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 His main objection was that her educational system was founded on an outdated psychology.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: 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: La presente ricerca, di impianto teorico, si prefigge lo scopo di indagare - all’interno della cornice teorica del problematicismo pedagogico - le connessioni tra due proposte educative che concorrono alla promozione dell’esercizio del pensiero complesso già nell’infanzia: il Metodo elaborato da Maria Montessori e la Philosophy for Children sviluppata da Matthew Lipman. Attingendo alla bibliografia scientifica di riferimento, sia nazionale sia internazionale, e a partire dalle connessioni individuate, si arrischiano sconfinamenti in saperi altri: sostando in ambiti di ricerche, apparentemente lontani, vengono interrogate le teorie dell’apprendimento, i rapporti con le tecnologie, fino al confronto con le interessanti conferme che emergono dalle recenti ricerche neuroscientifiche. La scelta dell’oggetto della ricerca nasce da una riflessione relativa all’emergere di fenomeni di negazione dell’infanzia e dei suoi diritti; ra gli altri, il diritto al pensiero. Sembra necessario richiamare alla responsabilità di accompagnare l’infanzia sulle strade della complessità nella cittadinanza GLocale. In questa direzione, le proposte educative prese in esame sembrano offrire, a partire dall’infanzia, modalità diversificate e divergenti delle esperienze di conoscere, sentire, comunicare alle quali poter attingere come bambini e bambine e nelle successive età della vita. Con il presente lavoro di ricerca, che mi ha vista impegnata in diverse forme per tre ricchi e intensi anni, ho tentato di mettere al centro della riflessione l’esercizio del pensiero che emerge come imprescindibile responsabilità educativa a cui i dispositivi propri del Metodo Montessori e della Philosophy for Children possono contribuire a corrispondere. [The research undertaken for this doctoral thesis - within the theoretical framework of pedagogical problematicism - explores the connections between two educational proposals that contribute to the promotion of the exercise of complex thought already since childhood: the Method elaborated by Maria Montessori and the Philosophy for Children developed by Matthew Lipman. With reference to the scientific bibliography, both national and international, this work matches Learning Theories, Studies on New Technologies and Practices in Education, comparing it with the interesting discoveries that emerge from recent neuroscientific research. It seems necessary to recall the responsibility of accompanying childhood on the roads of complexity in GLocal citizenship and, so, to offer children the tools and times for developing the capacity to think critically, to reason around events, and to undertake constructive relations with the environment and with others. With the present research, which has engaged me in different forms for three richly intense years, I have tried to centre my analysis on the exercise of thought as an indispensable educational responsibility to which the devices of the Montessori Method and of the Philosophy for Children can contribute.]

Language: Italian

Published: Bologna, Italy, 2018

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

Language: English

Language: English

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

Abstract/Notes: This paper lays out the moral theory of philosopher and educator Maria Montessori (1870–1952). Based on a moral epistemology wherein moral concepts are grounded in a well-cultivated moral sense, Montessori develops a threefold account of moral life. She starts with an account of character as an ideal of individual self-perfection through concentrated attention on effortful work. She shows how respect for others grows from and supplements individual character, and she further develops a notion of social solidarity that goes beyond cooperation toward shared agency. Partly because she attends to children's ethical lives, Montessori highlights how character, respect, and solidarity all appear first as prereflective, embodied orientations of agency. Full moral virtue takes up prereflective orientations reflectively and extends them through moral concepts. Overall, Montessori's ethic improves on features similar to some in Nietzschean, Kantian, Hegelian, or Aristotelian ethical theories while situating these within a developmental and perfectionist ethics.

Language: English

DOI: 10.1017/apa.2019.41

ISSN: 2053-4477, 2053-4485

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