. Experience-based activities grounded in action, observation, and reflection proved especially engaging. Conversely, when activities were driven by adults’ interests or objectives and were directed by them, fragmentation intensified and children ended up lying on the floor, talking among themselves, or disengaging from the task entirely.

8. Using divergent questions. The use of divergent (and thought-provoking) questions – which allow for multiple answers, perspectives, and possible solutions – appeared particularly effective in stimulating creativity, lateral thinking, and critical reflection. Unlike convergent questions, which imply a single correct answer, divergent ones encourage children to question assumptions and reconsider apparently self-evident facts. Examples include questions such as “How can we be sure there is water in the watering can?” or reflections on normative educational messages (if adults state that “animals should be respected and treated well”, we can ask ourselves whether “we want to respect and protect all animals, including those that are dangerous and/or that we do not like at all, such as mosquitoes, flies and snakes”). Through this form of questioning, children gradually appeared more willing to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions and critically examine the surrounding world.

9. Adapting session duration to group familiarity with P4C. Whether classes are familiar with P4C, sessions can last up to 1/1,5 hours. If not yet, the session may last a maximum of 50 minutes.