| Author | |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 15 2013 at 5:41pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
This is kind of a spin-off of the "Montessori & traditional classical education" thread. I thought it would be best to start a new thread to explore the differences and similarities between the Montessori and Jesuit approaches to language arts, and to share resources for learning more about them.
Here are a couple of free e-books that I've found especially helpful.
The Advanced Montessori Method, Volume 2 -- Maria Montessori (1917)
Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice -- Fr. Francis Patrick Donnelly, SJ (1934)
They might be a good starting point for discussion. Or you can do with them what you will. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SeaStar
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 16 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9068
|
| Posted: Oct 16 2013 at 11:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for these links, Eleanor! I have them marked to read through.
It is great to have you back 
__________________
Melinda, mom to ds ('02) and dd ('04)
SQUILT Music Appreciation
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Nov 18 2013 at 1:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor, I have been thinking over your post, and I hope to come back to it soon!
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Nov 19 2013 at 2:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I read Fr Donnelly's book but it was a while ago. I haven't read the Montessori one, and it's harder to summon up the motivation now that I don't have preschoolers in the home.
I am wondering if there isn't a distinct difference in the goals of an Ignatian compared to a Montessorian education. (I don't know enough about it to answer -- I'm just raising the question for those who know more about it than I do).
I looked around online for statements of the goal of MOntessori education. I was looking for her words, since obviously Montessori school philosophy sites are everywhere.
Quote:
| “Scientific observation then has established that education is not what the teacher gives; education is a natural process spontaneously carried out by the human individual, and is acquired not by listening to words but by experiences upon the environment.” |
|
|
All the Church teachings I have read would agree that education is not what the teacher gives. Certainly Ignatius would agree, with his strong emphasis on Self-Activity.
The second part seems distinctly different from the Ignatian goal of "eloquentia perfecta" or the human who can "think, speak and act well."
Not contradictory, necessarily, but distinct.
Montessori and Ignatian/Jesuit education are both very practically oriented. Montessori in particular seems to approach education quite inductively. She watched the children very carefully. She seemed to want the children to primarily interact with the world around them.
The Ratio Studiorum was set up for primarily secondary and college education. Though they were not opposed to learning from inductive experience, this was definitely not their main focus. They focused on language and literature.... basically, on the word.
I think part of this could be that the word, to tiny children, needs to be based on lived experience. So because Montessori was working with young, delayed children she was emphasizing that aspect of it, while Ignatius, working with teenagers who already firmly grasped the basics, would be looking at the next step.
Both methods desired to raise students who were individuals. I think you could argue, as James Taylor does in Poetic Knowledge, that plentiful experience with "real things" is an essential precursor to literary and language studies. However, I think he would go more the Charlotte Mason route of outdoor life and handicrafts than towards the more prepared environment of Montessori.
Just some thoughts. I have found some modified Montessori methods very useful for my delayed son. He needs that input from touchable things back to his sensory system in order to learn concepts.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Nov 19 2013 at 11:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was reading this pdf Practical Ignatian Pedagogy this morning.
It is modern, not traditional. I am not sure how helpful it would be in understanding classical Ignatian education. However, what I wanted to draw your attention to is on page 11, where the article summarizes Ignatian pedagogy in three main points:
Experience
Reflection
Action
This to me seems something not unlike Montessori's methods (remember, I am no expert on Montessori, so please correct if I am off base).
A child experiences through his hands and senses.
While experiencing, he or she is reflecting, because that is how the materials are set up.
Once the child has assimilated the knowledge through the senses (say, the properties of shapes?) he or she is able to act on them, that is, use the knowledge for building further knowledge.
There is a contemplation in action here. The action is not just for itself but is to induce thoughtfulness in the child, a kind of assimilation into himself of the experience of his senses.
This is analogical to what St Ignatius strove to achieve in the retreatant in his Spiritual Exercises, I believe.
Experience -- Reflection -- Action is a paradigm based on the Spiritual Exercises, I think. St Ignatius calls you to meditate on scriptural passages using all your senses. You are supposed to picture the setting, picture the events going on. Then you reflect or contemplate, meditate. Then you work it out into your own life.
That could point to a similarity I had not seen before. The Ignatian method places great stock in "self-activity", as I think I mentioned. The teacher was not supposed to overpower the students with a piling up of information, of words. Rather, the teacher was supposed to do what it took to get the student thinking and acting for himself. This is the very essence of Montessori's focus, if I understand correctly. Everything is set up so the child is not dependent upon the teacher making the connections.
Anyway, just musing aloud.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CatholicMommy
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2007
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Nov 21 2013 at 12:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have not read the Jesuit book - but wanted to point out that the Montessori book listed above is specifically for the lower elementary level (ie it would not be appropriate to use for preschool/kindergarten). Montessori "changes" across the ages to accomodate the child's development at any particular moment in time. What remains the same are: focus on the essential keys; freedom and responsibility in balance; respect for the individual child and the universal child within.
__________________
Garden of Francis
HS Elementary Montessori Training
Montessori Nuggets
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Dec 02 2013 at 3:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I keep trying to come back to this thread, but get called away before finding a way to put my thoughts into words.
Willa, you've expressed one of the connections that's been floating around in my mind -- but much more clearly than the garbled way I would have put it.
BTW, Montessori's elementary students, as described in the book, were in the 6-12 age range, and students at Jesuit colleges were around 10-18 (as they are in some present-day European classical schools). So there's a bit of overlap in the ages. It's not a situation of tiny children on the one hand, and great big burly men on the other.  But I agree that they're aiming at different stages, and probably also at different genders and circumstances (education for a small number of privileged men, vs. education for all children).
To me, the similarities are more "behind the scenes." One of the deepest ones is in the use of models. The artifacts (whether physical items, or books) are of the highest possible quality, and have been worked with by generations of students. Cicero is kind of the Jesuit version of the pink tower, I guess. But the teacher is by far the most influential model. And because of this, the teacher's spiritual preparation is held to be the most important part of the entire method.
In their complete form, both systems of pedagogy are also traditional arts. That is, to use Michael Polanyi's phrase, they involve the handing on of "tacit knowledge." The teacher has to have personally experienced the whole curriculum, as taught by a master. I didn't really grasp this until I had the chance to do some in-person training in CGS, and also in another educational method. In both cases, my understanding was completely different after working face to face with the trainer, even though I'd read a lot about these methods beforehand. Looking at my notes, there didn't seem to be that many "new" things in the training, or at least not that I could express in words. The change was more within me. "We know more than we can tell," as Polanyi says.
Both methods are also profoundly relational in practice, not just in the training. The teacher's love for the students is essential. This is another thing I didn't understand about Montessori in the beginning. It doesn't help that some of the AMI and AMS teachers I've met in real life seemed kind of cold and maybe even a bit arrogant -- not what I'd think of as spiritually prepared. And perhaps the same might be true of some of the Jesuits. But the ideal is still there, and I think it's often achieved.
I read somewhere that visitors to Jesuit classical schools were most powerfully struck by the deep affection between the teacher and the students. I think this was somewhere in Father Donnelly's writings. (Or was it in one of Father Finn's books?  )
One more similarity: the language arts aren't just studied as an academic thing, or for personal growth and fulfillment. They're ordered toward doing good in the world. As such, both types of schools teach the use of a variety of literary forms, and the students have opportunities to work with modern communications media. Oral language is also valued highly -- see the section on reading in the Montessori book, for instance.
That's all I can think of for now, and I have to get to sleep, but I'd love to discuss this more.
My sense is that these things they have in common are fundamental truths about the "hows" and "whys" of education. They've accessed them via different paths, and applied them in different circumstances, but the reality behind them is still the same.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Topic: Montessori and Jesuit language arts
