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

Language: English

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

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 His main objection was that her educational system was founded on an outdated psychology.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

Published: London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022

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

Abstract/Notes: My personal search for principles and practices to guide my role as a teacher of young children took me to Munich, Germany to be trained in the Montessori method; to Tumbaco, Ecuador to be a teacher trainee at the Wild's active school and most recently to Bali, Indonesia to experience Jean Liedloff's notion of a continuum concept. This search has brought me skills to set up an environment for children and to better understand my role in it. My work with children has helped me to integrate the principles and practices of individuals who have inspired my own feelings, thoughts and actions, thereby eliminating conflicts which I have previously experienced.

Language: English

Published: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1993

Abstract/Notes: Examines educational resistance to nature study, focusing on the subtle resistance evident in the vicarious approach that limits nature study to books and videos, while ignoring the sensory richness and kinship developed through direct connection with the natural world. Suggests that environmental science, citizen education, inquiry learning, personal growth orientations, and social action can contribute to a more holistic and environmentally sensitive Montessori plan of study. (Author/KB)

Language: English

ISSN: 1522-9734

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

Language: English

Language: English

Published: [Corpus Christi, Texas]: The Lilliput Schoolhouse, 1963

Abstract/Notes: In our brief historical outline of educational conditions in Italy, we have seen that by far the greatest efforts over the past fifty years have been devoted to clarifying the theoretical issues of educational problems. We have been examining philosophical Systems that pretended to afford an unshakeable foundation to educational theory and to answer every problem raised by educational practice. They have been scrutinized and found wanting. The new Government Syllabus (1955) for the Italian elementary schools is thoroughly Catholic in spirit, humanistic in content and progressive in method. The author of the present paper feels, however, that too much theorizing is still blinding Italian educators. The canker of Transcendental Idealism is still gnawing at the efforts of all too many, also Catholic, thinkers. The “active schools” need renewed fervour, cogent Stimulation, and enlightened Inspiration from an integral Catholic philosophy of life. We must stop philosophizing and get down to realizing: experimentation and co-operative effort are badly needed, not less than clear ideas. Not words but deeds! Idealism had thought of itself being the all-inclusive answer to every problem. We must repeat Hamlet's word to the die-hard Idealist: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

Language: English

DOI: 10.1007/BF01423725

ISSN: 1573-0638, 0020-8566

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