Abstract/Notes: This is a special issue of the Italian-language journal 'Rivista di Storia dell'Educazione' [Journal of History of Education] devoted to academic research about Maria Montessori, Montessori method of education, and the Montessori movement. // This issue of RSE aims to propose a critical and historical reflection on the many variables that feature the practical and theoretical achievements of Maria Montessori’s pedagogy and movement from the end of the XIX century to our years, by highlighting the human, professional and cultural relations between her, her thought and some significant institutions, educators and thinkers in Italy and in foreign countries. Maria Montessori, her theories, her method and her schools have always been at the center of a broad debate that involves both educational elements, and historical, cultural or political aspects.

Language: English, Italian

Published: Firenze, Italy: Firenze University Press, 2021

Volume: 8 (issue 2)

Language: Italian

Published: Rocca San Casciano, Italy: Cappelli, 1958

Language: Italian

ISSN: 0042-7241

Language: Italian

ISSN: 0042-7241

Language: Italian

Published: Palermo, Italy: Sandron, 1966

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 His main objection was that her educational system was founded on an outdated psychology.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

Published: Milano: Vallardi, 1970

Language: English

Published: London: Hogarth Press, 1961

Language: Italian

ISSN: 0042-7241

Language: Italian

Published: Brescia, Italy: La Scuola, 1989

Volume: 4