Philosophically oriented discussion is a pedagogical device for philosophy with children inspired by the work of Matthew Lipman (Tozzi, 2012a) consisting of cooperative research around a question posed by the framer, or defined between peers (Leleux, 2009; Tozzi, 2012b). Practiced within the framework of EMC (Breton and Marro, 2018), this device combines intellectual rigor (Tozzi, 2003) and social skills (Morlaix, 2015) with the aim of developing critical thinking (Daniel, 2016). It is through the articulated combination of the development of reasoning and the skills of understanding others, respect for rules and self-control (Dépret and Filisetti, 2001), that this type of thinking can emerge (OECD, 2016). Critical thinking, manifested in the context that interests us (dialogue) is moreover defined as a “process of evaluating an object of thought, in cooperation with peers, with a view to eliminating irrelevant criteria in a perspective of contributing to the improvement of the experience” (Daniel, 2005, cited by Gagnon et al., 2018, p.56). It presupposes a certain reflexivity (Tozzi, 2003) and involves the contribution of various modes of thought, the articulation of which makes it possible to move towards an intersubjective epistemological perspective (Daniel and Fiema, 2017). As intersubjectivity can be defined as “the deepening of relationships, the idea of co-authorship, affection and closeness, directed towards the Other or Others” (Markovà and Orfali, 2005, p.28), it follows that there is a necessary interdependence between the interventions of students in a DVP, who are engaged in a process of peer research (Daniel, 2007). Thus, they are enjoined to de-center their points of view, and not to assert an absoluteness of their remarks, in order to accept the pluralities of interpretations that participate in the same world (Tozzi, 2005), the discussion enabling a communicative action within which participants are oriented towards the validity of argumentation (Habermas, 2013; Pesqueux, 2015). In this process, discussants, through the reworking of interventions, co-construct schematizations based on their cultural pre-constructs (Grize, 1993, 2003; Kohler, 2020).

A first aspect inherent to our contemporary Western societies concerns the increase in contacts between people from different cultures, which can imply conflictuality (Savidan, 2022) that needs to be contained (Zay, 2012). Between cognitive rigor and open-mindedness, confrontation with different systems of representations (Akkari, 2009) can appear to be the crux and driving force of discussion, as students, through confrontation with other ways of thinking, gradually learn to accept the uncertainty hidden behind their presuppositions (Lehmans, 2021; Briançon and Marty, 2016) and to “criticize the pseudo-certainties of social existence” (Galichet, 2003, p.30). Representations and worldviews (Bonoli, 2008; Jodelet, 2008; Moscovici, 1984) are, in the context of a DVP, implicitly subject to peer evaluation (Daniel, 2007; Lafortune and Robertson, 2004; Tozzi, 2018). However, every system of representation is linked to a culture and helps define what is the same and what is different (Crispi, 2015). To avoid the pitfall of ethnocentrism (Des Aulniers, 2000; Géraud et al., 2016), interculturality consists in perceiving others as extensions of oneself (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1997; Breteau and Zagnoli, 1984), according to a logic of “intersubjective co-constructions” between cultural groups (Guerraoui, 2009, p.198). This necessarily implies recognition and respect for cultural otherness (Akkari and Radhouane, 2019; UNESCO, 2005), through a certain decentering (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1997; Briançon et al., 2013). Understanding and recognizing others is part of this intercultural perspective, which relies on intersubjectivity between bearers of different cultures (Guerraoui, 2009) to create a common space (Stern, 2005). Furthermore, critical reflection plays a role in reinforcing the acquisition of intercultural competence, as it is by exploring one's relations with others through self-questioning, using explicit criteria, that one tends towards more fluid intercultural relations (Byram, 2020; Fantini, 2000; Deardorff, 2011). Because of the situation of reasoned dialogue arising from the process of joint research, which offers mutual consideration and deliberation (Daniel, 2016; Tozzi, 2012a, 2018), the study day will thus grant a look at the potential of the DVP device in terms of intercultural education (Chirouter, 2018; Tozzi, 2012a; Perronnet et al., 2024). We'll be looking at how DVP helps to “establish positive relationships of interaction and understanding between students from different cultures” (Kerzil, 2002, p.123-124) by introducing a space in which students confront the “unfamiliar” (Agostini and Mallet, 2013, p.187). 

A second aspect concerns the overabundance of information conveyed through different types of media, which presupposes “accessibility in both reading and production” (Pasquinelli and Bronner, 2021, p.7). If, thanks to the digitization of a certain number of media and the development of social networks, individuals in the younger generations have been able to develop a “technical autonomy” enabling them to access multiple sources, we need to ask ourselves how this information is processed - in short, how “intellectually autonomous” students are (Serres, 2007, p.73, quoted by Michelot, 2020, p.99) when faced with the “powerful echo chamber” that the Web is for numerous ideologies and theories (Michelot, 2020, p.99). Despite its apparent novelty, according to Bronner (2011), the Web reveals a “very old way of thinking” - confirmation bias - by offering a multiplication of sources (p.41). Media education (EMI), advanced as early as the July 8, 2013 law of orientation and reprogramming for the refoundation of the school of the Republic (MEN, 2013), insists in this sense on raising awareness “of the risks of disinformation”, awakening “critical thinking”, and equipping students with tools “for discernment and reliability assessment” (Simmonet, 2017, p.29 ) to protect them from “cognitive avarice” (Fiske and Taylor, 1984, cited by Bronner, 2011). This perspective is oriented more towards “enriching one's cognitive life” rather than towards a systemic distrust implying a withdrawal into oneself (Pasquinelli and Bronner, 2021, p.8). If DVP is part of the EMC framework and the optics of an “ethics of discussion” (Habermas, 2013), the evaluative dimension that underlies it and the skills specific to the didactics of philosophizing developed by Michel Tozzi, namely problematizing, conceptualizing and arguing (Tozzi, 2003; Connac, 2018), converge towards the need for a mutual examination of the points of view formulated. The best argument (Habermas, 2013) takes precedence over the certainty that an opinion is true. Consequently, the DVP device in CME and IME share a common objective: to develop critical thinking. Indeed, IME, as a “pedagogy of questioning”, aims at the critical analysis of information relayed by the media (Landry and Basque, 2015, §9; Michelot, 2020) and the ability to think for oneself (Chirouter, 2018; Landry and Basque, 2015). In order to acquire autonomy towards information, certain aspects such as production conditions, media ideologies, and discourse orientations, etc., can be interrogated through dialogue between learners, but also between teachers and learners (Laudry and Basque, 2015). The aim here is to question the possible applications between the practice of a philosophy device with children such as DVP and media education, in a joint or parallel perspective of developing critical thinking oriented towards a distanced reading of the information that reaches the student. This problematization revolves around the development of critical thinking and the methodologies implemented to assess it, while guarding against a certain militantism (Feroc-Dumez et al., 2019).

AXIS 1: DVP as a lever for interculturality. The aim of this axis is to question the role of the peer research process in the acquisition of intercultural competence and/or in the construction of intercultural dialogue. In particular, it examines the role played by the development of critical thinking in this process of intercultural education. How does the practice of philosophical discussion contribute to the evolution of students' representations of cultural otherness? How do student-discussants co-construct (or not) an intersubjectivity based on their different points of view? How does the development of critical thinking skills positively influence intercultural dialogue? Does the practice of DVP develop cultural empathy, open-mindedness and respect for otherness?

AXIS 2: DVP as prevention against fake news. This second theme focuses on the use of DVP as part of, or in parallel with, media and information education (MIE). In particular, it examines the device's potential for developing students' intellectual autonomy in the face of the diverse information with which they may be confronted: - - - How, or through what pedagogical innovation, could a joint DVP/EMI action be envisaged? Can the practice of DVP not linked to EMI schemes have a positive impact on the critical reading of information conveyed by the media? How does the student-discussant relationship with the media and information evolve through DVP discourse? (as part of a joint action).

 References :