The Montessori method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed The Montessori Method (Illustrated) and millions of other books are available for. The Montessori Method [Maria Montessori] on goudzwaard.info *FREE* An audience already thoroughly interested awaits this translation of a remarkable book. The Montessori Method book. Read 69 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. This groundbreaking classic of educational philosophy takes o.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
This book is Montessori's own exposition of the theory behind her innovative educational techniques. She shows parents, teachers and administrators how to . The Montessori Method by Maria Montessori immediately captivated social The book begins with a collection of Montessori's speeches and then moves onto. Free kindle book and epub digitized and proofread by Project The Montessori Method by Maria Montessori Read this book online: HTML.
Pedagogical methods used in the "Children's Houses". Child psychology can be established only through the method of external observation -- Anthropological consideration -- Anthropological notes -- Environment and schoolroom furnishings -- V. Discipline through liberty -- Independence -- Abolition of prizes and external forms of punishment -- Biological concept of liberty in pedagogy --" en ; schema:description "XI. Manual labour: the potter's art, and building. Difference between manual labour and manual gymnastics -- The School of Educative Art -- Archaeological, historical, and artistic importance of the vase -- Manufacture of diminutive bricks and construction of diminutive walls and houses -- XII.
Education of the senses. Education of the senses and illustrations of the didactic material: general sensibility: the tactile, thermic, baric and stereognostic senses.
Education of the tactile, thermic and baric senses -- Education of the stereognostic sense -- Education of the senses of taste and smell -- Education of the sense of vision -- Exercises with the three series of cards -- Education of the chromatic sense -- Exercise for the discrimination of sounds -- Musical education -- Tests for acuteness of hearing -- A lesson in silence -- XIV.
General notes on the education of the senses.
Aim in education biological and social -- Education of the senses makes men observers and prepares them directly for practical life -- XV. Intellectual education. Sense exercises a species of auto-education -- Importance of an exact nomenclature, and how to teach it -- Spontaneous progress of the child the greatest triumph of scientific pedagogy -- Games of the blind -- Application of the visual sense to the observation of environment -- Method of using didactic material: dimensions, form, design -- Free plastic work -- Geometric analysis of figures -- Exercises in the chromatic sense --" en ; schema:description "XXI.
General review of discipline. Discipline better than in ordinary schools -- First dawning of discipline comes through work -- Orderly action is the true rest for muscles intended by nature for action -- The exercise that develops life consists in the repetition, not in the mere grasp of the idea -- Aim of repetition that the child shall refine his senses through the exercise of attention, of comparison, of judgment -- Obedience is naturally sacrifice -- Obedience develops will-power and the capacity to perform the act it becomes necessary to obey -- XXII.
Children can work in groups or individually, respecting their own style and rythm. Each child uses the material he chose by taking it from the shelf and putting it back in its place so others can use it. The environment promotes the childs independence in the exploring and learning process.
Freedom and self-discipline make possible that each child finds activities that respond to their evolutionary needs. Montessori classrooms gather children in 3 different ages: younger than 3 years old, from 3 to 6 years old, from 6 to 9 years old and from 9 to 13 years old.
These "mixed age classrooms" favour spontaneous cooperation, desire to learn, mutual respect and the acquisition of deep knowledge in the process of teaching others. The Child Dr. Montessori believed that every educator should "follow the child", recognizing the evolutionary needs and characteristics of each age, and building a favorable environment, both physical and spiritual, to respond to these needs.
Maria Montessori observed that the child goes from infancy to adulthood through 4 evolutionary periods called "Planes of Development". Each period presents characteristics that are radically diferent from the other periods, but each of them constitutes the foundation of the following period.
In her book, The Absorbent Mind, Montessori explained that: "In the same way, the caterpillar and the butterfly are two creatures very different to look at and in the way they behave, yet the beauty of the butterfly comes from its life in the larval form, and not through any efforts it may make to imitate another butterfly.
We serve the future by protecting the present. The more fully the needs of one period are met, the greater will be the success of the next. In the second plane, from 6 to 12 years old, the child possesses a "rational mind" to emplore the world with imagination and abstract thinking. In the third plane, from 12 to 18 years old, the teenager has a "humanistic mind" which desires to understand humanity and to contribute to society.
The principle in this case consists of the affirmation of the child's need for social training. In the conservative kindergarten this training is sought once more, largely in group games.
The social training involved in these games is formal only in the sense that the children are not engaged, as the Montessori children often are, in a real social enterprise, such as that of serving dinner, cleaning the room, caring for animals, building a toy house, or making a garden.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that even the most conservative kindergarten does not, on principle, exclude "real" enterprises of this latter sort; but in a three-hour session it does rather little with them.
Liberal kindergartners do more, particularly in Europe, where the session is often longer. Nor does the Montessori system wholly exclude imaginative group games. But Dr. Montessori, despite an evidently profound interest not only in social training, but also in aesthetic, idealistic, and even religious development, speaks of "games and foolish stories" in a casual and derogatory way, which shows that she is as yet unfamiliar with the American kindergartner's remarkable skill and power in the use of these resources.
Of course the American kindergartner does not use "foolish" stories; but stories she does use, and to good effect. The Montessori programme involves much direct social experience, both in the general life of the school and in the manual work done by the pupils; the kindergarten extends the range of the child's social consciousness through the imagination.
The groupings of the Montessori children are largely free and unregulated; the groupings of kindergarten children are more often formal and prescribed.
There can be no doubt that Dr. Montessori has devised a peculiarly successful scheme for teaching children to write, an effective method for the introduction of reading, and good material for early number work.
Both types of kindergarten increase, to be sure, the child's general capacity for expression: kindergarten activity adds to his stock of ideas, awakens and guides his imagination, increases his vocabulary, and trains him in the effective use of it. Children in a good kindergarten hear stories and tell them, recount their own experiences, sing songs, and recite verses, all in a company of friendly but fairly critical listeners, which does even more to stimulate and guide expression than does the circle at home.
But even the conservative kindergarten does not teach children to write and to read. It does teach them a good deal about number; and it may fairly be questioned whether it does not do more fundamental work in this field than the Montessori system itself.
The Froebelian gifts offer exceptional opportunity for concrete illustration of the conceptions of whole and part, through the creation of wholes from parts, and the breaking up of wholes into parts. This aspect of number is at least as important as the series aspect, which children get in counting and for which the Montessori "Long Stair" provides such good material.
The Froebelian material may be used very readily for counting, however, and the Montessori material gives some slight opportunity for uniting and dividing. So far as preparation for arithmetic is concerned, a combination of the two bodies of material is both feasible and desirable.
Compared with the kindergarten, then, the Montessori system presents these main points of interest: it carries out far more radically the principle of unrestricted liberty; its materials are intended for the direct and formal training of the senses; it includes apparatus designed to aid in the purely physical development of the children; its social training is carried out mainly by means of present and actual social activities; and it affords direct preparation for the school arts.
The kindergarten, on the other hand, involves a certain amount of group-teaching, in which children are held—not necessarily by the enforcement of authority, yet by authority, confessedly, when other means fail—to definite activities; its materials are intended primarily for creative use by the children and offer opportunity for mathematical analysis and the teaching of design; and its procedure is rich in resources for the imagination.
One thing should be made entirely clear and emphatic: in none of these characteristics are the two systems rigidly antagonistic.
Since the difference between the two programmes is one of arrangement, emphasis, and degree, there is no fundamental reason why a combination especially adapted to English and American schools cannot be worked out.
The broad contrast between a Montessori school and a kindergarten appears on actual observation to be this: whereas the Montessori children spend almost all their time handling things, largely according to their individual inclination and under individual guidance, kindergarten children are generally engaged in group work and games with an imaginative background and appeal.
A possible principle of adjustment between the two systems might be stated thus: work with objects designed for formal sensory, motor, and intellectual training should be done individually or in purely voluntary groups; imaginative and social activity should be carried on in regulated groups. This principle is suggested only as a possible basis for education during the kindergarten age; for as children grow older they must be taught in classes, and they naturally learn how to carry out imaginative and social enterprises in free groups, and the former often alone.
Nor should it be supposed that the principle is suggested as a rule to which there can be no exception. It is suggested simply as a general working hypothesis, the value of which must be tested in experience. Although it has long been observed by kindergartners themselves that group-work with the Froebelian materials, especially such work as involves geometrical analysis and formal design, soon tires the children, it has been held that the kindergartner could safeguard her pupils from loss of interest or real fatigue by watching carefully for the first signs of weariness and stopping the work promptly on their appearance.
In games, on the other hand, group teaching means very little restraint and the whole process is less tiring any way. To differentiate in method between these two kinds of activity may be the best way to keep them both in an effective educational programme. To speak of an effective educational programme leads at once, however, to an important aspect of the Montessori system, quite aside from its relation to the kindergarten, with which this Introduction must now deal. This is the social aspect, which finds its explanation in Dr.
Montessori's own story of her first school. In any discussion of the availability of the Montessori system in English and American schools—particularly in American public schools and English "Board" schools—two general conditions under which Dr. Montessori did her early work in Rome should be borne in mind.
She had her pupils almost all day long, practically controlling their lives in their waking hours; and her pupils came for the most part from families of the laboring class. We cannot expect to achieve the results Dr. Montessori has achieved if we have our pupils under our guidance only two or three hours in the morning, nor can we expect exactly similar results from children whose heredity and experience make them at once more sensitive, more active, and less amenable to suggestion than hers.
The conditions under which Dr.
Montessori started her original school in Rome do not, indeed, lack counterpart in large cities the world over. When one reads her eloquent " Inaugural Address " it is impossible not to wish that a "School within the Home" might stand as a centre of hopeful child life in the midst of every close-built city block.
Better, of course, if there were no hive-like city tenements at all, and if every family could give to its own children on its own premises enough of "happy play in grassy places. But while so many unfortunate thousands still live in the hateful cliff-dwellings of our modern cities, we must welcome Dr.
Montessori's large conception of the social function of her "Houses of Childhood" as a new gospel for the schools which serve the city poor. No matter what didactic apparatus such schools may use, they should learn of Dr. Montessori the need of longer hours, completer care of the children, closer co-operation with the home, and larger aims.
In such schools, too, it is probable that the two fundamental features of Dr.
Montessori's work—her principle of liberty and her scheme for sense training—will find their completest and most fruitful application. It is just these fundamental features, however, which will be most bitterly attacked whenever the social status of the original Casa dei Bambini is forgotten.
Of course no practical educator will actually propose bathtubs for all schools, and no doubt there will be plenty of wise conversation about transferring to a given school any function now well discharged by the homes that support it.
The problems raised by the proposal to apply in all schools the Montessori conception of discipline and the Montessori sense-training are really more difficult to solve. Is individual liberty a universal educational principle, or a principle which must be modified in the case of a school with no such social status as that of the original "House of Childhood"?
Do all children need sense training, or only those of unfavorable inheritance and home environment? No serious discussion of the Montessori system can avoid these questions. What is said in answer to them here is written in the hope that subsequent discussion may be somewhat influenced to keep in view the really deciding factor in each case—the actual situation in the school.
There is occasion enough in these questions, to be sure, for philosophical and scientific argument. The first question involves an ethical issue, the second a psychological issue, and both may be followed through to purely metaphysical issues.
Montessori believes in liberty for the pupil because she thinks of life "as a superb goddess, ever advancing to new conquests. There is obvious opportunity here for profound difference of philosophic theory and belief. These views seem to agree rather closely with those of Herbart and to some extent with those of Locke. Certainly they offer material for both psychological and ethical debate. Possibly, however, Dr. Montessori would not accept the views here ascribed to her on the evidence of this book; and in any case these are matters for the philosopher and the psychologist.
A pedagogical issue is never wholly an issue of high principle. Can it reasonably be maintained, then, that an actual situation like that in the first "House of Childhood" at Rome is the only situation in which the Montessori principle of liberty can justifiably find full application?
Evidently the Roman school is a true Republic of Childhood, in which nothing need take precedence of the child's claim to pursue an active purpose of his own.
Social restraints are here reduced to a minimum; the children must, to be sure, subordinate individual caprice to the demands of the common good, they are not allowed to quarrel or to interfere with each other, and they have duties to perform at stated times; but each child is a citizen in a community governed wholly in the interests of the equally privileged members thereof, his liberty is rarely interfered with, he is free to carry out his own purposes, and he has as much influence in the affairs of the commonwealth as the average member of an adult democracy.
Children must come to dinner at dinner time, even if continued digging in the sand would be more to their liking or better for their general development of muscle, mind, or will.
It is possible, of course, to refine on the theory of the child's membership in the family community and of the right of elders to command, but practically it remains true that the common conditions of family life prohibit any such freedom as is exercised in a Montessori school.
In the same way a school of large enrollment that elects to cover in a given time so much work that individual initiative cannot be trusted to compass it, is forced to teach certain things at nine o'clock and others at ten, and to teach in groups; and the individual whose life is thus cabined and confined must get what he can. For a given school the obvious question is, Considering the work to be done in the time allowed, can we give up the safeguards of a fixed programme and group teaching?
The deeper question lies here: Is the work to be done in itself so important that it is worth while to have the children go through it under compulsion or on interest induced by the teacher?
Or to put it another way: May not the work be so much less important than the child's freedom that we had better trust to native curiosity and cleverly devised materials anyway and run the risk of his losing part of the work, or even the whole of it? For schools beyond the primary grade there will be no doubt as to the answer to this question. Even if complete liberty of individual action were possible in schools of higher grade, it is not certain that it would be desirable: for we must learn to take up many of our purposes in life under social imperative.
But with young children the question becomes more difficult. What work do we wish to make sure that each child does?