Dr. Maria Montessori developed a rich and broad cultural curriculum based on the perspective and needs of the child. The 6-9 cultural environment serves the child in their second plane of development, childhood, by targeting their sensitive periods for cosmic order, moral order, analytical thinking, and social peer or herding association (McDermott, 2011). The Montessori cultural curriculum effectively serves the 6-9-year-old child by employing Cosmic Education with impressionistic stories about the integration and interdependence of the universe, which fulfill and exceed developmentally appropriate standards.
Cosmic Education is that holistic lens under which students learn to synthesize vast knowledge and find universal connection in all things (Wells, 2018). Furthermore, Cosmic Education is telling the origin story of all things. It is answering the child’s innate desire to know the answers to questions of, “who am I?,” “where do I come from?,” and “where am I going?” (Blackford, 2018). Montessori differs from traditional education both in that the Montessori sequence fades from broad conceptualizations of the universe and the cosmos inwards towards examining the student in their universal context, rather than from a micro to macro scope and sequence, as well as seeking “to make students consciously aware of the fundamental unity of the entire universe” (Duffy & Duffy, 2014, p. 136). Furthermore, “facts are of less interest to the child than the way in which those facts have been discovered, and so children may be led to the history of human achievement, in which they want to take their part” (Montessori, 1989, p. 62). As children recognize their place in the universe and begin building themselves up in that context, Michael and D’Neil Duffy (2014) believe that the function of Cosmic Education is to help children bring about a better future: As we gaze into the future, exciting and alarming at the same time, we are faced with accepting responsibility for shaping that future. Our children have the opportunity of becoming conscious of the fundamental unity of humans, life, and the vast reaches of the universe. Only with this consciousness can they create a world that is peaceful for all human beings, as well as respectful of our place in the spectrum of living species and, ultimately, our place in the universe. Cosmic Education can prepare children to accept each challenge and make the wise choices that will persevere and advance the process of evolution (p. 137-138). In the introduction of concepts, didactic materials are used to build up a mental image; however, like a plane which begins rooted on the ground to build up potential, imagination is that force which lifts the child from concrete to abstract thoughts. Dr. Montessori discovered that “children show a great attachment to the abstract subjects when they arrive at them through manual activity” (Montessori, 1989, p. 13). The first plane of development prepares for the cosmic plane which follows (McDermott, 2011). The human character is prepared here, and "the cosmic ‘subject’ in the Casa dei Bambini is the ecology of the person and concerns, above all else, the interior dimension of the human being, whereas elementary, the cosmic "subject," is the ecology of the world and this concerns the exterior dimension of the being" (Grazzini, 1997, p. 40). Just as the physical environment of the classroom has developed the freedom of the child, the cosmos at large is constantly encoding the child with knowledge of the universal patterns of interdependence, bringing up humanity as a thread in the one-ness of all creation. On this note, Dr. Montessori asserts that “the point and the sphere touched the imagination of the younger child, leaving him full of enthusiasm for something beyond his former limits, belonging not to the physical environment, which is not possible to be grasped by the hand … imaginative vision is quite different from mere perception of an object, for it has no limits” (Montessori, 1989, p. 15). This is essential when building up comprehension of non-tangible content, such as ancient civilizations, far off planets, or microscopic organisms. Wikramaratne, a student of Dr. Montessori, discussed her time working with 11 and 12-year olds on Botany using the method of Cosmic Education. She prepared them with the sensorial orientation of the objects "so the children saw the differences before we showed them how culture has classified them," freeing the child from the rigid definitions which stand in the way of children attaching new knowledge to what is already known (Kahn, 2013, p. 89). This relates to the political and geographical maps. First, we introduce the geographic reality, then the man-made dividers. We are teaching geography on the surface, but we are exposing children to the idea that humans made choices which affect the way we perceive the world, and a new perception can be accepted, freeing the child from biases. Children are particularly attuned to stories. Cosmic Education includes 5 Great Lessons, including the Story of the Universe, the Story of Life, the Story of Humans, the Story of Language, and the Story of Numbers. Rather than impart memorization or regurgitation, “our aim therefore is not merely to make the child understand, and still less to force him to memorize, but so to touch his imagination as to enthuse him to his inmost core” (Montessori, 1989, p. 16). Storytelling does precisely that; “by offering the child the story of the universe, we give him something a thousand times more infinite and mysterious to reconstruct with his imagination, a drama no fable can reveal” (Montessori, 1989, p. 17). These stories ignite the imagination of children which scaffolds between the concrete and the hypothetical. These impressionistic stories, along with their corresponding beautiful charts and engaging experiments, build up meaningful neurological pathways on which to build up knowledge. These stories are the umbrella under which the rest of the cultural curriculum hangs, an essential backbone of the Montessori cultural environment. The impressions often entice children who may feel less attached to other subjects, and as a result, serve as a perfect trampoline for launching cultural works into making meaningful connections to various other content areas. The cultural curriculum is integrated into all subjects so as to live out the Cosmic Education belief system of interconnectedness (Wells, 2018). As a doctor, Maria Montessori saw science everywhere, and she tucked it into many subjects. Just as “Cosmic Education attempts to establish the oneness of all living things with the Timeline of Life and all the biology presentations found within the Montessori curriculum,” Montessori intentionally structures the classroom to reflect curricular mutuality (Duffy & Duffy, 2014, p. 136). Notably, language materials can be made relevant to cultural studies, such as identifying parts of speech within sentence construction wherein the sentences discuss the cultural topic. The integration of all subjects is essential, but according to 9-12 Montessori educator Lisa Blackford, art and research elements smoothly blend together. She argued that due to the impressionistic age of stories and the importance of story-telling, there is a perfect opportunity provided to connect phonics to invoke creativity. Furthermore, children are sensitive to large numbers at this age (Montessori, 1989, p. 87). Integrating understanding what those large numbers look like in bead chains, such as when describing years or quantities of matter, leaves a powerful impression on students. This classroom unification builds up a physical reality which sculpts our students’ mental images. Due to this breadth and depth, rigid constraints cannot hold our Montessori cultural curriculum. Reviewing, reteaching, and going deeper than necessary is precisely what makes Montessori work. Translated into quantification, the Montessori cultural curriculum may appear erratic and ineffective, nonsequential at best. Montessori cultural curricula reach higher academic standards than traditionally taught to any given grade. In addition to being siloed based on content, limiting integration, the three-year cycle is left unimagined by the Ohio Content Standards for educators. For example, the word galaxy is not even mentioned until 7th grade in Ohio's Learning Standards and Model Curriculum for Science, Earth and Space Science (ESS): Cycles and Patterns of Earth and the Moon. However, in works such as the Cosmic Nesting Boxes, the galaxy we live in is the foundational context of the lesson and the child’s universal positioning (History, 2019), (Ohio Department of Education, 2011). We trust our students with more and know that “we must offer grand and lofty ideas to the human mind, which we find ever ready to receive them, demanding more and more” (Montessori, 1989, p. 16). Furthermore, following the suggested order and sequence found in the back of Children of the Universe by Duffy & Duffy would suggest bouncing from grade to grade, pulling standards in an order which is not supported by the Ohio Department of Education. However, as a Montessori educator, it is necessary to remain unflinchingly dedicated to our pedagogy and to justify our standards by explaining that the concentric rings of cycles in our schools hit all the same destinations, even if it appears from the outside that we dig 10 foot tunnels and sprint to a seemingly unrelated topic across town before even crossing the street. It is our collective duty to trust the methodology, justify it on paper, and above all else, serve the child. Montessori knew that the child desired something more after being rooted in the concrete materials from ages 3-6. She sculpted a perfect environment for the 6-9-year-old which would build up mental images of the universe. Dr. Maria Montessori argued that “at 6 years of age all items of culture are received enthusiastically, and later these seeds will expand and grow” (Montessori, 1989, p. 5). Our responsibility is to harness this human potential while they are sensitive to cultural narratives to spark that innate imagination; “once the impressionistic lessons have been given, the children are ready to pursue a subject as far as their interest will carry them” (Duffy & Duffy, 2014, p. 37). Once we tease out minimal information and show how to use materials, it is our responsibility to sit on our hands and let the cosmos whisper its majesty into the ear of the child. We must trust Cosmic Education to do what we have prepared it to do; Cosmic Education connects, prepares, and empowers the child to be a student of the universe. Resources Blackford, L. (2018). The Nature of Cosmic Education. [Powerpoint Slides]. Duffy, D., Duffy, M. (2014). Children of the Universe. Parent Child Press. Grazzini, C. (1997). Cosmic Education at the Elementary Level and the Role of the Materials. The NAMTA Journal. 22(1). pp. 40-63. Kahn, D. (2013). The Kodaikanal Experience: Chapters 1 and 2. NAMTA Journal, 38(1), 84-96. Ohio Department of Education. (2011). Ohio's Learning Standards and Model Curriculum for Science. Earth and Space Science (ESS): Cycles and Patterns of Earth and the Moon: Grade 7. Retrieved from: http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Science/Ohios-Learning-Standards-and-MC/ScienceStandards.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US Opfer, L., Quaranta, R. Montessori Cultural Methods: History Album. (2019). Xavier University Montessori Teacher Education Program. McDermott, M. (2011). Four Planes of Development. Available from https://vimeo.com/19437369. Montessori, M. (1989). To Educate the Human Potential. Oxford: Clio. Wells, B. (2018). “Cosmic Education Content Paper.” Prepared for Lesley Roth in EDME 351.
0 Comments
![]() Last Friday morning I sat in the 3-6 classroom where I have observed all semester. I saw one 6-year-old walk herself over to the shelf and remove the movable alphabet box from the shelf, carrying it to her workspace. She had carefully prepared her rug for work and placed the box upon it. She removed the lid and began to work. I watched as her gentle small hands placed each wooden letter in a jagged row along the red yarn line that had been sewn through the rug. She proudly sprung up, looked at me with a smile broad across her face, and showed me the 5 sentences she had spontaneously constructed with hours of focus. She had spent her entire morning, a two-hour period, constructing stunning sentences like “I hav a balrena ornimant.” Her glowing pride shown through her face. The educators in the room had honored her approximations and celebrated where she was rather than intervene and superimposed their knowledge of correctness. Entirely independently the child was capable of practicing the process of sentence formation. The Montessori environment was prepared for her to carry, prepare, place, remove, and construct entirely by her own hands and without the hands of others. This is the power of the hand in conjunction with functional independence. Functional independence is the state in which an environment is fully navigable by the child, fulfilling their need for autonomy. Children learn through their senses, and the hand is the ultimate vehicle for learning in this way. The child requires an environment which allows them to navigate independently using their hand. The Montessori environment effectively serves the child through the didactic materials readily accessible to the child in the prepared environment. The hand is the primary tool for functional independence. The hand allows humans to manipulate the world around them and interact with the universe independently. A tool is only as powerful as its operator, and the empowered child makes excellent use of the hand in dominating their environment. A disempowered child is like a wilted flower who had infinite potential squelched by an inept environment. The hand is a powerful tool in the classroom. The hand scaffolds learning to abstract concepts by rooting them in a physical, manipulatable reality. If it is known that “always the child works operations in the concrete first, until the very essence of the “rule” becomes absolutely clear to him” then it is relevant to mention the key role of the hand in building up this concrete reality (Standing, 1998, p. 166). Dr. Montessori observed the child always watching and reaching to touch the world around them and created didactic materials to serve this desire. Children are forming themselves through their environment, and “when playing with this material, a child forms a visual image of the arrangement of the objects and can thus remember their quantity and order … the sense impressions obtained from these objects furnish material for the mind” (Montessori, 1967, p. 278). Not only does the hand have a unique key role unlike any other of the senses but is a part of caring for the whole child or practicing the Ignatian Value of Cura Personalis. Dr. Montessori questioned “must a man be classified either as a worker with his head or with his hands, instead of being allowed to function with his whole personality?” asserting that this would not serve the child (Montessori, 1989, p. 13). The child is a holistic being whose internal and external worlds are linked in a grand orchestra of perception on a journey towards the creation of self. Knowing that “the child’s intellect does not work in isolation but is everywhere and always intimately bound up with his body, particularly with his nervous and muscular systems” further expands upon the importance of the hand (Standing, 1998, p. 159). Ultimately, to value a child’s hand is to value the contributions they must make in this world, wholly honoring the little ones. The consequences of the hand on learning are vast and infinitely positive. The hand not only roots concepts in reality but empowers the learner to manipulate and own their intellectual worlds. Dr. Montessori discovered that “children show a great attachment to the abstract subjects when they arrive at them through manual activity” (Montessori, 1989, p. 13). Through observation of the child Dr. Montessori discovered the power of the hand as quintessential to the nature of the child. Despite the fact that “…our brains evolved in a world in which we move and do, not in a world in which we sit at desks and consider abstractions” many mainstream schools isolate portions of the child and ask children to learn in that very environment (Lilliard, 2005, p. 30). The allowance of movement, particularly of the hand beyond writing, accounts for the child’s sensitive periods for sensation and small objects. To ignore the hand is to ignore its use for reception and expression of intelligence in a powerful, non-verbal way. The hand is in this way a tool of preparation for the brain and must itself be prepared. The directress must, for example, help the child to trace the sandpaper letter with two fingers at age three so that they can hold a pencil at age 4. Just as tools require instruction, practice, and maintenance, “the hands are instruments of a man’s intelligence” and must be treated as such (Montessori, 1995, p. 37). This progressive incarnation of the child is “…building up the physical instrument which is to be used for the expression of his personality” (Standing, 1998, p. 214). This innate desire of children is not to play or indulge, “their real needs are for stimuli … to touch and handle all kinds of things … and most of those they can see they are forbidden to touch” and it is thus necessary for educators to take advantage of these driving factors (Montessori, 1995, p. 169). Children desire real objects because they are preparing for life in a real world! If ignored, “the inert child who never worked with his hands, who never had the feeling of being useful and capable of effort, who never found by experience that to live means living socially, and that to think and create means to make use of a harmony of souls; this type of child will become a selfish youth, he will be pessimistic and melancholy and will seek on the surface of vanity and compensation for a lost paradise” (Montessori, 1973, p. 89). The loss of the hand is the loss of the body mind connection. The long-term impact of capitalizing on the hand is a fully formed adult. According to Dr. Montessori, “only practical work and experience lead the young to maturity” (Montessori, 1995, p. 32). The hand as essential to functionality in adulthood must be prepared. A.M. Joosten points out in her 1971 article “The Hand in Education” for the AMI Journal The hand serves the child during the whole long struggle for ever widening conquests of ever fuller independence, until he emerges as an adult, strong, healthy, and really independent so that he can contribute to the construction of a better and more human society. (p. 53) The hand is that forgotten yet essential object of a child’s independence. Every mother remembers her child’s first steps, but few remember the stages before in which the child climbed independently using their hands and knees with the same sensation of awe. The hand grasps and clenches onto the world around the child, holding tightly onto a father’s large fingers or pulling on the hair of an unsuspecting victim. The hand will carry the child through the days of riding a bike, driving a car, signing a mortgage, and will eventually begin to deteriorate. My father, who has lost most of the control of his hands, described the feeling to me as feeling helpless and without purpose in society. The hand is built up as the great tool of contribution, and the loss of the hand is closely linked to a loss of independence. In this way the two are inextricably linked. The hand connects to functional independence in a very real way. Being that the hand is the apparatus for directing the environment and all elements within it, as the child develops a new relationship to the environment so does the functionality of the hand shift and adapt. Although “…in the first stage the child absorbed the world through his unconscious intelligence, merely by being moved about in it, now he takes it in consciously, using his hands” (Standing, 1998, p. 112). The hand enables the child to master their environment. The child’s manipulation of the prepared environment by means of the hands provide the child with functional independence and a sense of autonomy. Ludick said about children in “The Work of The Hand” for a 2013 NAMTA Journal that He is able to do exercises with his hand leading to independence and purposeful movement. The little one is cleaning, dusting, and soon laying a table. The adventures continue with trails of strength on the road toward independence and by the urging of nature to take an active role in life, in all that is going on around him. Amazingly, he is also building strength of character. (p. 94) This strength of character derived from functional independence is impossible without the solicitation of the hand. Functional independence is the state a child lives within when the environment, both social and physical, is designed to be fully accessible to them without the intervention of adults. The child is naturally inclined to learn independently, and “…the child’s nature is to aim directly and energetically at functional independence” (Montessori, 1995, p. 97). Being that it is the nature of the child to operate in this way an ideal miniature universe must be designed for them. First, the directress must prepare herself and get out of the child’s way. An ineffective teacher desires to be needed by their students, but the Montessori “teacher is satisfied when he sees them acting by themselves and making progress” (Montessori, 1936, p. 111). The environment must, however, be prepared by a skilled educator who serves as the link between the child and the materials after being informed by observation. Functional independence is achieved using the hand, but first requires the prepared environment. Dr. Montessori declared that “it is essential to prepare the environment for children, and to give them that freedom wherein the soul can expand its powers” (Montessori, 1946, p. 54). The assumption that children are naturally inclined to work and desire choice with limits informs the prepared environment. The environment offers choices at the child’s physical height which play to the developmental planes of the children in the classroom. Ludick said in “The Work of The Hand” for a 2013 NAMTA Journal that Our prepared environments are built upon the premise that the hand and the intellect are connected and vitalized by each other, that they speak to each other, and that activity, movement, work, orientation, and manipulation have critical roles to play in a Montessori education and in the formation of the centered personality. (p. 103) Building up a mental world in which children see themselves as leaders requires educators to step out of the way of children and remove the pre-supposition that the educator is the one with knowledge and children the ones without. Functional independence trains up children to see themselves as the creators of their own intellectual journeys readily capable of their own research and passions. The primary goal of Functional Independence is to prepare the child for existing in community with others as they age. Liberty in the classroom “enables the child to live as a free, independent, active member of a miniature but real society” (Standing, 1998, p. 296). The consequences of functional independence on learning and child development evolve beyond self-perception to help students build relationships. Living within this miniature society “…he uses his hands as an instrument of mannerly social behavior, another of the factors of independence” (Joosten, 1971, p. 50). If the goal of education is merely to create informed voters or to train children up as future members of the work force, traditional education will do just fine. However, if an educator is concerned with the development of the whole child, ready to interact meaningfully with the world around them, sufficiently capable of functioning at full capacity in all the requirements of adulthood, a classroom filled with practical life practice, physical objects to draw connections between broad subjects and control of error within materials which require critical thinking and problem solving skills are the cure for the craving children are begging for. All this and more are found in the Montessori classroom. Overarching all of this is the idea that these skills were not forced upon the child, but rather the child learned from the environment that they are the master of their bodies, independently capable of changing themselves and the world around them. This empowerment of the hand empowers the whole child towards autonomy! Uninhibited by a directress, a child’s sense that they are the owner and maintainer of order and functionality of their environment formulates life-long self-determination. Montessori “education has its primary aim at the discovery and freeing of the child” (Montessori, 1936, p. 110). No longer is the child expected to be confined to the chair or the knowledge within the teacher, as this is not effective. Rather, “…the child must learn by his own individual activity, being given a mental freedom to take what he needs, and not to be questioned in his choice” (Montessori, 1989, p. 7). Feeding into that inborn independence forms life-long learners. It is not a temporary gift which we give the child, but “our apparatus for educating the senses offers the child a key to guide his explorations of the world” (Montessori, 1995, p. 183). The child is naturally an explorer, and they have far too long been held back from taking in the world they desire. Control is often given the Orwellian twist ‘classroom management,’ but it is time that we uncloak this lazy and ineffective strategy for the raising of our next generation. In fact, “research in psychology suggests that more freedom and choice are linked to better psychological and learning outcomes” (Lilliard, 2005, p. 30). If children are to be the salvific gift to our world that they have the potential to be, we must step out of the way, refuse to impart our own biases and traumas, and make way for the next great explorer! The greatest skill of adulthood is resilience. Resilience is taught by providing the environment necessary for functional independence. So often adults jump in to help a child or to correct their approximations, but “to succeed by himself intensifies his efforts” (Montessori, 1995, p. 97). Rather than show the child where we believe they should go, it is essential that we step out of the way and allow the perfect inner teacher to reveal the child’s sensitivities to us, providing an independent environment where the child can fill their own needs. Fundamentally, combining the premier opportunity provided by the hand with an acute understanding of the power of Functional Independence and allowing this to inform your work as a directress creates life-long agents of change in your classroom. The expedition of the child is unfolding before our eyes; “his hands under the guidance of his intellect transform his environment and thus enable him to fulfill his mission in the world” (Montessori, 1936, p. 81). The hand, as the primary tool of the brain, is inextricably linked to functional independence. The hand facilitates the intake and expression of knowledge and human story. The story that we allow children to construct for themselves creates a powerful inner narrative. As educators, it is paramount that we create environments which physically empower children as the absorption of the environment is forming the brain. The Montessori classroom which nurtures the child’s inner desire for autonomy and mastering of the environment is missing the mark without the inclusion of the hand as essential instrument for grasping the world around them. This inclusion of the full body acts on the Jesuit Value of Cura Personalis, caring for the entire child and promoting holistic education. The result of building up a mental world for the child within which they see themselves as empowered learners is their long-term self-conceptualization as a determined and resilient learner and powerful communal leader. In short, the hand and functional independence work together beautifully in the Montessori classroom. References Standing, E. M. (1998). Maria Montessori, Her Life and Work. New York: Plume. Joosten, A.M. (1971). The Hand in Education. AMI Journal, pp. 47-53. Lilliard, A.S. (2005). Montessori: The Science behind the Genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ludick, P. (2013). The Work of the Hand. The NAMTA Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 89-107. Montessori, M., & Carter, B. B. (1936). The Secret of Childhood. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Montessori, M. (1946). Education For A New World. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company. Montessori, M. (1967) The Discovery of the Child. Notre Dame, Ind., Fides Publishers. Montessori, M. (1973). From Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Schocken Books. Montessori, M. (1989). To Educate the Human Potential. Oxford: Clio. Montessori, M. (1995). The Absorbent Mind. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. |
AuthorHi! My name is Brittany Wells, and I am a Montessori 6-9 major. I was born and raised in Cincinnati and attended Xavier University Montessori Lab School, Mercy Montessori, McAuley High School, and now Xavier University! Archives
May 2020
Categories |