Abstract/Notes: Published by Cleveland Montessori Association (Cleveland, Ohio).

Language: English

Language: English

Published: New York: American Montessori Society, 1970

Abstract/Notes: Artykuł stanowi sprawozdanie z badania jakościowo – biograficznego zrealizowanego wśród dwóch grup uczestników biorących udział w kursach Montessori. Podstawowym celem badania była analiza znaczeń nadawanych zmianie. Pytanie badawcze sformułowano następująco: Jak uczestnicy kursu Montessori (6-12) tematyzują swój proces transformacji?  Artykuł podejmuje kwestię zmiany edukacyjnej w kontekście wiedzy milczącej oraz teorii osobistych a następnie opisuje procedurę gromadzenia i analizy danych z dwudziestu pięciu pogłębionych, jakościowych wywiadów indywidualnych, które następnie poddano analizie zgodnie z opisanymi przez Kvale siedmioma krokami. W rezultacie analiz udało się zidentyfikować i opisać dwie główne kategorie: radykalną transformację oraz korektę biograficzną. W końcowej części artykułu autor, w kontekście zebranego materiału zwraca uwagę na ograniczone możliwości narzucania zmiany w edukacji i – podążając za głosami uczestników badania rekomenduje pożądane warunki do zaistnienia potencjalnych zmian: tworzenie nauczycielom warunków wolności do podejmowania decyzji i tworzenia autorskich rozwiązań dydaktycznych, demokratyzacja sfery związanej z edukacją oraz wspieranie poczucia godności wśród nauczycieli.

Language: English

DOI: 10.35765/eetp.2023.1868.05

ISSN: 2353-7787

Language: English

ISSN: 1470-8647

Language: Italian

ISSN: 2421-440X, 2723-9004

Abstract/Notes: More than a century before modern controversies over scripted instruction, the Froebelian kindergarten--the original kindergarten method designed by Friedrich Froebel--and Maria Montessori's pedagogy were criticized for rigidly prescribing how teachers taught and children learned. Today, scripted methods such as Direct Instruction and Success for All are condemned for limiting teachers' autonomy and narrowing students' learning, especially that of students from low-income backgrounds, for and with whom scripts are often designed and used. Proponents of scripted instruction counter that it is helpful for teachers and effective with students. Comparing historical and modern scripts offers an opportunity to explore teachers' reactions to this hotly debated approach to school reform and to think about some possible implications for teacher education. I examine how teachers reacted to four different models of scripted instruction. I chose to compare the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All because of their longevity, wide use, and the amount of information available about them. I focus on the scripts' theory and research base and teacher training, and on teachers' assessments of the scripts' effectiveness, and ask how these factors might influence teachers' autonomy, fidelity, and resistance when using scripts. Research Design: Using historical methods, I summarize the history of scripted instruction; selectively survey research on teacher autonomy, fidelity, and resistance; and interpret primary and secondary sources on the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All. Teacher autonomy, fidelity, and resistance varied in these four scripts. Froebelian kindergarten and Montessori teachers autonomously chose to receive scripted, lengthy, intensive, pre-service training and professional development in closed professional learning communities. Direct Instruction and Success for All teachers receive scripted, relatively limited pre-service training and ongoing professional development in schools in which teachers often do not autonomously choose to teach. Despite the scripted training, most Froebelian kindergarten teachers, and many Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All teachers modified these scripts at the classroom level; some Froebelian and Montessori teachers made very overt, substantial changes when the social class backgrounds of the students changed. Many Froebelian and most Montessori teachers seemed to believe that these scripts helped their students learn. Direct Instruction and Success for All teachers express more mixed views of these scripts' effectiveness. Some say that the scripts "work "for their students but that as teachers they feel constrained, a situation I see as a professional dilemma. Anecdotally, some new teachers with little pre-service training say that they feel limited by scripts but daunted by the task of creating curricula and instruction on their own. My research raises questions about teachers' reactions to scripts. The examples of Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All teachers I studied suggest that there may be unpredictable contradictions in scripted instruction. Scripted, autonomously chosen, intensive training may strengthen teacher fidelity and resistance, by giving teachers a deep repertoire of pedagogical skills that some continue to use and others use to autonomously modify scripts in response to students' perceived needs. Scripted, externally imposed, less extensive training may give some teachers a sense of security but also create tensions between the scripts 'perceived effectiveness and the teachers' desires for autonomy, and, for new teachers, between autonomy and the difficulty of independently designing curricula and methods. I argue that these reactions suggest that educators in traditional pre-service teacher education programs may want to experiment with offering an autonomous choice of distinctly different instructional models, including scripted ones such as Direct Instruction and Success for All, in which teachers in training in professional learning communities may become deeply skilled. I also argue that script developers may want to experiment with giving teachers more explicit autonomy, both in choosing scripts and in modifying them, and more extensive pre-service training. I recommend more comparative research on teachers' reactions to scripts, especially on new teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language: English

ISSN: 0161-4681, 1467-9620

Abstract/Notes: Although children’s books often include fantasy, research suggests that children do not learn as well from fantastical stories as from realistic ones. The current studies investigated whether the type of fantasy matters, in effect testing two possible mechanisms for fantasy’s interference. Across two studies, 110 5-year-olds were read different types of fantastical stories containing a problem and then were asked to solve an analogous problem in a real lab setting. Children who were read a minimally fantastical version of the story, in which the story occurred on another planet “that looked just like Earth,” were no more likely to transfer the solution than children who heard a story that was slightly more fantastical in that the story occurred on another planet and that planet looked different from Earth (e.g., orange grass, a green sky). In contrast, significantly higher rates of learning were observed when the story contained those elements and two physically impossible events (e.g., walking through walls). Furthermore, this improvement was obtained only when the impossible events preceded, and not when they followed, the educational content. Although fantasy may sometimes detract from learning (as other research has shown), these new studies suggest that minimal fantasy does not and that particular types of fantasy may even increase learning. We propose that the mechanism for this may be that a small dose of impossible events induces deeper processing of the subsequent events in the story.

Language: English

DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105212

ISSN: 0022-0965

Language: English

ISSN: 1354-1498

Abstract/Notes: This article explores the meaning of child-centeredness in Early Childhood Education (ECE), by shedding light on the nuanced tensions between teacher control and children’s freedom. While ECE professionals advocate the importance of children’s individual interests and needs in education, they diverge somewhat in their perspectives about the teacher’s role in education. This article manifests and tries to resolve this teaching dilemma through incorporating the related theories (Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey, and Montessori) upholding and encompassing child-centeredness. The author contends that high teacher control and high children’s freedom are not exclusive of one another: children’s freedom is defined in an active way, as freedom to participate, rather than in a passive way, as freedom from any constrains. The paper concludes with a metaphor of “impressionist painting”, which may offer some insights helpful to those who have struggled with the tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in the context of progressive and critical pedagogy.

Language: English

DOI: 10.1007/s10643-007-0166-7

ISSN: 1082-3301, 1573-1707

Language: English

ISSN: 1071-6246