Academic Scientific JournalsSymbolic inversion in the narratives of Montessori practitioners - additions to "The Discursive Construction of the Subject"
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26881/ae.2023.20.10Keywords:
Montessori pedagogy, symbolic inversion, Szkudlarek, research reportAbstract
In the presented article, which is a part of a larger research project, the author analyses fragments of narrations of Montessori female teachers (working in Polish institutions of this type) concerning the issue of childhood and treating the symbolic inversion present in their statements. Using the procedure of phenomenography and the tools of critical discourse analysis, the author poses research questions about what undergoes semantic inversion in Montessori pedagogy and which aspects of its functioning remain unchanged. Thus, the aim of the research is to identify and describe inverted and unchanged aspects of education at the preschool level. The aim of the research and the procedure defined in this way lead to the creation of an interesting object of cognition. In the narratives of Montessori female educators, some methodological, organisational and communicative solutions are symbolically inverted, but the distribution of power in education and its fundamental purpose is relatively constant. The results of the study also show that the category of symbolic inversion has its limitations, especially when there is a shift of emphasis rather than an inversion of order.
Downloads
References
Andrisano Ruggieri, Ruggero, Anna Iervolino, PierGiorgio Mossi, Emanuela Santoro, i Giovanni Boccia. 2020. „Instability of Personality Traits of Teachers in Risk Conditions Due to Work-Related Stress”. Behavioral Sciences 10 (5): 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10050091.
Aziz, Fakhra, i Uzma Quraishi. 2017. „Effects of Political Instability on Teachers’ Work Decorum in Pakistani Universities: A Teachers’ Perspective”. Pakistan Vision 18 (1).
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2016. „My” bez „onych”. Więź 59 (666): 165–68.
Bavli, Bünyamin, i Hatice Uslu Kocabaş. 2022. „The Montessori Educational Method: Communication and Collaboration of Teachers with the Child”. Participatory Educational Research 9 (1): 443–62. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.24.9.1.
Beatty, Barbara. 2011. „The Dilemma of Scripted Instruction: Comparing Teacher Autonomy, Fidelity, and Resistance in the Froebelian Kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All”. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 113 (3): 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300305.
Berg, Maggie, Barbara K. Seeber, i Stefan Collini. 2017. The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Reprinted in paperback. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, i Pierre Bourdieu. 2008. The Logic of Practice. Reprinted. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press.
Cackowska, Małgorzata. 2012. „Dzieciństwo”. W Dyskursywna konstrukcja podmiotu: przyczynek do rekonstrukcji pedagogiki kultury, 3:37–95. Ars Educandi Monografie. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Cackowska, Małgorzata, Lucyna Kopciewicz, Lucyna, Mirosław Patalon, Mirosław, Piotr Stańczyk, Karolina Starego, i Tomasz Szkudlarek. 2012. Dyskursywna konstrukcja podmiotu: przyczynek do rekonstrukcji pedagogiki kultury. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Christensen, Olivia. 2016. „Proving Montessori: Identity and Dilemmas in a Montessori Teacher’s Lived Experience”. Journal of Montessori Research 2 (2): 35. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i2.5067.
———. 2019. „Montessori Identity in Dialogue: A Selected Review of Literature on Teacher Identity.” Journal of Montessori Research 5 (2): 45–56.
Chutorański, Maksymilian. 2015. „Urządzenie (edukacyjne): sieci, dyskursy, ludzie, nie-ludzie”. Teraźniejszość–Człowiek–Edukacja 18 (4 (72): 7–21.
Damore, Sharon, i Barbara Rieckhof. 2021. „Leading Reflective Practices in Montessori Schools.” Journal of Montessori Research 7 (1): 51–65.
Davis, Natalie Zemon, Barbara A Babcock, i Victor L Turner. 1978. „The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society”.
Dilshad, Mehroz Nida. 2017. „Learning theories: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism”. International Education and Research Journal 3 (9): 64–66.
Dodd-Nufrio, Arleen Theresa. 2011. „Reggio Emilia, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey: Dispelling teachers’ misconceptions and understanding theoretical foundations”. Early Childhood Education Journal 39: 235–37.
Efe, Mehtap, i Ilkay Ulutas. 2022. „Beyond teaching: Montessori education initiatives of public preschool teachers in Turkey”. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 21 (3): 375–88.
Ender, Devrim, i Deniz Ozcan. 2019. „Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Teachers on Using the Montessori Method in Special Education in North Cyprus.” Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences 14 (4): 652–60.
Feez, Susan. 2023. „Perceiving, labelling and knowing: Mediating educational meanings through multimodal dialogue in Montessori early years classrooms”. W Dialogic Pedagogy, 35–51. Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. 2015. „Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin”. Environmental humanities 6 (1): 159–65.
Jackson, Rebecca LW. 2011. The Montessori Method’s Use of Seguin’s Three-Period Lesson and Its Impact on the Book Choices and Word Learning of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Columbia University.
Klus-Stańska, D. 2007. „Behawiorystyczne źródła myślenia o nauczaniu, czyli siedem grzechów głównych wczesnej edukacji,[w:] Wczesna edukacja”. Między schematem a poszukiwaniem nowych ujęć teoretyczno-badawczych, 15–28.
———. 2008. „Mitologia transmisji wiedzy, czyli o konieczności szukania alternatyw dla szkoły, która amputuje rozum”. Problemy Wczesnej Edukacji 2 (8): 35–45.
Klus-Stańska, Dorota. 2004. Światy dziecięcych znaczeń. Wydaw. Akademickie" Żak".
———. 2012a. Konstruowanie wiedzy w szkole. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego.
———. 2012b. „Wiedza, która zniewala–transmisyjne tradycje w szkolnej edukacji”. W , 24:21–40. University of Lower Silesia.
Komeński, Jan Amos. 1956. „Wielka dydaktyka”. Tłum. K. Remerowa, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN.
Kosowska, Ewa. 2018. „Instytucja kulturalna a tożsamość narodowa”. W Palimpsest. Miejsca i przestrzenie, 119–30. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Kubicka-Kraszyńska, Urszula. b.d. „Dzieci w rodzinie”. W .
Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews: an introduction to qualitive research interviewing. Sage.
Laasch, Oliver. 2017. „The slow professor: challenging the culture of speed in the academy, by Maggie Berg and Barbara K. Seeber”.
Lakoff, George, i Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Larrow, Peter. 2009. „Three Period Montessori Teacher Education”. Montessori Life 21 (4): 10.
Łaciak, Beata, red. 2013. Dzieciństwo we współczesnej Polsce: charakter przemian. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Żak Jacek Śnieciński.
Magda-Adamowicz, Marzenna, i Ewa Kowalska, red. 2020. Dziecko i dzieciństwo w badaniach pedagogicznych. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Malm, Birgitte. 2004. „Constructing professional identities: Montessori teachers’ voices and visions”. Scandinavian journal of educational research 48 (4): 397–412.
Martön, F. 1986. „Phenomenography–a research approach to investigating different understanding of reality”. Journal of Thought 21 (3): 28–49.
McLaren, Peter L. 1985. „The Ritual Dimensions of Resistance: Clowning and Symbolic Inversion”. Journal of Education 167 (2): 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748516700208.
Mendel, M. 2006. „Przekraczanie progu szkoły jako «rite de passage», w: Pedagogika miejsca, red”. M. Mendel, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Dolnośląskiej Szkoły Wyższej Edukacji TWP we Wrocławiu, Wrocław, 180–88.
Montessori, Maria. 2013. The montessori method. Transaction publishers.
Räber, Michael. 2023. „Whose time is it? Rancière on taking time, unproductive doing and democratic emancipation”. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 01914537221150457.
Rancière, Jacques. 2013. „In what time do we live?” Política común 4.
———. 2015. Béla Tarr, the time after. U of Minnesota Press.
Rathunde, Kevin, i Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2005. „The social context of middle school: Teachers, friends, and activities in Montessori and traditional school environments”. The elementary school journal 106 (1): 59–79.
Richardson, John T. E. 1999. „The Concepts and Methods of Phenomenographic Research”. Review of Educational Research 69 (1): 53–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001053.
Rosa, Hartmut, Jakub Duraj, i Jacek Kołtan. 2020. Przyspieszenie, wyobcowanie, rezonans: projekt krytycznej teorii późnonowoczesnej czasowości. Wydanie pierwsze. Idea Solidarności. Teoria Społeczna. Gdańsk: Europejskie Centrum Solidarności.
Siswanto, Indira Lusianingtyas, i Paulus Kuswandono. 2020. „Understanding Teacher Identity Construction: Professional Experiences of Becoming Indonesian Montessori Teachers”. IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) 5 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v5i1.539.
Slovacek, Matej, i Monika Minova. 2021. „Training of undergraduate preschool teachers in Montessori education in Slovakia and the Czech Republic”. Research in Pedagogy 11 (1): 137–50.
Smolińska-Theiss, Barbara. 2000. „Dzieciństwo w Polsce”. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny 183 (3–4): 3–27.
Szkudlarek, Tomasz. 1992. „McLaren i Agata: o pewnej możliwości interpretacji rytualnego oporu przeciwko szkole”. W Nieobecne Dyskursy, 2:45–51. NIeobecne Dyskursy. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu.
———. 2023. „Discourse: Education, Theory of Politics, and Politics of Theory”. Przegląd Badań Edukacyjnych 2 (40): 7–27. https://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2022.016.
Śliwerski, Bogusław. 2007. Pedagogika dziecka: studium pajdocentryzmu. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Vlieghe, Joris, i Piotr Zamojski. 2019. Towards an ontology of teaching. Springer.
Vlieghe, Joris, Piotr Zamojski. 2019. „Education for Education’s Sake: The Idea of a Thing-Centred Pedagogy”. Towards an Ontology of Teaching: Thing-centred Pedagogy, Affirmation and Love for the World, 11–28.
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich, i Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
