Who is Maria Montessori !

         Maria Tecia Artemesia Montessori more commonly known as Maria Montessori was born August 31, 1870 in Chiaravelle in Italy to Alessandro and Renilde Montessori. Alessandro was an official of the Ministry of France while Renilde was the great-niece of Italian geologist and paleontologist Antonio Stoppani. Renilde was more educated than the women of her time and she encouraged Maria in her endeavors. Her father, on the other hand, disagreed with her choice to continue her education. Three years after she was born, her family moved to Florence and then to Rome in 1975 because of Alessandro’s work (Maria Montessori).

           Maria entered a public school in Rome in 1876 were she received certificates for good behavior in her first grade and women’s work (lavori donneschi) in her second grade. She progressed to secondary school when she was 13 and attended Regia Scuola Tecnica Michelanelo Buonarroti. Her school was a technical school and she was taught subjects like Italian, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, accounting, history, geography, and sciences. She graduated in 1886 and then entered Regio Istituto Tecnico Leonardo da Vinci where she studied Italian, mathematics, history, geography, geometric and ornate drawing, physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, and two foreign languages. Before graduating, she wanted to pursue the study of engineering but decided to go to medical school instead. She graduated in 1890 with a certificate in physics-mathematics. Her choice to study medicine was a very uncommon pursuit for a woman at that time.

         In 1890, she enrolled in the University of Rome to pursue a degree in natural sciences despite being discourage by Guido Baccelli, a professor of clinical medicine in the university. She passed all the examinations in botany, zoology, experimental physics, histology, anatomy, and general and organic chemistry. This allowed her to earn a diploma di licenza in 1892. She studied additional courses in Italian and Latin after obtaining this degree in order to be accepted into the medical program of the University of Rome. She entered the program in 1893and was harassed by her classmates because of her gender. She was required to perform her dissections when her fellow male students were not around since they deemed that a woman should not be allowed with men in a class where a naked body was present. She resorted to smoking tobacco to mask the scent of the formaldehyde she encountered during her dissections. Despite these setbacks, Maria won an academic prize in her first year of medical school. In 1895, after 2 years of study, she was able to attain a position as a hospital assistant which allowed her to gain clinical experience well before she was required to. She focused on the pediatrics and psychiatry parts of medicine and applied her knowledge as a pediatric consultant and responder in the emergency room of the hospital she worked in. She graduated as a doctor of medicine in 1896 then started working in the hospital of the University of Rome as an assistant while starting a private practice. Her thesis for her doctor of medicine degree was published a year after her graduation in the journal Policlinico.

             In the five years following her graduation, Maria studied and worked with mentally disabled children sharing and publishing her findings in local and international journals or talks. She visited asylums all over Rome after she became an assistant at the University of Rome’s psychiatric clinic in 1897. She observed all the mentally disabled children she had come across and read all kinds of work from physicians and educators such as Jean Marc Gaspard Itard and Edouard Seguin whose words caused Maria to focus on children with learning disabilities. She decided to advocate education for mentally disabled children and real all major woks on educational theory for the past two hundred years to help her in her goal. While she was doing this, she also audited the courses related to pedagogy in the University of Rome. She also spoke about societal responsibility for juvenile delinquency at the National Congress of Medicine in Turin during this time. In 1898, she spoke again in the First Pedagogical Conference of Turin to convince her fellow doctors to create special classes as well as institutions for mentally disabled children. She even proposed the creation of a teaching facility for instructors who would teach in these institutions. This, and her papers and other talks advocating education for mentally disabled children paved the way for her to become appointed as a counselor of the National League for the Protection of Retarded Children in 1899 which caused her to be invited to the teacher training school of the College of Rome to speak on the methods of education she deemed necessary to teach mentally disabled children. In 1900, Maria was appointed co-director for the Scuola Magistrate Ortofrenica, an institute designed to train teachers on how to educate mentally disabled children. She stayed with this school for two years before leaving for further studies. In 1902, she enrolled in the University of Rome to pursue a degree in philosophy where she studied the history of philosophy and its many branches. She also studied anthropology in her spare time and published and presented papers regarding pedagogy. In 1904, she was asked to become to a lecturer in the Pedagogic School at the University of Room and her lectures were printed in 1910 as a book called Pedagogical Anthropology. Throughout these years, she had been developing and refining the materials and methods she deemed would be successful in teaching mentally disabled children.

             Despite her busy life, Maria gave birth to her son Mario on March 31, 1898. He was the result of a love affair Maria had with a fellow doctor who was her co-director in the Orthophrenic School of Rome named Giuseppe Montesano. Maria refused to marry him to continue her career and studies and Giuseppe married another woman causing Maria to put her son in foster care. She would later be reunited with him and he would help her in her research in educating retarded children.

               Maria created a scientific pedagogy where she believed that educational methods should not observe and measure students but instead transform them. This gave rise to the Montessori Method named after her. This method emphasizes the need to develop a child’s natural abilities and bring about his or her own initiative in learning through the use of practical play (Maria Montessori). This method’s goal was to encourage children to embrace and love learning, at their own pace, without being forced or hurried.

           She developed her method in her first ever school for mentally disabled children in 1907 called Casa del Bambini. In this school, she observed the reactions of her students to their environment and the different activities they did throughout the day. From these observations, she came up with her educational theory that children should not be forced or motivated to learn but instead, should be allowed to discover that learning is something natural and that it is fun (Davidson Films, Inc., 2010). Her most fundamental observation was that children have a natural way of developing and learning. She decided that the role that teachers must play is to remove obstacles to this development instead of interfering or forcing a child’s development. She observed the items in her school and the environments that her students responded to and she organized the school program to revolve around these activities which the children responded positively to. Over time, she discovered that the children exhibited spontaneous discipline which was their developmental response to the surroundings that were positive to them.

           Maria Montessori’s method and philosophies have revolutionized teaching not just for mentally disabled children but also for normal children as well. They have spread throughout the world and are being applied in many schools worldwide. Her work has redefined the meaning of education for children regardless of mental ability and has shown that education is not about the words or actions a teacher does. Education is about the development of a child which occurs naturally through the child’s interactions with his or her environment.

Bibliography:

Davidson Films, Inc. (2010, June 22). Maria Montessori: Learn about her teachings, life and lasting legacy (Davidson Films, Inc.) [Video File] Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjOvCC0jVCs

Maria Montessori. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 October 2014 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Montessori

Is Corporal Punishment of Children Right or Wrong?

Is Corporal Punishment of Children Right or Wrong?

Corporal punishment considered to be a challenging form of discipline at home and school. Corporal punishment is physically hurting the child, such as through spanking or hitting the child with an object, to enforce discipline (Aucoin, Frick, and Bodin 527). Several nations, including the United States (half of the states in the U.S.), legalize corporal punishment in schools and homes, while other nations, such as Sweden, Austria, Finland, and Germany, have banned corporal punishment completely for children (Paintal 410). Scholars differ on their assessment of the rightness or wrongness of corporal punishment, especially when cultural norms stress that it is essential to help children learn proper values and behavior (Maslova and Smagina 29). This paper describe findings on why corporal punishment on children is considered wrong. Corporal punishment is wrong because it is not more effective than other types of punishment such as non-physical punishment, it can lead to many negative effects on children’s well being, and it is against their human rights.

Corporal punishment is often judged whether it is right or wrong, based on cultural values and beliefs of ethnic groups, when its effectiveness should also be considered, and studies showed that it is not more effective than other alternative forms of parenting in imposing discipline. John Fletcher, editor in chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), has cited the study of Durrant and Ensom. Durrant and Ensom summarized two decades of research on corporal punishment effects on children. They learned that corporal punishment is not more effective than other types od discipline. Fletcher argues that parents, who thinks that spanking is acceptable, as long as it is not to much, are not willing to accept that it may not have been effective at all in the first place (1339). Fletcher may not have done actual studies showing that corporal punishment is ineffective in the long run or is as effective in changing bad behaviors among children, but he does provide a study that can give some evidence that physical punishment is not always as effective as some parents claim to be. Maslova and Smagina study corporal punishment studies in Russian context. They note that these kinds of punishment tend to worsen as the occurrence of punishment increases as children grows older (32). The analysis is that the intensity and occurrence increase probably because they are ineffective to begin with. If corporal punishment is effective in the long run, parents do not need to constantly use it to enforce discipline. These studies implicate that corporal punishment lacks effectiveness in correcting bad behaviors and teaching good behaviors among children.

Apart from questionable effectiveness as a behavior modification tool, corporal punishment has many negative effects on children’s well being, one of which is its bad effect on child adjustment. Child adjustment refers to the ability of children to properly respond to different situations, usually troubling ones. Self-concept and actual behaviors compose child adjustment (Aucoin et al. 537). Aucoin et al. studied the relationship between corporal punishment and child adjustment on non-referred young participants. Half of these children have problematic behaviors. They asked whether the use of any corporal punishment in the home strengthened problems in adjustment or if these adjustment problems happened only when there are high levels or corporal punishment and whether the impacts of corporal punishment were the same for the mechanisms that measured conduct problems and emotional conditions. These researchers divided the children into three corporal punishment groups: (1) children who had not experienced physical punishment for two to three weeks; (2) low corporal punishment, or children who experienced one or two types of corporal punishment; and (3) high corporal punishment, or those who experienced three or more cases of physical punishment. Findings showed that the high corporal punishment group had greatly poorer adjustment compared to the groups with zero to low corporal punishment. Poor adjustment is associated with severe and recurring corporal punishment, while moderate levels of physical punishment did not show better adjustment (Aucoin et al. 537). Researchers also learned that the group who had low corporal punishment level had lower self-esteem than others. This study showed that corporal punishment severely affected self-esteem and adjustment levels.

In addition, the study showed that emotional mood, ethnicity, and the existence of impulsive behaviors did not moderate the connection between physical punishment and child adjustment (Aucoin et al. 538). Emotional pain and high emotional problems were present for children who experienced high levels of physical punishment. High corporal punishment also affected African-American and Caucasian children equally (Aucoin et al. 538). Race did not have any effect, even for African-American families who generally tend to see physical punishment as natural to raising children. Also, families that lacked warm and open parenting styles showed high connection between corporal punishment and bad behaviors (Aucoin et al. 538). A loving parenting style can stop the negative effects of corporal punishment, but it is not enough to fully prevent the creation of negative behavioral effects (Aucoin et al. 538). Aucoin et al.  Corporal punishment only worsened the behaviors of children with impulsive and overacting personalities (Aucoin et al. 538). The study showed that corporal punishment has negative impacts on adjustment that can especially worsen when kids already have impulsive and overacting behaviors and do not have responsive and caring parents. Apparently, corporal punishment increases the risk of greater negative effects for those who already have behavioral problems. The study provides convincing evidence that physical punishment is not good because it results to self-concept and maladjustment issues.

Aside from adjustment problems, another study showed further diverse negative effects of corporal punishment on children. According to Maslova and Smagina study, violence at home caused sleeping issues. Many children who experienced corporal punishment had nightmares, were fearful, and often cried. In particular, 22% reported nightmares, 26% percent felt fear, 12% wanted to cry frequently, 32% had significant bad moods, and 30% were unhappy about their physical appearance (Maslova and Smagina 34). The study shows how corporal punishment increases uncertainty and anxiety about them selfs and society in general. Other bad effects of corporal punishment are on future substance abuse and other behavioral problems. Maslova and Smagina stated that corporal punishment increased risk factors where “victims are seven times more likely to abuse alcohol or narcotics; they are ten times more likely to attempt suicide; 60–70 % are runaways; they account for 98% of cases of child prostitution; and 60% percent suffer from problems of nutrition” (34). Physical punishment can lead to emotional and self-concept problems that impact people’s surviving mechanisms. In addition, 98% of people with multiple personality disorders reported history of sexual and physical abuse (Maslova and Smagina 34). The study highlighted that physical punishment may increase risk factors for emotional and mental illnesses. Physical punishment can have direct negative effects on how children see themselves and their environment.

Apart from substance abuse and other emotional problems, other studies showed that there is connection between corporal punishment and aggression. Paintal mentions studies that gave evidence in the connection between physical punishment and aggressive behaviors, regardless of socio-economic status, race, and whether mothers provided mental support (411). Violence causes violence, where in children model violent behaviors. Studies also showed that adults who experienced physical punishment became more violent and depressed as they grow older (Paintal 411). The growth of violent behavior can last until adulthood and can have harmful violent adult effects. In addition, higher rates of hitting children increase the possibility that they would also hit their own wives, children, friends, and other people as adults (Paintal 411). Corporal punishment also increases the risk that these children would also hit their parents back when they are older (Paintal 411). Physical punishment can also develop violent attitudes and behaviors among children that they can apply on their loved ones. Moreover, corporal punishment is shown to send the incorrect message that violence is the right way of dealing with conflict and solving problems (Paintal 411). If parents use violence to solve problems, children model these behaviors as appropriate and appropriate in their own needs. Physical punishment can then have lasting negative effects on aggressive attitudes and behaviors of children.

Aside from violence, corporal punishment can have negative effects on children’s mental development. Some studies showed that children who were spanked often did poorly in school compared to others (Paintal 411). This could be because these children are suffering from poor adjustment, thus affecting their ability to focus on school activities and learning  (Aucoin et al. 537). Mental development can also be impaired when children lack trust in parents, which can transfer to other adults (Paintal 411). If children lack trust in adults, they may fail to learn properly because their minds are not focused on learning but on being fearful.  The more that adults use corporal punishment, the more they disable their children from developing the right personality and attitudes that improve learning and positive behaviors.

Punishing children is also wrong because it is against human rights to use physical force to instill discipline. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child in 1989 emphasizes that governments must protect children’s fundamental needs (Paintal 410).  Article 19 of the Convention indicates that State Parties must perform proper measures to defend children from all forms of physical and mental abuse. Paintal contends that governments have a responsibility towards ensuring the life and freedom of all children. Even in Russia, corporal punishment has been laminated . For example, Article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that leaving a child locked up for a long period of time is already a crime that means failure to properly raise a child (Maslova and Smagina 35). These studies highlights that physical punishment is wrong because it violates children’s right to safety and protection from all kinds of harms. Universal human rights emphasize that people should not hurt children in any way, even for the purpose of disciplining them.

Although physical punishment has negative impacts on children, other studies showed that parents are only responding to the troublemaking behaviors of their children. In the DSM-IV (APA 1994), the disruptive behavior disorders (DBD) include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder (CD). Burke, Pardini, and Loeber studied the mutual relationships between parenting behaviors and disruptive behaviors of 177 boys who were referred by a clinic. They learned that children’s disruptive behaviors affected parenting behaviors more than parenting behaviors predicted children’s behaviors.  They also learned that poor supervision and communication, positive involvement and hesitant discipline predicted ODD. The study showed that children’s behaviors can also start parental corporal punishment. However, it failed to examine how physical punishment affects children with already disruptive behaviors. It is possible that by physically punishing these children, these parents may be worsening these disruptive behaviors. Corporal punishment can also increase the risks of these behaviors among children.

Another issue for people who encourage corporal punishment is that it is considered right if done within control and for proper reasons and is within cultural norms. For some people, corporal punishment is right if it is considered acceptable as part of cultural norms. For cultures that find it acceptable, they should not be controlled by other cultures who dose not find it acceptable. The response to this is that cultural norms can be changed. Researches that says that corporal punishment has negative effects on children’s mental, social, and emotional development, it is only right to use other positive discipline methods. Moreover, people who support corporal punishment emphasizes that it is right as long as it is not done in anger but for immediate punishment of bad behavior and not on children with psychological disorders. Some studies showed that physical punishment can have immediate positive effects on correcting bad behaviors through instant fulfillment (Aucoin et al. 528). However, other studies showed that physical punishment does not have any long-term effect on children’s behaviors (Fletcher; Aucoin et al.). If parents truly want to change the bad behaviors of their children, they should stop using corporal punishment and use positive parenting techniques instead. These techniques have been proven to be more effective than corporal punishment in nurturing positive behaviors and academic performance.

Other researchers encouraged the use of positive disciplining methods to replace corporal punishment. Fletcher argues for the use of positive parenting, specifically, training parents in practicing positive parenting instead of corporal punishment. He believes that this education should be presented to parents in different ways, such as schools and prenatal programs. Paintal provided many alternative positive parenting ways. First, parents must provide firm but age-proper limits (Paintal 411). For example, 5 year olds can follow limits on what not to touch, but not toddlers, so parents must be careful of their houses too to prevent things from being broken or to prevent children from getting hurt because of things around the house (Paintal 411). Second, parents should teach children conflict resolution and mediation skills (Paintal 411). Some of these skills are listening actively, negotiating, and creating group goals.

Third, parents should speak to children in age appropriate ways. Oral interactions between parents and children enhance cognitive ability (Paintal 411). These interactions can help children understand why their behaviors are wrong and what they have to do change it. Fourth, adults should be models of good behaviors too. They should show kindness, empathy, patience, and cooperation so children can follow their lead (Paintal 411). Fifth, positive parenting includes giving praises to children and encouraging their good behaviors. Some of the nonverbal praises are smiles and nods, while verbal praises are “good” and “great job.” These behaviors can cultivate positive behaviors among kids, instead of punishing them for bad behaviors (Paintal 411). Sixth, adults should include kids in setting rules punishment, which can allow them to learn good behavior and encourage independence. Self-control can make them more self aware, so that they will monitor their actions and correct their bad behaviors (Paintal 411). These positive parenting techniques can create positive behaviors and remove bad behaviors without the use of physical punishment.

Corporal punishment is wrong because it does not encourage long-term positive behaviors, it does not result to positive emotional, mental, and social well being, and it violates children’s rights. Instead of corporal punishment, studies recommended to use positive parenting techniques. These parenting techniques do not use violence, but encourage self control and appropriate communication techniques. Adults should learn to control their anger if they want to build a peaceful and none aggressive society. Therefore, physical punishment is not the best or moral punishment and discipline tool for children and should be replaced with positive parenting practices and values.

Resources

Aucoin, Katherine J, Paul J Frick, and S. Doug Bodin. "Corporal Punishment and Child Adjustment." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 27.6 (2006): 527-541.

Burke, Jeffrey D., Pardini, Dustin A., and Rolf Loeber. “Reciprocal Relationships Between Parenting Behavior and Disruptive Psychopathology from Childhood Through Adolescence.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (2008) 36:679–692.

Fletcher, John. "Positive Parenting, Not Physical Punishment." CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L'Association Medicale Canadienne 184.12 (2012): 1339.

Maslova, T.F., and M.V. Smagina. "The Punishment of Children." Russian Education & Society 54.7 (2012): 29-38.

Paintal, Sureshrani. "Banning Corporal Punishment of Children." Childhood Education 83.6 (2007): 410-413.