University of the Aegean (UAegean)

Laboratory of Research on Practical Philosophy (L.R.P.Ph.)

Department of Preschool Education Sciences & Educational Design

Coordinator οf the Blended Intensive Program

Prof. Elena Theodoropoulou

Directress of the L.R.P.Ph.

Beyond the methodological inputs from philosophy to teaching practice, which education seems to be content with, as they feed its dynamic objectives, philosophy’s teaching forms can be a bridge to incorporate into education ways in which persons perceive reality, to capture and share thinking on the move, to sharpen fine observation, to capture sounds, movements, gestures, silences, as they sculpt and differentiate meanings, to perceive discontinuities and evaluate continuities, linking experiences into narratives and interpretations that organize and reorganize aspects and perspectives of life, introducing the body as a shaper of meanings, giving space to surprise and enduring reversals. Philosophy thus becomes not only a guide to rationality and its anatomy, but a peculiar tool for resilience to non-rational or even irrational aberrations, which nevertheless remain part of experience, cognitive processes, and interpretive openings. A large part of the creativity of philosophy is related to the detailed critique to which it submits the concepts and perceptions that form the theories of life, man and his relations within the social and natural environment on a continuous basis, since this critical positioning, being uninterrupted, reorganizes judgments, theories, stances and positions, leading to new life choices. The development of thinking skills and the multiple cognitive processes through which thought is articulated and reasoning ability is refined and complexified are not limited to rhetorical or argumentative prowess, but are mainly related to the exercise of the ability of individuals to be aware of their choices, which is directly linked to their philosophical attitude, ethics and aesthetics. It would thus be an intense exercise in complex thinking, an ecological kind of thought  leading to acts, constructions, performances, the creation of new forms of experiencing life and its images.

This multiple integration of ongoing parameters into a coherent concept capable of supporting the specific philosophical practice and act in the space-time of education, this elusive, plural and untamed raw material and the difficulties of assembling the different levels constitute at the same time, not only a philosophical-pedagogical project of high difficulty and precision, but also a creative act, to the extent that such difficulties can deregulate this system, opening up spaces of perplexity, where philosophy, pedagogy, interlocutors in various settings are called upon to regroup their powers, mental, physical, moral, emotional, aesthetic, cognitive, in a continuous effort to organize common and personal, individual and collective meanings. The systematic articulation of the concept (as basic philosophical lever), with the method (as a way and support of the persons while they act) and the material (as interdisciplinary tool  for the development of synergy between philosophy, pedagogy and arts/literature) produces a flexible mechanism of a critical transfer of practical philosophy in educational contexts.

On that grounds, the acknowledgment of practical philosophy as epistemological framework for pedagogical-didactic practices related to philosophical procedures, is desirable to be restored and within this very framework, the discussion/dialogue procedures to take a prominent position because on the hand of their multiple meaningfulness for education and philosophy as well and on the other hand of their innate relation with educational and philosophical praxis and practices. The reason to consider discussion/dialogue forms as a way of practical philosophy to develop in educational environments lies exactly in this double position. Conversely, to this extent, and as we go along the exploration of dialogical/discussional frameworks, methodologies and acts, we have the opportunity to explore simultaneously the possibility for practical philosophy to be recognized on them and, moreover, to extend or reimagine its claims, through the understanding of this exploration as an aspect of its own understanding: could practical philosophy be understood beyond and without any fundamental relatedness with dialogical event?

Bibliography

• Theodoropoulou, E., «’’Philosophy for children’’: Spaces and modes for Philosophy», introduction to: Ann Margaret Sharp, Laurence Joseph Splitter, «Philosophy for Children». The Doll Hospital. Giving sense to my world. A programme for the child and the teacher of Preschool Education (dir., trad, introd. notes, Theodoropoulou, H.,), Atrapos: Athens, 2007 [in Greek].

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Philosophy, Philosophy for Children, and Educational Aims: Affinities, Parallelisms and Exclusions», in: Marsal, E., Dobashi, T. Weber B. (Hrsg.) Children Philosophize Worldwide: Theoretical and Practical Concepts, Hodos – Wege bildungsbezogener Ethikforschung in Philosophie und Theologie herausgegeben vom Institut für Philosophie und Theologie, University of Education, Karlsruhe, Germany, Band 9, pp. 559-565, 2010.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «La pratique du journal à partir d’un cours de philosophie de l’éducation en ligne: un amorçage méthodologique», in: Pratiques de Formation / Analyses [Le journal pédagogique: outil de conscientisation de l’expérience], N°62-63, Novembre, pp. 211-229, 2013.

• Theodoropoulou, E. (coord., Greek transl. introd.), Philosophy, philosophy, are you there? Doing philosophy with children, Athens: Diadrasi, series Philosophy and Child, dir., The-odoropoulou, E., Gregory, M.) (p. 367), 2013 [in Greek].

• Theodoropoulou, E., «The problematization effect and its double gestures», in: Strand, T., Papastefanou, M. (eds), Philosophy of Education as a Lived Experience: Navigating Through Dichotomies of Thought and Action, Germany: Verlag, pp. 135-152, 2014.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Philosophy of education: ways of presence and absence – from congruence to common sense and back», in: Pereira, P.-Ch. (coord.), L’espace public. Variations critiques sur l’urbanité / Espaço publico. Variaçοes crίtic as sobre a urbanidade, Porto: Ediçoes Afrontamento/ FCT, pp .67-93, 2013.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «The emergence of emergent philosophizing: preliminary notes» (in collab. with Nikolidaki, S.), Childhood & Philosophy, v. 13, n. 26, Jan.-Apr., pp. 153-1, 2017.

• Theodoropoulou, E., ‘Some-thing inside it»: Philosophy everywhere (?). Philosophical findings in literature paths», Diotime, Revue Internationale de didactique de la philosophie, n° 77 (juillet 2018)

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Foreward: the gesture of practical philosophy», in: Theodoropoulou E. (dir.) Proceedings of the 1rst International Biennale of Practical Philosophy. Philosophy in praxis. The philosophical gesture: political, ethical, educational, artistic engagements, Rhodes: Ed. Laboratory of Research in Practical Philosophy (L.R.P.Ph.), University of the Aegean, pp. 34-50, 2019.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Présentation. De l’éthique en formation: le geste dialogique», Le Télémaque, n° 57 [Dossier, « Éducation morale et formation éthique »], Presses Universitaires de Caen, 2020, pp. 35-46, 2020.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Introduction: Faire de la Philosophie: quelques noeuds du pratique», in: Theodoropoulou, E. (dir.), Proceedings of the 1rst International online Pre-Biennale of Practical Philosophy, 9-10 Mai 2020, Rhodes: L.R.P.Ph., pp. 22-41, 2021.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «Doing Philosophy Virtually and the Amphibolic Body: Thoughts on the Margins of the Pandemic», Paragrana, vol. 30, no. 2, 2022, pp. 258-269, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1515/para-2021-0040.

• Theodoropoulou, E., «The Illusions of dialogue: dialogical experience in the classroom», Ιntroduction in: A. A. Petrou & G. Hadjivassili (coord.), Thinking in Philosophy for Children: Dialogue and Perspectives, Athens: Diadrassi, pp. 55-67, 2022.

Universidade dos Açores, Portugal (UAC)

Faculdade de Ciências Sociais E Humanas

Academic Coordinator

Prof. Magda Costa Carvalho

Is there a place for “voice” in our philosophical thinking and practices? What place does voice have in our educational experiences? And is voice part of our political life as citizens inhabiting public spaces?

We find that the concept of “voice” is used more often in a derivative or metaphorical sense than in a literal one: for example, when we, as philosophers, researchers or educators, talk about the importance of listening to children’s voices, we are often referring to a child’s own way of thinking, her inner voice or perspective. Seldom we recognize the importance of the voice in the literal and acoustic sense of a bodily sound materiality, voice as the sound produced in the larynx by the air coming out of the lungs and mouth.

The workshop proposes to question the embodied reality of voice, in all its possible ranges of utterance (speech, songs, stammering, rustle, whispers, rumbles, shouts, …), as political materialities whose use carry important epistemological assumptions. We will also invite the participants to question different ways of listening and paying attention to voices, especially dissonant voices as the voices of children and other politically marginalized groups, as possible challenges to what Adriana Cavarero calls our “political phonosperes” (2021).

Bibliography

• Barthes, R., Le bruissement de la langue, Paris: Seuil, 1984.

• Bickford, S., The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship, Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania (ΒΒU)

Faculty of History and Philosophy, Department of Philosophy

Academic Coordinator

Dr. Stefan-Sebastian Maftei, Assistant Prof.

The analysis of dialogue or conversation and of its essential feature – ‘dialogicality’ (see Markova 2016) – reveals the relevance of these notions to philosophical discourse and philosophical research and knowledge in general. The analysis of ‘dialogicality’ in philosophy may have repercussions over debates concerning specific forms of knowledge in relation to other areas of study, such as social sciences, for example (Harrington 2001; see also Markova 2016). Dialogue is basically structured around a strategy of questioning and answering that is specific and intensely relevant to philosophical discourse (Gadamer 2001). Our analysis will focus on Plato (Plato 1914; Plato 1925) and Gadamer particularly, as these authors’ works are the most relevant in relation to the inquiry regarding the strategic role of dialogue in philosophical discourse. As is well known, Gadamer’s examination of dialogue and ‘dialogicality’ of thinking relies heavily on an analysis of Plato’s dialogues, some of his works are entirely dedicated to this subject (Gadamer 1991; Gadamer 1980). In sum, Gadamer’s view on dialogue and specifically of Plato’s dialogues envisions it from at least a double perspective: as a communicational, rhetorical strategy (as ‘expression’, see Gadamer 2001: 184 sqq.) and as a hermeneutical strategy (as ‘understanding’). Thus dialogue is both part of ‘production’ as well as of ‘reception’ in philosophical discourse. These aspects are both taking part in the ‘dialogicality’ which is a specific feature of philosophical discourse seen from the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics, as it is the case with Gadamer’s theory. Dialogue is a ‘process’ (Gadamer), not an operation, and therefore the philosophical-hermeneutical act par excellence. This aspect has many implications with reference to the specifics of communication, knowledge, truth and experience in Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Our analysis will consider all these important aspects as they are scrutinized by Gadamer’s analysis of ‘dialogue’.

Bibliography

• Harrington, Au., Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science. A critique of Gadamer and Habermas, NY: Routledge, 2001.

• Plato, “Phaedrus”, in: Plato (1914), Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. by Fowler, H.N., Introduction by Lamb W.R.M. (Loeb Classical Library 36), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

• Plato, “Philebus”, in: Plato (1925), Statesman, Philebus, Ion, trans. by Fowler, H.N., Introduction by Lamb W.R.M. (Loeb Classical Library 164), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

• Gadamer, H., G., Plato’s Dialectical Ethics. Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to the Philebus, trans. & introd. by Wallace, R., M., New Haven: Yale UP, 1991.

• Gadamer, H., G., Dialogue and Dialectic. Eight Hermeneutical Studies on Plato, trans. & introd. by Smith, P., C., New Haven: Yale Up, 1980, pp. 1-20; 93-155.

• Gadamer, H., G., Truth and Method, 2nd., rev. edition, transl. revised by Weinsheimer, J. and Marshall, D., G., London: Sheed & Ward, 2001.

• Marcová, Iv., The Dialogical Mind. Common Sense and Ethics, Cambridge UK: Cambridge UP, 2016.

Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Italy (UniBg)

Dipartimento di Scienze Umane e Sociali,
Settore Scientifico Disciplinare: Storia della Pedagogia

Academic Coordinator

Dr. Alessandra Mazzini, Assistant Prof.

Cities, identities, narratives and childhoods

In the urban space one can find the paradigm of today’s living, of its spatio-temporal axes and contradictions. The city, in fact, by its very nature fosters exchanges, correspondences, social, cultural, economic and narrative connections. It is a meeting place of identities and thus of dialogue and discussion, and it condenses within itself the peculiar traits of contemporary human experience, revealing its riches and criticalities.

But the city is also the space of human creativity, in which stories are interwoven, constructed and told, and in which, therefore, these identities are narrated.

Pedagogy today is increasingly questioning the forms that metropolitan existence takes, especially among the younger generations, and the way in which citizens construct paths and fill the urban fabric with signs, inscriptions, representations, practices.

In line with these premises, my teaching programme intends first of all to stimulate reflection on inhabiting the city as a practice of identity and on the ways in which the city becomes a real and metaphorical place of ‘storytelling’.

In this context, the figure of childhood in relation to the urban context and the relationship between children and the city as it has been structured from a historical point of view will be specifically analysed, finally initiating a shared reflection on the ways in which the city ‘narrates’ childhood and on how to imagine (and hopefully design) cities that are also child-friendly. The reflections of authors such as Bruno Munari and Enzo Mari will thus be considered.

Since the teaching programme will see the alternation of moments of theoretical reflection and laboratory moments, in a first workshop activity the students will be able to engage themselves with the reading of the link between childhood and the city as it has been and is today represented in some works of children’s literature; secondly, the students will be involved in a reflection on the urban landscape as rich in possibilities for the expression and existence of childhood otherness, starting from the Living game created by Enzo Mari, which allows for the creation of infinite stories of people, places, and situations around which children can consciously create projects ‘to inhabit’ urban space.

Bibliography

• Amendola G. (2004). La città postmoderna. Magie e paure della metropoli contemporanea. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

• Bauman Z. (2005). Fiducia e paura nella città. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.

• Bernardi, M. (2016). Infanzia e alterità. Incanti, disincanti, sintomi, tracce. Milano: Franco Angeli.

• Chase J., Crawford M., Kaliski J. (1999). Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press.

• Goodman, P. (1960). Growing Up Absurd. Problems of Youth in the Organized Society. New York: Vintage Books.

• Mari E. (1965). Gioco di Favole. Milano: DANESE.

• Mari E. (1970). Funzione della ricerca estetica. Milano: Edizioni di Comunità.

• Munari, B. (1981/2009). Da cosa nasce cosa. Roma–Bari: Laterza.

• Postman, N. (1991). La scomparsa dell’infanzia. Ecologia delle età della vita. Milano: Armando Editore.

• Richter, D. (1992). Il bambino estraneo. La nascita dell’immagine dell’infanzia nel mondo borghese. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

• Ricoeur P. (2008). Leggere la città. Quattro testi di Paul Ricoeur. Troina (En): Città Aperta Edizioni.

• Trisciuzzi, L. (1990). Il mito dell’infanzia. Dall’immaginario collettivo all’immagine scientifica. Napoli: Liguori.

Université de Bordeaux, France (UB)

Institut National du Professorat et de l’Éducation de l’Académie de Bordeaux

Academic Coordinator

Dr. Stéphanie Péraud-Puigségur, MCF

The aim of this course will be first to analyze a few albums of children’s literature dedicated to the figures of migrants, in particular migrant children, in order to compare the aesthetic and literary treatment proposed in these albums, based on research on recent production in this field.

Then, the participants will be led to imagine different pedagogical uses of these albums in order to lead the young pupils to dialogue among themselves and with the adults present to interpret and understand the albums and the varied situations of people in a migration situation of which they often have a simplified and distorted representation by the media.

Proposals for the pedagogical use of these albums within the framework of philosophical workshops with young children will then be proposed to lead the pupils to develop empathic skills both with regard to the characters represented in the albums, but also with regard to the pupil-participants in the situation of research and dialogue made possible by the philosophical workshops.

Bibliography

• Boimare, Serge, L’enfant et la peur d’apprendre, Dunod, 2014

• Bruel Christian, L’aventure politique du livre jeunesse, La Fabrique, 2022

• Bucheton Dominique, Soulé Yves, Tozzi Michel, La littérature en débats. Discussions à visée littéraire et philosophique à l’école primaire. SCEREN CRDP Montpellier, 2008

• Chirouter, Edwige, Ateliers de philosophie à partir d’albums de jeunesse, Vanves, Hachette, 2016

• Macé, Marielle, Sidérer, considérer, Migrants en France, 2017

• Nussbaum, Martha, Not for Profit : Why Democracy Needs The Humanities, The Public Square Book Series, Princeton University Press, 2010

• Rancière, Jacques, Politique de la littérature, Paris, Galilée, 2007.

Université de Bordeaux, France (UB)

Institut National du Professorat et de l’Éducation de l’Académie de Bordeaux

Academic Coordinator

Prof. Christophe Miqueu

In republican philosophy, rational discussion/dialogue occupies a central place in the way of defining the concept of Republic of citizens and the practice of citizenship. Civic Republic is an institutional space for citizens’ discussion/dialogue. As well used to explain, conceive, convince within the usual framework of democratic expression, discussion/dialogue occupies a main place in the way of developing the conditions of civic life. Life within the polis is historically first and foremost the development of a common (and shared) reason. French republicans, since the Enlightenment, have accentuated this even further by posing the following points which we will examine and question one after the other:

• In a democratic republic, citizens must be able to rationally discuss the conditions of their common life

• Exchanging through dialogue primarily means using reason, doubting, questioning and understanding in order to collectively progress

• Education is the institutional space responsible for learning rational dialogue between future citizens

Bibliography

• BOULAD-AYOUB J. (dir.), Former un nouveau peuple ? Pouvoir, éducation, Révolution, Presses de l’Université de Laval-L’Harmattan, 1996.

• BUISSON F. (dir.), Dictionnaire de pédagogie et d’instruction primaire (extraits) [1887], Kimé, 2000.

• E., Qu’est-ce que les Lumières [1784], trad. J. Mondot, Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2007.

• HAZAREESINGH S., Intellectual Founders of the Republic. Five Studies in Nineteenth-Century French Political Thought, Oxford University Press, 2001.

• KINTZLER C., Condorcet, l’instruction publique et la naissance du citoyen, Paris, Gallimard, 1987.

• PETTIT Ph., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford University Press, 1997.

• ROUSSEAU J.-J., Du Contrat social [1762], Flammarion, 2001.

• SKINNER Q. et van GELDEREN M. (dir.), Republicanism. A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols., Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal (UC)

Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences

Academic Coordinator

Prof. Carlos Sousa Reis

To explore “Communities of Sharing through Personal Expression and Active Listening” focused on personal interests, desires, and needs, as an agency of several interrelated ways of proceeding, namely through promoting caring, hopeful, critical, and creative modes of thinking (Demir et al., 2011). Transcending the rationalistic algorithm of fixed steps and goals of logical requirements, supposedly able to sift and assure a pre-emptively given universal rational procedure, the “Communities of Sharing” sought to be rooted in personal desires, interests, and needs. Where philosophising emerges as a hybrid conjugation that includes emotions, feelings, and reasonings, which cannot be reduced to formal logic without the hindrance of the contexts used to create meaning, as meaningfulness and truthfulness depend on a horizon that settles a “language game”, i.e., specific language rules that have to be acknowledged, to decide on the plausibility of a line of arguing (Thompson, 2004). Not to mention an existential authenticity grounding. In addition, no language game would encompass all other language games; rather arguments relate to concrete contexts of specific discourse practices, shaped by historical, cultural, and epistemological dimensions.

CS approach, grounded in active participation striving for just, inclusive, sustainable, and solidary societies, opens a way to experience the collective construction of sensing, feeling, and thinking, as a reference to the identity of the person’s expressiveness as a dialogical virtue. Allowing transcendence from the abstract way of assuming philosophising as prerogative of a spectral solipsistic and supernatural “res cogitans”. This does not prevent us from recognising philosophising intimate process. But rather brings us to understand it as a kind of action that distinguishes each person as a unique and unexchangeable being, expressed in the saying and acting, in the Arendtian sense, that entails an aesthetic dimension, which generates human relationships, hence reinstating philosophising as a collective action. Bound to be a source of meaningfulness that illuminates human existence, so recovering a pre-occupation with life, human relationships incorporating the more-than-human (Rimanoczy, Edmundson and Lupinacci, 2011), which claims for rediscovering our being in the world, i.e., human en-housing. Meaning there is no common sense as an inner faculty without a relationship to the world and neither an opposition between “vita contemplative” in detriment of “vita activa”. To overcome such opposition we will have to, not only attribute a worth to forms of “meditation”, eventualy in the sense of Sloterdijk’s anthropotechnics (2009, 2012), as the recovering of the tradition of “the examined life”, which, for us, would be where parrhesia could draw to fulfill is interventive linkage between the bios and the logos, as well as between emancipation and ethics, while not abdicating from critique and resistance, but redirecting the focus from the universal, necessary, and obligatory to the singular, contingent, and the product of arbitrary constraints, making visible singularities where history is imposed, or, following Barthes’s (1972) description, historicizing what has been naturalized. A process entailing polyhedral intelligibility, that keeps the plurality of facets of otherness, never given in advance, never exhausted, and never tamed under an absolute reduction (Biesta, 2013). Now, this will take us to look for what Cadahia (2013) proposes, while not just radicating the emergence of freedom as the foundation of a “new art of living”, but in a reconsideration of politics as a constitutive tension between power and freedom. As for us, we wouldn’t give up of the “aesthetics of existence” as resistance to disciplinary and biopolitical devices and neither of the possibilities of looking at power relations as a double process of subjectivation in which subjects are objectified as well as subjectivised; meaning, they are objectified by being subjected by the practices of power, but they are also subjectified by being objectified by the practices of freedom (Cadahia, 2013, p. 45).

Bibliography

• Arendt, A., The Human Condition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, 1998.

• Biesta, G., “Interrupting the Politics of Learning”,  Power and Education, 5(1), 2013, pp. 4-15.

• Cadahia, L., “Michel Foucault y la gramática del poder y de la libertad”, Estudios de Filosofía, 49, 2013, pp. 33-49. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=379846116002

• Foucault, M., The government of self and others, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

• Martusewicz, R., A., Edmundson, J. & Lupinacci, J., EcoJustice Education: Toward diverse, democratic and sustainable communities, New York: Routledge, 2011.

• Sloterdijk, P., You must change your life, Polity Press, 2009.

• Sloterdijk, P., The art of philosophy. Wisdom as a practice, Columbia University Press, 2012.

• Thompson, C., “What are the Bounds of Critical Rationality in Education?”, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(3), 2004, pp. 485-492.

Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy (UniPD)

Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia Applicata (FISPPA)

Academic Coordinators

Dr. Eleonora Zorzi & Prof. Marina Santi

Talking about a “grooving education” means to imagine education as the cursus in which all players, instruments, notes, points and counterpoints follow each other and find a flux (Santi, 2016, p.17). The “groove” is the spiral track cut in a phonograph record, for the stylus to follow. Groove metaphorically expresses a common flow, a shared direction, a mutual intention and intension; it is a positive feeling that accompanies the achievement of satisfaction without softening the tension of dialectics. A grooving education focuses the attention on the processes of sharing sensations and actions within a community; it contains social, inter-subjective and interactional components, which lead to an interpersonal sense of plenty. Groove is the expression and condition of what Sawyer (2007) calls “the group genius” and is founded on collaborative and reciprocal care and scaffolding. The workshop, reasoning about this concept and connecting it to the practice of improvisation in which groove happens and is fostered, will provide activities and experiences in which every participant will perceive the generative learning occasions that improvisation offers, valorising the unrepeatable of every moment and everyone. Fostering activities emerging by different performative languages (i.e., dance, theater, art..) the importance of discussing and dialoguing by listening in an active and complex way the others will be explored (Shem-Tov, 2011). The Community of jazzing-inquiring (Zorzi, Santi, 2023; Zorzi, Santi, 2020) will be the environment in which to develop lessons and activities. The polyphonic groove typical of a jam session is considered as an inspiring analogy of what should happen in the community of inquiry, when the discourse leads to a common thinking where the ideas grow up together.

Bibliography

• Santi, M. (2016). “Education as Jazz: a framework to escape the monologue of teaching and learning”. In M. Santi, E. Zorzi (eds.). Education as Jazz: Interdisciplinary Sketches on a New Metaphor. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; pp. 3-27.

• Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius: the Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books.

• Shem-Tov, N. (2011). “Improvisational Teaching as Mode of Knowing”. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Volume 45, Number 3, Fall 2011, pp. 103-113.

• Zorzi, E., Santi, M. (2020). “Improvising inquiry in the community: the teacher’s profile”. Childhood & philosophy, v. 16, pp. 01 – 17.

• Zorzi, E., Santi, M. (2023). “How to generate (educate) an inquiring-jazzing community: free and open suggestions from an international workshop (ICPIC 2022)”.Childhood & philosophy, v. 19, pp. 01- 22.