 Zdaj se tako zelo je češtjo, je to se refleksije, na kratikšnjih z vrti sebranje, neč vzvešanje vseh, kako zelo sebega. Sebega je začela kratiko, na kratikšnjih zelo, na kratikšnjih zelo, da je počit у moj nekaj zelo, kaj je vseh zelo, več nekaj zelo, nekaj bil nekaj zelo. Zato sem to poveda. This is a natural evolution of personal path. I'm a perehoma archaeologist and I worked for many years in public institution as an archaeological educator and during those years I could experience the potentiality of archaeology in education, but at the same time the implicisem of the adopted methodology in Italy. And more recently thanks to the completion of studies in public archaeology in master in differentiated education in Mandy school education, I had the opportunity to depend of pedagogical issues that actually are underlying in the process. And my analysis starts from an anonymous survey that si last year sent to the main national museums and museum educators that operate in Italy in vsega vsega boljče, vsega boljče, smrtjega rokov na vsega političke od vsega doma, izgledenje doma, nespoj, nespojovati, nekaj prikrije. Moj uključen bo za njiha, kaj je kratirija na neko vsega do vsega političke, neko vsega do vsega doma, kaj je tudi metodologi, nekaj manuali in tekstbuki, da so vsega dnev. svoril in posjudej, kaj je s nekaj korikuleračnih kodov, osrednih zrde in nekaj posjudej, da se je včičilo. Tukaj vse više, da je bilo se tako zelo... ...zapravljate, se, ki je ozvorega in iz nekaj zelo in iz zelo in iz zelo in iz zelo in iz zelo... ...završenje, da bi imeli vršenje in lahko vzelo, ...zgravljati in nekaj zelo, of the formative offer, and also for the formal institutionalization of the work of the geological educator as such. The results of my survey are very interesting. I have to say that just half of the realities respond to my questioner. But I don't want to be too much boring showing you graphic and percentage. I just want to show some points that will help me to address some consideration. It is important to underline that all of them agreed with their goals and aims. The efficacy of archaeology as a medium to understand the past is given for granted and encouraged by all of those that work in the field of professional archaeology. Being engaged in archaeology for the most part of them means to be actively part of the process of discovery to be introduced in a world of tactile sensation performing action within historical scientific operation. It requires a good balance between traditional scholarly knowledge and a multi-perspective approach. Archaeology as a subject can contribute to the formation of the abilities that are necessary to acquire active knowledge through critical investigation to the awareness on the fact that much of our past is concretely shared. But if the aim and goals and potentiality of opening archaeology to a wide and public are easily agreed on the matter of methodological approach, the common ground turns out to be a mere empiricism often governed by blind trial and error. What is worth is that there is not even the awareness that much work has been done in other countries on educational archaeologies in these years. I'm not talking about the quality of the offer, but only about the risky danger of improvisation in a delicate matter of educational archaeology. The 80% of my respondents mentioned experimental archaeology or learning my doing, but they did not give any reference to any kind of books, textbooks, schools of chosen approach. A small part declares to have no reference at all. Just five unities appeal to minari method or public archaeology approach. A definition that honestly sounds too wide for me. Moreover, the article about Italian project on archaeology and education that have been published are few, and they always seem to present posteriori reports and description of the completed activities. Reading them, one may have the impression that tools are often confused with methods and approaches. What can we deduce from these results? Well, we are not lost in the jungle, but we are still not focused on the theoretical approach. In the last decades, many different and interesting attempts have been made worldwide and in Italy to introduce archaeology to a wider public, children included. Since the spread of public archaeology as new trending, the idea of engagement is a central matter of the research concerning education, and in general a key concept for archaeology and its public. Now, what has not been understood yet is that some effective met models for engaging the public have already been developed, so the tentative empiricism is no longer a viable option. Unfortunately, it is widely recognized that the basic textbook for common references does not exist yet, so the neither specific guidelines have never been proposed, nor a common protocol for communicative archaeology to children or other public has never been written. And for what concern, evaluation criteria, the main tool is just a brief questionnaire, but not only of the reality users. Can we consider just the first impression of the public as sufficient elements to evaluate our activities? Unfortunately, archaeology is not inserted, moreover, archaeology is not inserted as an institutionalized subject in our national curriculum in Italy. Therefore, how to explain to a public of Jans the complexity and utility of archaeology is a topic still open to be debated. The most difficult part is to understand what is beneficial to be understood and shared with the wider public and what is not, where we should start. First, fill in the existing gap with social science and education, awaken curiosity towards the way of learning and teaching, raising interest in experimental interpretative strategies after being comfortable with accounts-based thinking. Before finding the correct method, we need to know that there are plenty of methods available in our theoretical toolbox. These methods can be named more precisely than just experience. For what concern methodology, we cannot just hide ourselves behind a naive idea of learning by doing, with no supporting theory on the background. The classical method of learning by doing is not misunderstood and confused with improvisation and spontanity, but it is not too. I'm just trying to speak about Italy, not other countries. The concept of constitutive constructivism in archaeology has been spread in any part of Europe as a way to transmit archaeological knowledge, especially because of the speculative nature of the archaeological inquiry and the empirical aspect of the discipline. Nonetheless, learning by doing approach needs strict and rigid planning and discipline. Educator has to understand firstly how knowledge works, how we learn and how we can teach. Otherwise, the approach is reduced to mere practical activities with no speculative and theoretical thinking. At the end, even the result could not be recognized as such. The basic knowledge of the cognitive growth of children is a crucial point for future plans of archaeological education. And at the same time, it is an ongoing weakness in many actual archaeological activities, where basic concepts of constitutivism are sometimes taken randomly, considered superficially, and applied without awareness. For example, I try to study the visualization of time, the change of the visualization of time in different ages. The way in which we visualize time changes dramatically from the age three to the age 99. And we need to pay attention to this difference. Despite this, many of the proposed activities are exactly the same for different publics, as my survey showed, recurring to different level of simplification of ready-made activities that make no justice to these two different audiences. Finally, for what concern that identified difficulties, all the interviewed realities agreed. Those are economical problems, lack of communication between public institution and schools, no codified methodology and absence of textbooks will come on guidelines. For us, this consideration is useful to understand that at the moment there is a will to learn a method, but it is difficult to find proper guidelines to follow. If we pay more attention to the learning by doing methodology, we may discover that it is a strong scientific roots, not just in kasturtivism, but also in the tactile approach of the early 19th century pedagogy originally developed by Montessori. Actually, the origin of the sensitive pedagogy could be traced even many decades before her, with Robel, Rousseau, and many others. On her own, Montessori was a precursor of the education of the senses. In the Montessori method, I found the fertile soul where to re-center the main role of archaeology in the historical and world education. I mean, it's just a proposal. In fact, her idea of cosmic education takes into account archaeology too, and it is a for runner of the idea of a multidisciplinary approach for learning the past using science and humanities. The method was set up by a long and constant observation of students. Still concerning sensorial education, some decades later, another important theorist was Bruno Munari. It is much stronger belief that these methodologies have the advantages to add a strict knowledge of children and students developing capabilities to the simple constructivist learning by doing experience. The education of the five senses is developed through a natural scaffolding process that is respectful of the logical order of students' skill. We need to systematize archaeological activities in a way that is more structured, following an order connectable with the needs of the person. But this method has a limit. In fact, Montessori had developed a scientific method that remained unaltered since her death in 1952. And to be honest, time and history are not well investigated by her method as it stands. However, a visual approach concerning maths and grammar can also be extended to the notion of time. And the first cosmic tales can be the starting point to think new pedagogical stories where archaeology can be a central part. Will it the effort that the limit can be turned into an extraordinary challenge for setting a new historical approach? Sorry. Oh my God. With the combination of the best acquisition already reached by the other main pedagogical approaches. Returning to my survey, the question was, there was also a question focused on the checking the real knowledge of our national curriculum. The question was addressed because one of the main issues for archaeological, educational archaeology is the missing dialogue and interaction with the existing school curriculum. There is a lack of knowledge among archaeologists on the difference between traditional school on the way of its teaching history and the historical curriculum. In my opinion, this lack of information affected the results of many archaeological activities. According to many answers that are received, the national curriculum seems to be hold and ill-conceived. But as a matter of fact, this is not true. Instead, the new national curriculum can really open a new scenario for archaeological education, just as it is. In fact, a careful reading of national curriculum of 2012 reveals that it is far from being anchored to the old traditional methods. On the contrary, it is really open to a multidisciplinary retrospective, no longer bound to the venemential and chronological order. It is an extraordinary opportunity that widens the horizon of teacher and archaeologists that can think a new path. To conclude, as a public archaeologist, I feel the need of a shared educational policy and the creation of the role of the educator in archaeology among the existing university courses. The moment is right because the current trend of increased attention to the public can support and require a professional figure like that. I'm so strongly persuaded that codifying an educational archaeological language and investigate about the role of archaeology is really urgent nowadays, since it could help to redefine the perception of the social utility of the discipline to a wider public and contribute to improve even more the children's learning process. Thank you, sorry.