You may learn to imitate a birdcall, but do you experience what the nightingale feels for the rose (Rumi, Persian Aref and Poet).
A Critique on Montessori pedagogy by Masud Niati
The pedagogy of Montessori (1870-1952) needs to be discussed both in a parallel to a priori practical tool-based approach to the world, which is called la vie sensorielle (the sensorial life) and as again autonomy formation in child. Although each of the knowledge categories such as mathematics, language teaching, music, and geography is better to be scrutinized separately in Montessori pedagogy, the framework of her work will be examined in this article. Before going to the veins of this article, it would be much better to draw an epistemological view on Monetssori’s view on education.
Basically, Dr. Montessori worked on three categories of practical life, sensorial dimension of learning, and values such as autonomy, concentration and so forth (D’esclaibes, 2018). Her totally practical approach also works with science topics as well, including how to teach mathematics, grammar in language, and botany in a age-related classification conduct. This classification of age-related topics is divided into three age groups of; 3-6; 6-9; 6-12. First, The framework of practical life drawn by Montessori is in direct relation to adults-made objects but in a short-sized length and wide, classrooms, Nido, chairs are constructed in a child-proportion style, there are chairs, tables, mirror but in a size suitable for children of different age. The nido is a simulacrum of a priori knowledge of the past. Children are invited to follow the step-by-step integration to the world of adults but without prejudice, labelling them as unintelligent. The point that can be pinned here is the imitation. One can simply raise the question that does a child imitate the concrete steps which are given by Montessori teacher and master a skill or on the contrary there is the learning which takes place in a child mind? Instead they are respected, feel liberated to do the activity performed by a Montessori teacher as many times until they master the activity. Isn’t an invitation to stop thinking and follow the path we did as much as you like, until you as a child, stop daydreaming and coming up with your own Nido.
For downloading the whole article, contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Existential pedagogy and some questions
Heideggar believes that everyone is special therefore he or she should have a special way toward his or her life and existence. If we justify and then empirically accept his theorem of differential speciality, logically there should be a great number of special structures of educating pupils. The possibilities of realising these differentiations based on specialities require a broad potentiality of curriculum outline. It seems that realising this form of knowledge for a vast and specialist, in its existential repertoire, needs a very different approach to educational structures and also curriculum development. A redefinition of curriculum may be called into discussion. The most fundamental conflict between national ‘collectivity -based educational systems ‘ and existentially differential specialities’ may be related to the problem of administrative control which tends to manage, track and transfer the knowledge in a stable way. The further conflict will be of destabilising nature of subjectivity. Managerial structures, no matter how flexible they are or could be in chaotic situations, do not desire for a repetitive destability. The second problem is of epistemic nature. That is to say, except art subjects, no form of scientific knowledge has been obtained in regard with educating individuals with special existential forms. there are not available transferable methods of educating adolescents in an existential way. It seems that the only word here which is in use by existentialist educationalists could be ‘freedom of choice’.
Here I would like to put forward several question in terms of possible realising of existential specialities:
How may we understand the speciality of every individual or pupil before he or she could choose and make an educational edifice for themselves ? For example, as a totally empirical data taken from neuroscience and enfants’ genome analysis which could be used to track and figure out the future speciality of learners. Is it possible to configure more specialised curriculums with reductive categories of existential differences? This reductive categorization could be in a way similar to the fields of knowledge such as physics, chemistry and so on. That is to say, a form of curriculum in regard to widely different and reductively categorised existences. The categorised forms of existential specialities may be realised by phenomenology of knowledge and epistemology? Could we say that speciality has nothing to do with verified forms of episteme and life interpretation is only a philosophical folklore?
Sensory sources of experience are in action nearly for every one, so there would not need to have a many interpretive methodology of educating pupils?