Affective and social development: some ideas from Montessori's prepared environment

Suzanne Lowell Krogh, PhD Assistant Professor College of Education University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

E

NTERING preschool is a challenge for any child. Situations such as free play or free work must seem confusing, even intimidating at first. For example, just cracking the social code of a group of children playing blocks requires some difficult decision making. Should the new child request an opportunity to play? Is it better to stand at the sidelines looking interested? Once accepted into the group, the child is confronted with new decisions. Should he or she follow the plot of the other children's play, or is it safe to interject personal ideas and preferences? To make this decision it is necessary to decipher the power structure of the group. The proper decisions all along the way may well affect this child's relations with the group for a long time to come. This difficult experience, which for some children is overwhelming, can be even more difficult for the handicapped child. If the child's handicaps are mental or emotional, the chances of reading the social structure of the group are reduced. If the handicaps are physical, the child must find a way to lessen them in the eyes of the prospective playmates or to TECSE, 1982,2(1), 55-62 0271-1214/82/0021-0055$2.00 © 1982 Aspen Systems Corporation

55

TOPICS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION / APRIL 1982

compensate for them. In the interests of basic fairness, it seems appropriate to provide handicapped children with some advantages to help their adjustment to a classroom that has been designed with nonhandicapped children in mind. THE EFFECTS OF MAINSTREAMING Logically, there should be sound reasons for mainstreaming a handicapped child, and a large number have been provided. Morgan and York (1981) suggest several reasons: • the opportunity to choose both handicapped and nonhandicapped children as friends; • the opportunity to make use of materials that otherwise would not be available; and • the opportunity to learn from and model behavior patterns of nonhandicapped children. Guralnick (1976) suggests that mainstreamed children will be able to learn higher quality play and will have greater opportunities to develop language. Although all these advantages of mainstreaming and more are possible, the integrated classroom has received mixed reviews as to its actual effectiveness in promoting social and affective growth. A few researchers have found that there are no significant differences in the status accorded or the acceptance of handicapped children as opposed to nonhandicapped children (Kennedy & Bruininks, 1974). Other studies, however, indicate that handicapped children in regular classes have been rejected, or at least not well accepted (Gerber, 1977; Goodman, Gottlieb, & Harrison, 1972). Several researchers have reported that children generally prefer to play with others at a similar developmental level, thus leaving mainstreamed children out of the larger group (Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Peck, Apolloni,

Cooke, & Raver, 1978; Raver, Cooke, & Apolloni, 1978). Observations of handicapped children in regular classes and in special classes indicate that these children are more likely to exhibit hyperactive behaviors in regular classes than they are in special classes. They also tend to exhibit more aggressive, defiant, and manipulative behavior in the regular class (Pastor & Swap, 1978). Some handicapped children become increasingly introverted in regular classrooms (Barclay & Kehle, 1979). Furthermore, children in full-time, specialclass placements have shown greater improvements in their academic self-concept than have children in integrated classes (Boersma, Chapman, & Battle, 1979). The mixed, and often conflicting, findings concerning social interaction and affective development are confusing. In part, the mixed results may be due to inattention to such variables as teacher attitudes, ages of children, or the role of specific behaviors. Another possibility is the use, at times, of simplistic methodology in the study of an essentially complex process (Dunlop, Stoneman, & Cantrell, 1980). Dunlop et al. have argued for long-term observation as an appropriate methodology for such complex social interactions. Studies that used observation of children over a period of time sufficient to allow for the development of social interaction have shown that interaction and positive attitudes increase over time (Budoff & Gottlieb, 1976; Dunlop et al., 1980). For example, Dunlop et al. reported that by the end of 1 school year of integration, handicapped and nonhandicapped children's social interactions in many areas were almost identical. Continually increasing homogeneity of the two groups was apparent. GUIDELINES FOR MAINSTREAMING Whether observations of integrated classrooms report positive, negative, or mixed findings, it seems apparent that progress can be

AFFECTIVE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Studies that used observation of children over a period of time sufficient to allow for the development of social interaction have shown that interaction and positive attitudes increase over time. made only over an extended period of time (Dunlop et al., 1980). During this time there needs to be a focus on strengthening the handicapped child's perception of self and on dealing with the regular students' understanding of individual differences. Other aspects of the affective development of both handicapped and nonhandicapped children need to be considered as well. For example, both groups of children need to feel that they are accepted by the teacher and by the entire class. They should have a sense of belonging to the group, an awareness of feeling comfortable in their environment. They need to be growing in their acceptance of self and others and from this should come feelings of dignity and self-respect. All children need a sense of control over the course of their own lives. In addition, the nonhandicapped children need to learn to accept into the group those individuals who seem not to be part of the norm. The handicapped children need to develop a realistic acceptance of their differentness, as far as they can understand it, and without feeling the need to apologize for it. These qualities and feelings may be fostered in a variety of ways. One of the most effective, although complex and demanding methods is the manipulation of the environment. Montessori (1969) recognized this technique in her work with retarded children and later in the schools she developed for children of the poorest Roman families. Although best known for her use of the prepared environment for cognitive development, Montessori believed

strongly that affect and cognition were inseparable. She believed that every child, no matter what his or her cognitive strengths, (a) deserved to feel accepted by the teacher and the entire class; (b) should feel a sense of belonging and comfort in the environment; (c) should have a healthy acceptance of self; and (d) should be treated with dignity and respect by adults. Three general goals were especially important to Montessori. Each child should accomplish an ability for spontaneous (or self-) discipline, continuous and happy work, and the social assets of learning to help and have sympathy for others. If a child displayed these key characteristics in a continuous way, Montessori believed that the child had achieved normalization. The important point is that Montessori did not expect to see this normalized child emerge full-blown at the beginning of a school year. Rather, an extensive period of interaction with the environment was necessary for achieving this end. A Montessori classroom, then, would show essentially the same type of progression—from unsocialized to more homogeneous—that Dunlop et al. observed. THE MONTESSORI ENVIRONMENT Specific aspects of the Montessori prepared environment can be adapted to any classroom for the purpose of aiding both handicapped and nonhandicapped children in their social and affective development. Adapting this environment for the mainstreamed classroom does not require adoption of Montessori's cognitive learning philosophy as well. Nor is it necessary to use all or even most of her ideas and suggestions; a selection appropriate to individual classrooms will still produce results. Shelves Montessori saw social abilities as progressive; thus the learning environment should

TOPICS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION / APRIL 1982

be prepared with progressive complexity throughout the school year. According to her method, shelves should be relatively bare at the beginning of the school year. In this way, stimuli from new materials are not confusing or overwhelming to the students. This technique may be especially important for some children with emotional handicaps. It also affords the teacher an opportunity to present each activity or material to the children before they use (or abuse) it. This environmental technique is designed to foster independence, responsibility, self-discipline, self-direction, and feelings of competence. Placing shelves so that they are within reach of all children also encourages independence, responsibility, self-discipline, and a sense of self-worth. Children should know they are trusted enough to care for the materials they will use and should not have to ask permission to have materials that are locked up or out of reach. In a Montessori classroom, children tend to be of differing sizes because they are of various ages; thus making shelves accessible to all children can occasionally present a challenge to the teacher, but this challenge must always be met. The special requirements of handicapped children would no doubt take the same amount of consideration in planning shelf location and size. Materials for learning Although the Montessori didactic materials may not have a place in another type of classroom, the principles behind their choice are applicable to a concern for the affective development of children in any classroom. The materials should be of two kinds: (1) those that provide structured, directed learning and (2) those that offer more freedom and selfdirection. The former are important in helping children develop a feeling of self-confidence; the latter foster a sense of daring and an opportunity for creativity. Thus in the Montes-

sori classroom, practical life materials, such as brooms, mops, and polishing and washing equipment are taught to be used in one way only. Every movement is teacher directed. Also available when children choose them are learning activities and games that can be put together, built upon, or combined in unlimited ways. Teachers introduce the materials for either the structured or nonstructured activities in a progressive manner so that children begin first with materials that are easiest for them to use individually. Generally, the children are unaware of this progression and have little understanding that some children have reached a higher cognitive or affective level than others. In this way the handicapped child's capabilities are less obvious than they are in other types of classrooms. The progressive method of introducing these two types of materials is designed to build in children an ability to concentrate, self-discipline, and a feeling of serenity. From these attributes should grow self-direction and a feeling of competence. Whatever materials are used, they should not be present in large quantities. With some exceptions, there should be a focus on not providing enough to go around. Even such staple items as crayons and scissors are not available in large quantities, because there are seldom times in a Montessori classroom when everyone does the same thing at the same time. Through this technique children are expected to learn unselfishness, responsibility, and selfdiscipline. Both handicapped and nonhandicapped children should benefit, for everyone has equal access. Montessori maintained that children preferred work to play and real tools to toys, and she eventually removed all toys and makebelieve objects from the classroom entirely. Although current educators might argue against the need for such an extreme measure, Montessori *s purposes for including real tools

AFFECTIVE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

should have application for the integrated classroom. Each child needs to feel respected as a contributing and responsible member of the group. Providing the classroom with real tools for cleaning and maintenance indicates an implicit acceptance of children's capabilities and an expectation that they will carry through. Children respond to this confidence by performing as expected. Again, the children seem largely unaware of any progressive difficulty in the tasks available, and so the handicapped child can choose those activities that he or she feels capable of performing. Furniture In a Montessori classroom, all furniture is child sized, and children are instructed in its care and in skills for moving and carrying it. (There is no such thing as "teacher's desk.") For the smallest children, stools, rather than chairs, are sometimes provided so that sitting down with something in the hands does not become an ordeal. Frequently furniture is made for the specific requirements of a particular class; thus in an integrated classroom, furniture would be selected for the convenience of handicapped children as well as nonhandicapped children. All children should feel that they are in control of this aspect of their environment and that they are competent to manipulate materials that are, in most classrooms, too bulky or heavy for them to handle. The teacher In contrast to most early childhood classrooms, the Montessori classroom has a high pupil-teacher ratio. Thus independence is not only fostered, it is necessary. Children must learn to care for each other, particularly those who are younger or less able. The physical environment (shelves, learning materials, furniture, etc.) is then left to serve its various purposes without teacher interference.

Teachers must learn to be facilitators rather than directive teachers and thus provide children with opportunities for self-directed learning.

To teach students in such a classroom, a special kind of teacher is required. Teachers must lack ego involvement, or the need for reinforcement from the children. They must relinquish their need for children to be dependent on them, but rejoice instead at the sound of a child saying, "I did it myself!" Teachers must learn to be facilitators rather than directive teachers and thus provide children with opportunities for self-directed learning. They must come to trust children with the care of the environment, providing tools and knowhow for as many tasks as possible. They must model behavior that they wish to see manifested in the children: children should be treated with dignity and consideration, and they will respond by treating each other in the same way. Teachers must remind themselves that social and affective development are gradual and should not expect the classroom's social order to be modeled after their adult concepts. An early childhood classroom is still, in Montessori's words, a "society in embryo." A number of social interactions and affective phenomena appear in a Montessori class with a teacher of this type and with a physical environment such as has been described. With a low teacher-pupil ratio, the older or more experienced children begin to teach others. Because the teacher relies on the inherent interest of the materials to keep children happy and occupied, there is little need for disciplinary measures, punishment, or authoritarianism. Although the teacher may need to be directive in the beginning of the school year to promote the development of both cognitive and affective skills, the goal is always for

TOPICS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION / APRIL 1982

freedom to become the theme for learning and social interaction. Each child is treated individually in this respect according to his or her own capabilities. Thus by the end of the school year, the children are capable of a degree of self-government that is unusual for young children. APPLICATION TO THE MAINSTREAMED CLASSROOM The purpose of this article is not to argue that integrated classrooms should model a Montessori environment in its entirety. However, many, or even most, of the environmental aspects described above can be adapted to most types of early-childhood, integrated classrooms. An examination of the negative effects of mainstreaming described at the beginning of this article illustrates this point. Cavallaro and Porter (1980) and Raver et al. (1978) found that children preferred associating with others at a similar developmental level during large group activities or in game situations or play, thus handicapped children are often left out of regular group play. A Montessori environment may help handicapped children by its nongroup structure. Rarely are children put into a situation in which choices of friends must be made, teams chosen, or games played in which someone can be purposely left out. Thus the mainstreamed child is less likely to feel rejected, a prime factor in the development of self-image. Rarclay and Kehle (1979) found that mildly retarded children, when placed in a regular class, became less boisterous and more introverted. They attribute this to the loss of the support system of the self-contained, mildly retarded class. Here again, the Montessori environment should be helpful. A support system is built into the environment so that older or more experienced children learn to care for others, whether these others are

younger, less experienced, or even handicapped. Kaufman, Agard, and Semmel (in press) observed that less social rejection of handicapped children was evident in classrooms in which the teacher was in charge of teaching in a large group. There was more rejection when small, self-directed groups were used. However, the authors also found that social status was significantly related to the cohesiveness of the children in the regular classroom; social status was highest when the normal children had a "low level of dislike" for each other. Although Montessori classes avoid large group lessons, they intentionally foster the cohesiveness seen as essential for social status. Because children in Montessori classrooms take their roles as teachers and helpers quite seriously and without question, little condescension is observed in these classrooms. Furthermore, because the children themselves form the society that is right for their own classroom unit, they learn to accept all who are members of it. The directive learning that is associated with teacher-led large group lessons is also actually quite evident in the Montessori classroom; however, it is the children who are the directive teachers. Their teaching skills are not such that they could help each other using methods requiring more sophistication or subtlety. Boersma et al. (1979) found that for some handicapped children, full-time placement in a special class was accompanied by an improvement in academic self-concept that did not appear in children who were mainstreamed. They attributed this finding to the long-standing finding that definitions of selfworth are primarily made in terms of the perspectives of significant others. In a Montessori environment, the activities are largely individual, to be shared with other children only if desired. Pupils are less inclined to make comparative judgments concerning academic

AFFECTIVE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

skills, partly because of this focus on individual effort, partly because in a multi-age grouping so many levels of ability are present in one classroom, and partly because the built-in support system encourages children not only to help each other but also to enjoy each other's successes. Pastor and Swap (1978) reported that a subject who exhibited disorganized and hyperactive behaviors in a regular class eliminated these behaviors to a great extent in a special class through the teacher's support, reminders, and the provision of structured play opportunities. Another child who was aggressive, defiant, and manipulative in a regular class was controlled by firm and consistent limits when returned to a special class. As discussed earlier, a Montessori environment provides freedom for children only as they are ready for it. Until such time, firm limits and structured play opportunities are relied upon. Montessori (1966) herself seemed to relish having children of these types enter her classrooms, for they invariably found "healing." She described

such healing in terms of the relationship between the children and the task oriented environment: Their excited fantasies and restless movements disappear and they calmly face reality and begin to perfect themselves through their work. They become normal children. Their aimless actions become directed. Their arms and legs become the instruments of minds eager to know and to penetrate the reality of their environment, (p. 191) Thus there are a number of ways in which the Montessori approach to the learning environment can be applied in an integrated classroom. These techniques are only a beginning, however. Each mainstreamed child has his or her own needs. Each class has its own individual characteristics. These should all be taken into account when adapting the Montessori prepared environment for the benefit of a particular class. In this way the mainstreamed child is more likely to be afforded the "least restrictive environment" that he or she deserves.

REFERENCES Barclay, J.R., & Kehle, T.J. The impact of handicapped students on other students in the classroom. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1979, 22(4), 80-91. Boersma, F.J., Chapman, J.W., & Battle, J. Academic self-concept change in special education students: Some suggestions for interpreting self-concept stores. Journal of Special Education, 1979, 13(4), 433-442. Budoff, M, & Gottlieb, J. Special class EMR children mainstreamed: A study of an aptitude (learning potential) x treatment interaction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1916,81, 1-11. Cavallaro, S.A., & Porter, R.H. Peer preferences of at-risk and normally developing children in a preschool mainstream classroom. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1980, 84(4), 357-366. Dunlop, K.H., Stoneman, Z., & Cantrell, ML. Social interaction of exceptional and other children in a mainstreamed preschool classroom. Exceptional Children, 1980,47(2), 132-141.

Gerber, P.J. Awareness of handicapping conditions and sociometric status in an integrated preschool setting. Mental Retardation, 1977,15, 24-25. Goodman, H., Gottlieb, J., & Harrison, R.H. Social acceptance of EMRs integrated into a nongraded elementary school. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1972, 76, 412-417. Guralnick, M.J. The value of integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool chiklren. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 46, 236-245. Kaufman, M, Agard, J., & Semmel, M.I. (Eds.). Mainstreaming: Learners and their environment. Baltimore: University Park Press, in press. Kennedy, P., & Bruininks, R. Social status of hearing impaired children in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children, February 1974, 40, 336-342. Montessori, M. The secret of childhood. Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides Publishers, 1966. Montessori, M. The absorbent mind. Madras, India: Kalakshetra Publications, 1969.

TOPICS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION / APRIL 1982

Morgan, D., & York, M.E. Ideas for mainstreaming young children. Young Children, January 1981, 36, 18-25. Pastor, D.L., & Swap, S.M. An ecological study of emotionally disturbed preschoolers in special and regular classes. Exceptional Children, November 1978, 45, 213-215. Peck, C, Apolloni, T., Cooke, T.P., & Raver, S.A. Teach-

ing retarded preschoolers to imitate the free play behavior of nonretarded classmates: Trained and generalized effects. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 195207. Raver, S.A., Cooke, T.P., & Apolloni, T. Developing nonretarded toddlers as verbal models for retarded classmates. Child Study Journal, 1978, 8, 108.