تأملی بر الگوهای برنامه‌درسی مونته سوری، والدورف و بانک استریت در سه محور؛ عاملیت کودک، ارزشیابی و محیط یادگیری.

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

10.22034/tpcj.2023.190220

چکیده

هدف مقاله حاضر، بررسی الگوهای مونته سوری، والدورف، و بانک استریت در سه محور؛ نگاه به کودک و عاملیت او، ارزشیابی کودکان، و کیفیت محیط آموزشی، با استفاده از روش توصیفی و تحلیل محتوای کیفی است. یافته‌های این تحقیق در محور نخست در هر سه الگو بیانگر منحصربه‌فردبودن، توانمندی، عاملیت، و شایستگی کودک در ساخت و انتقال معانی، تأکید بر شنیدن صدای کودک و تعقیب آن توسط مربیان و بزرگسالان، توجه نسبی به صلاحیت کودکان جهت تصمیم‌گیری و اقدام در امور مربوط به خودشان است. در محور دوم نیز تا حد قابل توجهی به رفاه کودک و نیز مشارکت فعال وی در نظارت بر یادگیری خود و دستاوردهایش تأکید می‌شود و از این حیث، فرایند ارزشیابی در راستای توسعه حس عاملیت کودکان قراردارد. طبق محورم سوم نیز  محیط عنصری کلیدی در کیفیت رشد و یادگیری کودکان، و تا حدودی در راستای توسعه حس عاملیت کودکان قراردارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A reflection on the Montessori, Waldorf, and Bank Street curriculum patterns in three areas; Child agency, assessment and learning environment

نویسنده [English]

  • Masume Kiyani
Bu-Ali Sina University
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this paper is to examine the patterns of Montessori, Waldorf, and Bank Street in three axes; the type of view of the child and his / her agency, children's evaluation, and the quality of the educational environment using descriptive methods and qualitative content analysis. Findings of this research in the first axis in all three models indicate the uniqueness, ability, agency, and competence of the child in constructing and transmitting meanings, emphasizing hearing the child's voice and following it by educators and adults. The second axis also emphasizes the child's well-being and her active participation in monitoring her learning and achievements, and in this regard, the evaluation process is aimed at developing children's sense of agency. According to the third axis, the environment is a key element in the quality of children's development and learning, and to some extent in the development of children's sense of agency.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • child agency
  • assessment
  • educational environment
  • preschool curriculum patterns
شکوهی ، غلامحسین. (1380). مبانی و اصول آموزش و پرورش. مشهد: انتشارات آستان قدس رضوی . چاپ سیزدهم
مهرمحمدی، محمود و همکاران (1391). برنامه درسی: نظرگاه‌ها، رویکردها و چشم‌اندازها، چاپ ششم، انتشارات سمت: تهران.
مفیدی، فرخنده. (1383). آشنایی با لوسی اسپراگ میشل، بنیانگذار رویکرد بانک استریت. مجله رشد آموزش پیش‌دبستانی، 2: 2.
Ballet J, Biggeri, M., and Comim, F. (2011) Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In: Biggeri M, Ballet J and Comim F (eds) Children and the Capability Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 22–45.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26.
Bank Street College of education, 2021a, retrieved from: https://www.bankstreet.edu/about-bank-street/our-approach/
Borg, F. Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2022): Preschool children’s agency in education for sustainability: the case of Sweden. European early childhood education research journal, 30 (1): 147-163.
Buzelli, C. A. (2018). The moral dimensions of assessment in early childhood education, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(2): 154–166.
Campbell, C. and Speldewinde, C. (2022). Early Childhood STEM Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3524. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14063524. PP: 1-11.
Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text-childrens-version.
Charteris, J. (2015). Learner agency and assessment for learning in a regional New Zealand high school. Australian and international journal of rural education, 2 (25): 2-13.
Colgan, A. D. (2016). The epistemology behind the educational philosophy of Montessori: senses, concepts, and choice. Philosophical inquiry in education, 23 (2): pp. 125–140.
Dahlin, B. (2017). Rudolf Steiner The Relevance of Waldorf Education. Switzerland, Springer.
Dan, A., & Simon, E. (2016). Teach me how to be a kindergarten teacher: expectations of kindergarten student teachers from their mentor kindergarten teachers. Creative Education, 7, 1375-1381. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.710142
Day, C. & Midbjer, A. (2007). Environment and children; passive lessons from the everyday environment. Published by Elsevier Ltd. UK.
Edwards, C. P. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Faculty publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies. 2. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/2.
Giuseppe, B. (2020) Steiner Education: freedom, spirituality and creativity. PhD thesis. University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/81642/
Goldshmidt, G. (2017). Waldorf Education as Spiritual Education. Journal of Religion and Education, 44(3), 346–363.
Gordon, M., & Browne, K. W. (2011). Foundations in early childhood education. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. USA.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hunter, Sh. (2020). Agency and Sovereignty: Georges Bataille's Anti-Humanist Conception of Child. Journal of philosophy of education, 54 (5): 1186- 1200.
James, A., & Prout, A. (2007). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. Second edition, Falmer Press, London • Washington, D.C.
Jobb, C. (2019). Power, space, and place in early childhood education. The Canadian journal of sociology, 44 (3): 211-232.
Knauf, H. (2019). Visual environmental scale: analysing the early childhood education. Early childhood education journa, 47: 43-51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0914-x.
Lillard, A. S. & McHugh, V. (2019). Authentic Montessori: The Dottoressa’s view at the end of her life part II: The teacher and the child. Journal of Montessori research, 5 (1): 19-34. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9697-6611.
Lillard, A. S. (2017). Preschool children's development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3): 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
Mallett, J. D., & Schroeder, J. L. (2015). Academic achievement outcomes: A comparison of Montessori and non-Montessori public elementary school students. Journal of Elementary Education, 25(1), 39-53.
Marshall, Chloë (2017). Montessori education: a review of the evidence base. Nature partner journals science of learning, 2: 11, pp. 1-9.
Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. The Theosophicah Publishing House, India.
Montessori, M. (2017). The Montessori methhod. With an introduction by J. M.cV. Hunt and a new introduction by Jaan Valslner, Rutledge.
Murray, J. (2019). Hearing young children’s voices, International journal of early years education, 27:1, 1-5, Doi: 10.1080/09669760.2018.1563352.
Nager, N., & Shapiro, E. (2007). A Progressive approach to the education of teachers: Some principles from Bank Street College of Education. Occasional paper series, 2007 (18). Retrieved from https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2007/iss18/1
Park, S. & Lit, I. (2015). Learning to play, playing to learn: The Bank Street developmental-interaction approach in Liliana’s kindergarten classroom. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Pufall, P. B., & Unsworth, R. P. (2004). The imperative and the process for rethinking childhood. In rethinking childhood. P. B. Pufall & R. P. Unsworth (Eds.). New Brunswick, Canada: Rutgers University Press, 1-21.
Raithelhuber, E. (2016). Extending Agency. The merit of relational approaches for childhood studies. In book: Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies (pp.89–101)Edition: 1, Chapter: 6, Publisher: Routledge