Abstract/Notes: Includes sidebar on children's books on peace

Language: English

Language: English

Published: London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022

ISBN: 978-1-350-17638-6 1-350-17638-9

Abstract/Notes: For a century Montessori’s philosophy of education has been understood in separation from Dewey’s philosophy of education. According to Thayer-Bacon [1], a plausible explanation is that Kilpatrick, Dewey’s influential student, rejected Montessori’s system of education [2]. His main objection was that her educational system was founded on an outdated psychology. In contrast, this paper suggests, Montessori’s educational systems is founded on a psychology which, like Dewey’s, was markedly ahead of her time by putting purely embodied interactions with the environment as the foundation of human understanding. By comparing Montessori’s psychology [3; 4] to Dewey’s [5; 6] this paper shows their compatibility. The developed pragmatism of Sellars [5;6] and the interactivism of Bickhard [7] further enables us to explain how the prelinguistic human-environment interactions (or transactions), central to Dewey and Montessori, are pure processes [8]. The pure process ontology enables us to see how more complex processes emerge from simpler ones and how learning in the mere causal domain of bodily human-environment interactions can grow into the linguistic and conceptual domain of education. The ambition is to show that a flourishing interaction between Montessori and pragmatism is possible and preferable if we are to understand the proper role of the body in education. [1] Thayer-Bacon, Barbara (2012). Maria Montessori, John Dewey, and William H. Kilpatrick. Education and Culture, 28, 1, 3-20. [2] Kilpatrick, W. H. (1914). The Montessori system examined. Cambridge, Mass.; The Riverside Press [3] Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method. NY: Frederick A. Stokes Company [4] Montessori. M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Adyar: The Theosophical Publishing House [5] Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. NY: The Macmillan Company [6] Dewey, J. (1925) Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company [7] Sellars, W. (1960). Being and Being Known. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 34, 28-49. [8] Sellars, W. (1981). Foundations for a metaphysics of pure process: The Carus lectures of Wilfrid Sellars. The Monist 64 (1):3-90. [9] Bickhard, M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. Synthese, 166, 3, 547-591. [10] Seibt, Johanna (2016). How to Naturalize Intentionality and Sensory Consciousness within a Process Monism with Gradient Normativity—A Reading of Sellars. In James O'Shea (ed.), Sellars and His Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 186-222.

Language: English

Published: Copenhagen, Denmark: International Network of Philosophers of Education, 2022

Language: English

Archive: Seattle University, Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons, Special Collections

Abstract/Notes: Typescript "reprint" of an article by Standing which was published in the publication, Dominicana.

Language: English

Archive: Seattle University, Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons, Special Collections

Abstract/Notes: Maria Montessori was a scientist, social scientist, and philosopher in a truly transdisciplinary manner. This chapter examines her work from the perspective of philosophy. She studied with philosophers of her time, and her corpus of work explicitly engages with James, Nietzsche, and Bergson and draws from philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel. Despite this long and distinguished list of Montessori’s intellectual influences, she ascribes her philosophy to children rather than any historical philosopher or even to herself. Still, her philosophical insights speak to central issues in metaphysics, epistemology, human nature, freedom, and morality but also their application to child development. Her willingness to engage in deeply philosophical work but in the service of children makes her distinctive in the philosophical world.

Language: English

Published: New York, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023

ISBN: 978-1-350-27561-4 978-1-350-27560-7 978-1-350-27562-1

Series: Bloomsbury Handbooks

Abstract/Notes: AbstractObjective: To compare the memory scores in mild dementia elderly who attended Montessori-based Memory training with the control group who did not.Method: The Solomon four-group design was used to test the memory of the subjects. The subject of the study consisted of 40 elderly at Banbanglamung Social Welfare Development Center for Older Persons. Participants were divided to 2 experimental and 2 control groups by random sampling technique. Mini mental status Exam-Thai 2002 and Thai Geriatric Depression scale were used as a tool in selecting the subject and a tool to differentiate the mild dementia elderly group from the depressed group. The digit span and digit symbol subtests of The Wechsler Intelligence scale were used in memory testing. The data obtained was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, t-test and one-way ANOVA.Results: The average scores of the digit span and digit symbol of the experimental groups and the controlled groups were significantly different (p<0.05). After 4 weeks of training, the average scores ofthe experimental groups increased more than that of the controlled group. After training, the average scores of memory of the four groups were significantly indifferent (p<0.05). Digit symbol scores of the experimental groups were higher than of the controlled groups by using LSD method.Conclusion: After memory training, the average scores of the digit span and digit symbol of the experimental groups were significantly higher than the controlled group. This differentce still persistedat the 12th week of training. Therefore, this memory training should be used with the elderly to prevent and delay dementia.

Language: Thai

ISSN: 2697-4126

Abstract/Notes: Objectivism, the libertarian philosophy established by Ayn Rand during the postwar years, has attracted a great deal of attention from philosophers, political scientists, economists, and English professors alike in recent years, but it hasn’t received much notice from historians with an interest in education. This article will address that problem by discussing how Rand and her followers established a philosophy of education during the 1960s and 1970s that was based, in part, on vilifying the so-called collectivist ideas of John Dewey and lionizing the so-called individualist ideas of Maria Montessori. Unfortunately, the narrative that emerged during this time seriously misrepresented the ideas of both Dewey and Montessori, resulting in a somewhat distorted view of both educators.

Language: English

DOI: 10.32316/hse/rhe.v25i1.4285

ISSN: 0843-5057, 1911-9674

Abstract/Notes: An address given at the International School of Philosophy in Amersfoort on 28 December 1937.

Language: English

Published: Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company, 2018

ISBN: 978-90-79506-21-7

Series: Montessori Series , 10

Abstract/Notes: An address given at the International School of Philosophy in Amersfoort on 28 December 1937.

Language: English

Published: Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company, 2018

ISBN: 978-90-79506-21-7

Series: Montessori Series , 10