The way in which learners interpret some academic material, depends on their believes on the nature of the learning process. Not always these "epistemological believes" are explicitly and consciously formulated by the learner, but they can always be identified by speaking with her or him.

Speaking of a specific case, physics can be viewed, on the one hand, as a collection of rules, utterances written in a book or pronounced by the teacher, algorithms ... fragments of knowledge unrelated to one another and to our direct experience of the world. It is not important to understand them as long as they can be learned by heart and applied automatically. This is the least fruitful approach but unfortunately also the most popular.  On the other hand, physics can be viewed as a coherent system of deeply meaningful and interesting concepts. It's indispensable to trust the information that we find in texts and that we receive by our teachers, but it's equally indispensable to interpret it autonomously. Knowledge undergoes constant evolution and is fed by a wide range of data and experiences.

Such a duality of perspectives exists in every learning process, not only in physics. The abstract nature of physics makes it less likely for students to adopt the most constructive epistemological belief and harder for teachers to make it happen, but it is an essential condition for the knowledge to be somehow useful.

Scientific evidence shows that discussion among peers allows the largest possible number of pupils to adopt the correct epistemological belief. This is the pedagogical premise on which KEY is based. Among the possible reasons mentioned in the article [science and inclusion] for the pedagogical success of the discussion among peers, one in particular is related to what we are saying now: the fear of being wrong leads to the search for the algorithm that can be applied more rapidly and automatically, discussing with colleagues reduces such fear preserving motivation at the same time, thus encouraging the independent search for meaning.

We want to stimulate the capacity of interpreting critically new information, relating it with previous knowledge acquired in very different contexts, build autonomously a world view, make it constantly undergo reformulation. This attitude is not only fertile, it is indispensable far beyond the science class, where dialogues keeps having a crucial role.

But not all conversations are dialogue. Internet multiplied exponentially the opportunities to debate, but it also accelerated the process of ideological segregation and diffusion of intellectual frauds. The majority of people who search on internet for opinions which oppose their own, do not do it to question themselves, but to quickly and superficially identify the flaws of the ideological opponents and ridicule or scorn them.

How can we possibly evolve to something better? Some good habits might do the job. Admitting errors and changing opinion, while maintaining dignity and keeping enjoying the conversation, encourages more people to do the same, makes divergences less threatening, and elicits the search for the best opinions contrary to one's own. This will not avoid encounters with ill funded and destructive ideas. In these cases too it will be important to respect the interlocutor, oppose arguments and not accusations. By doing this, we will help our interlocutor to avoid two opposite and equally undesirable reactions: the stubborn defense of the initial position, or, alternatively, its change due to social worries rather than to a sincere reformulation and new awareness. However, some people will stick to their initial opinions, and aggressively so, no matter what.  The most diplomatic, open, and lucid attitude, along with the most compelling arguments, are hopeless with such people. If anything, our effort will backfire. The capacity of maintaining a constructive posture even with this people, is crucial to promote our style,  not theirs. It is a nice opportunity to train our patience. But I do not recommend too exhausting training sessions of this kind, they might be counterproductive.

Respecting people who express opinions that we find offensive, is often the most intelligent and effective way of challenging such opinions. Regardless of whether we think that an idea is legitimate, we can admit its defense as legitimate. Similarly to what happens during a class, being free to say what feels right in that moment, no matter how far from right that might actually be, increases the chance to correct the error. There are, of course, very controversial cases to which the concept that we advocate in this paragraph might not apply. But the excess of temper and the lack of reflection, is definitely what characterize the majority of the discussions.

In the ambit of KEY 1.0, we will not have the opportunity to experiment the tool of constructive discussion in broader contexts than the science class, but we will elicit lot of the social and intellectual skills necessary for the pupils to take this step. We hope in a full success of KEY 1.0, to be followed by more ambitious versions of the same project.

Giancarlo Pace Supervisor of the  team KEY 1.0