Theory and Practice in the Curriculum

Theory and Practice in the Curriculum

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

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Bu-Ali Sina University
10.22034/tpcj.2023.190220
Abstract
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.
 
 
Keywords

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