Main differences & Lessons Learned

The two experiences carried out in the schools of Oulx and Sestriere, have been similar in many ways. The results obtained have been more than adequate and level of the presentations was higher than the one expected, by the SCORE team and by the school teachers sides. Both schools, followed the laboratory with participative and engaged attitudes, and the students seemed and stated having enjoyed it. The four classes involved, increased their knowledge about the topics addressed by the SCORE project: renewable energies, prosumerism, energy community projects, citizens engagement. The students engaged directly with their fellow-citizens in awareness-raising activities like the survey they carried out in the two municipalities. Even if this stage was the least favourite among the students, the results obtained provided an important overview on local people’s opinion and perception about the topics relating the workshop. During the design phase instead, they could apply practically what they learnt in the previous phases. By developing the activities of the workshop, the students had the opportunity, as one of the school teacher stated, to make real and concrete concepts that previously studied on a theoretic level, and with the survey and the design tasks, they could bring those concepts on a real and local dimension.

Nonetheless, there have been some differences between the two experiences that are important to highlight.

179

As observed, in the school of Sestriere it was added an intermediate meeting, following the advice of the Oulx school teacher and following the checklist of the peer education toolkit, analyzed in the literature review. This intermediate meeting was a new part in respect to the Oulx experience. The objective of this intermediate meeting was to promote the collaboration among and within the groups, to promote the sharing of ideas and critical thinking, and to have a deeper and more accurate supervision on the students’ work. At the end of the Sestriere experience it was clear that the additional meeting helped the entire process, helping the students understand better their tasks and bringing them closer and on a more collaborative and sharing behavior. The additional meeting enabled the creation of a continuity in the relation between the students and the SCORE team, the creation of an environment of trust where the students would be motivated and felt comfortable in sharing ideas with their peers, and also express critics about other groups’

work. During this additional meeting, it was also created the link between the two experiences, the Oulx case study and the Sestriere case study. In fact, two short videos were projected in the class of Sestriere, showing the presentation of two among the best projects carried out in Oulx, presented by the students themselves. This idea aimed at the passage of information in an

“horizontal” way, directly from student to student, in a dynamic that would allow the learning experience in a peer-led way. The link between the two case studies has been carried out through the screen, due to the pandemic situation. In normal conditions, it would be advisable and more effective the organization of events in real presence where the classes would actually meet and exchange on the topics addressed by the activity.

Another important difference between the two case studies, can be found in the dimension of the target groups. While in Oulx there was a mix of small/middle sized classes and large classes, in Sestriere the target group was represented by a very small class, only 12 students. According to experiences carried out, it is possible to state that small groups like the one in Sestriere seem to be more conducive and appropriate for workshop activities like the one implemented. The students seemed to be more focused and more open to the exchange with their peers, while in larger classes it was easier to observe cases of peer pressure, mocking, and embarrassment felt by the students in front of their class. Nonetheless, experiences like this served to work on these issues, even if in a superficial way and for a short time. During the presentations, even during moments of peer pressure or embarrassment, the SCORE team encouraged the more intimidated

students to pursue their task and express their ideas about their work. It seemed to be an important exercise for many of the students involved.

Lessons learned

According to the results obtained from the activity carried out in the two case studies of Oulx and Sestriere, it is possible to draw some conclusions and lessons learned from this experience.

Observing the students’ work and results of their presentations, it is possible to state that they enjoyed the experience and produced significant projects and material. The experience was significant as it made real, closer to their reality and local, concepts that are usually expressed in theoretic ways in class. The project transformed them into the first decision makers and stakeholders of a field and a process that usually cut out young students and youth in general from the decision making process, the energy supply field. According to the school teachers who supervised the activity, the workshop was carried out in an excellent way and the organization and the level of work was appropriate and adequate for the classes involved. Due to the pandemic situation, some parts of the activity had to be carried out online and not in presence.

This fact, diminished partly the efficacy of these phases, even if the content and the main points were however reached and achieved. In normal situations, these phases would be carried out in presence and their engagement outreach expanded and made more effective. The meeting between different target groups and schools, is a step that would be fundamental to carry out in presence. The “horizontal” transmission of concepts between students, without the intermission of adults and external experts, is one of the pivotal points of this activity and it would be important to be carried out in presence.

According to the results of the projects and the answers received to the surveys, it is possible to state that the students involved consider the protection of the natural resources as an essential task and mission that communities and society as a whole have to engage in, especially for them living in a natural context with clean air and unspoiled natural heritage. From the answers received to the surveys the students carried out in their municipalities, it is possible to state that the main obstacles for people to engage and invest in renewable energy and energy community

181

projects are represented by economic reasons and cultural/distrust reasons. However, while economic reasons play a big part of these barriers, the main part of the is played by the skepticism and distrust that people have towards these innovative forms of energy supply and social organization. This represents a great limit to the effectiveness and expansions of these type of alternative and cleaner energy self-production and self-consumption systems, and one of the only ways to tackle this limit is through information and public outreach about these topics. This is why it is essential to start from an early age and from young students, to inform them, engage them and involve them in a process that will see them in some years as part of the civil society, as part of the civic stakeholders that influence so deeply the direction of the energy transition.