Trying to decide what to do with this because

• I increasingly believe questions of what kinds of education are “better” boil down to differences in values & may not be settle-able by the kind of review I was trying to do here. See Why am I interested in alt-ed?
• Not sure if this satisfies my criteria for What projects make sense to work on if you believe AGI is coming in <5 years?. Perhaps will give this to chatgpt pro deep research, with the guidance to follow the learning by writing process, and see what it comes up with

---

This is a learning by writing process

Claim: Montessori is more effective than traditional schooling

On what dimensions? We’ll figure it out as we go

Round 1

Initial pieces I read that (a) defend the claim or (b) attack the claim or (c) set out to comprehensively review the evidence on both sides

Montessori education: a review of the evidence base

SOME KEY ELEMENTS OF THE MONTESSORI EDUCATIONAL METHOD

• Learning materials

  • First are those that make up practical life curriculum (pouring, cutting, etc)

  • Then, sensorial materials (materials w difference in a single sense, eg boxes that differ ONLY in size)

  • Literary curriculum – learning writing before reading, the breaking down of the constituent skills of writing (pencil control, letter formation, spelling) before the child actually writes words on paper, phonics, grammar thru materials

  • Mathematics – “quantities 0–10 and their symbols are introduced separately before being combined, and large quantities and symbols (tens, hundreds and thousands) and fractions are introduced soon after, all through concrete materials. Operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, the calculation of square roots) are again introduced using concrete materials, which the child can choose to stop using when he is able to succeed without that concrete support”

  • Overall – learning thru movement, concrete foundation, materials have an element of self-correction so the child can figure out the issue w/o teacher involvement

• Self-directed engagement w materials
  • Kids have to set up the materials themselves, use it as long as they like, and then put it back themselves (internal work cycle)
  • Larger period of 3h that kids are free to work with materials as they like (external work cycle)
  • Teacher is guide – can help students having trouble choosing materials, intro new challenges to ready students, do small group lessons
• No external rewards system (grades, points, stars, etc)
• Reduced emphasis on academic testing and lack of competition between students
• Grouping done based on shared interest rather than academic ability
• Mixed-age classrooms (3-6, 6-9, 9-12 usually) to foster child-to-child tutoring

Randomized trial in Lillard and Else-Quest, with actually good study design found:

Although group differences were not found for all outcome measures, where they were found they favoured the Montessori group. For 5-year olds, significant group differences were found for certain academic skills (namely letter-word identification, phonological decoding ability, and math skills), a measure of executive function (the card sort task), social skills (as measured by social reasoning and positive shared play) and theory of mind (as measured by a false-belief task). For 12-year olds, significant group differences were found on measures of story writing and social skills. Furthermore, in a questionnaire that asked about how they felt about school, responses of children in the Montessori group indicated that they felt a greater sense of community. The authors concluded that ‘at least when strictly implemented, Montessori education fosters social and academic skills that are equal or superior to those fostered by a pool of other types of schools’

Limitations of the study are that it used just one Montessori school (where a lottery was in place in the school system to allow for randomization)

Fidelity of adherence to the Montessori method is important.

Children in the high-fidelity Montessori school, as compared with children in the other two types of school, showed significantly greater gains on measures of executive function, reading, math, vocabulary, and social problem-solving. Furthermore, the degree to which children were engaged with Montessori materials significantly predicted gains in executive function, reading and vocabulary. In other words, treatment fidelity mattered: children gained fewer benefits from being in a Montessori school when they were engaged in non-Montessori activities

^ This was not a randomized trial, though it did match group on key variables such as parental education

In a move to explore the role of the Montessori materials further, a more recent experimental study removed supplementary materials, to leave just the Montessori materials, from two of the three classrooms in a Montessori school that served 3–6-year olds. Over a period of 4 months children in the classrooms from which supplementary materials were removed made significantly greater gains than children from the unchanged classroom on tests of letter-word identification and executive function, although not on measures of vocabulary, theory of mind, maths, or social problem-solving. The authors acknowledge weaknesses in the study design, including the small number of participants (just 52 across the three classrooms) and the short duration.

Variations in fidelity make it really hard to evaluate studies. But one implication is that “Montessori” is clearly a spectrum.

Studies that claim “sleeper effects” of Montessori, appearing later in adolescence, are sketchy also as a result.

Not much high quality studies on the effects on creativity. One (below) found more emphasis on physical world, but not a big diff between Montessori v conventional. Other in France for 7-12 year olds found that Montessori scored higher than conventional

They wrote that ‘The study does, however, support the notion that differing preschool educational environments yield different outcomes’ and ‘Montessori children responded to the emphasis in their programme upon the physical world and upon a de nition of school as a place of work; the Nursery School children responded on their part to the social emphasis and the opportunity for spontaneous expression of feeling’

None of the studies above try to pinpoint which part of Montessori might be accounting for positive effects. Study did find that practical life materials can be efficacious outside Montessori classroom. Showed it can help with fine motor control

A study that showed higher intrinsic motivation for Montessori middle school students: Rathunde, K. & Csikszetnmihalyi, M. Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. Am. J. Educ. 111, 341–371 (2005).

To date there have been very few methodologically robust evaluations.

The lack of ability to randomize or properly blind (parents, teachers) in the studies is a huge issue, and it’s quite unclear how to get around this.

Using systematic phonics to learn how to read, writing before reading, breaking writing into its component skills, and using sensorial materials to teach geometry/numbers/math match general educational recs. Sustained attention and self-regulation in Montessori is suspected to help with executive function.

Comparison of Academic Achievement Between Montessori and Traditional Education Programs

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to compare the academic achievement of 543 urban 4th- (n=291) and 8th- (n=252) grade students who attended Montessori or traditional education programs. The majority of the sample consisted of minority students (approximately 53 percent), and was considered low income (approximately 67 percent). Students who attended a public Montessori school were compared with students who attended structured magnet, open magnet, and traditional non-magnet public schools on standardized measures of math and language arts. Results of the study failed to support the hypothesis that enrollment in a Montessori school was associated with higher academic achievement. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

Sample:

The sample for the current study consisted of 543 fourth- and eighth-grade students (i.e., 291 fourth-graders and 252 eighth-graders) in a large urban district in western New York. Four public schools were selected for participation: Montessori, Open Magnet (OM), Structured Magnet (SM), and Traditional Non-Magnet (TNM) schools. Schools were selected based on grossly similar school profiles provided by the New York State Education Department. To control for demographic differences be- tween school types, schools were matched on gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). SES was determined using the federal formula for free and reduced lunch. Based on the formula, students were categorized by the district as “low income” or “not low income.” Overall, approximately 67 percent of the total sample was identified as low income (i.e., 69 percent of grade 4 and 64 percent of grade 8). White students constituted approximately 47 percent of the sample, with African American, Hispanic, and Other students making up the category of “Minority.”

New York State standardized exams were used to assess achievement. Compiled as part of each school’s annual evaluation of students.

While the present study did not identify a consistent pattern of performance across grade levels, the lack of significantly higher scores for students in the Montessori school suggests that assertions regarding the academic achievement efficacy of Montessori programs should be viewed with caution. Current results contradict those of other studies that found Montessori students demonstrated superior academic growth and achievement (e.g., Daux, 1995; Dawson, 1987). Minimally, results of the current study suggested that Montessori students were similar in the majority of achievement comparisons to students from magnet and traditional non-magnet schools. A more critical finding, however, was that 8th- grade students from the Montessori school demonstrated substantially lower language arts achievement than students from the other three programs.

Limitations:

• Only used one school from each program type
• Program implementation and fidelity were not controlled
• No data on duration of enrollment in the particular program

Current hypothesis

Montessori schooling is more effective than traditional schooling at developing executive function, social skills, an overall positive attitude towards school/learning, and fostering intrinsic motivation in students for future independent learning. There is strikingly little methodologically robust data for this claim, mostly due to how it’s unethical to randomize students into a schooling program and also impossible to blind teachers/parents in any studies. The best data is really a single randomized study that found better executive function, certain academic skills (letter-word identification, phonological decoding ability, and math skills), social skills, and theory of mind for 5 year olds. For 12 year olds, it found better story writing and social skills, and students self-reported a greater sense of community. Evidence against this claim is that fidelity to the Montessori method can be quite variable, other kinds of schooling include Montessori-style methods anyways, and that other kinds of school programs can actually produce better academic achievement results. Tbh the best evidence against is just that there aren’t enough actually good studies proving this.

Tbh I personally don’t even really care if Montessori leads to somewhat lower academic achievement at a particular age. I care more about executive function, social skills, an overall positive attitude towards school/learning, and fostering intrinsic motivation in students for future independent learning. Process over outcome imo when it comes to things like measuring academic achievement at a particular point in time.

Weaknesses in my case

• The positive arguments all rely on a single study, with small sample size (one school), though at least the school was a strict Montessori school
  • Also I didn’t read this study closely yet. Maybe it has some methodological flaw too!
• I haven’t really defined “executive function”, “social skills”, or “intrinsic motivation for future independent learning” particularly well. They need to be defined clearly.
  • Also I doubt something like “intrinsic motivation for future independent learning” can be proven with a study, given the “future” bit. It should just be “higher intrinsic motivation for independent learning” at the point in the time of measurement, I assume that’s the best we could do.
• Even if we do find benefits to Montessori, maybe any parent who cares enough to do Montessori might just as well choose another program or pedagogy or homeschool or something and get similar results in these areas? I guess partially I am reacting to my perception of the negative effects of public school. I have a strong belief in non-coercion when it comes to children & developing intrinsic motivation… but tbh given the bloom talent development stuff it might just be wrong beyond stage 1? I guess Montessori may be the best for early development (like 3-9 or something?). Dunno.

Pick a subquestion and read more

Sub question to dig into: Montessori schooling is more effective than traditional schooling at fostering intrinsic motivation in students for independent learning.

I try to stay very focused on doing the reading (and/or low-stakes discussion) most likely to change the big-picture claim I’m making. I rarely read a book or paper “once from start to finish”; instead I energetically skip around trying to find the parts most likely to give me a solid reason to change my mind, read them carefully and often multiple times, try to figure out what else I should be reading (whether this is “other parts of the same document” or “academic papers on topic X”) to contextualize them, etc.

Effects of Montessori Education on the Academic, Cognitive, and Social Development of Disadvantaged Preschoolers: A Randomized Controlled Study in the French Public-School System

• Ages 3-6, tested over 3 yrs
• Adapted version of Montessori (fewer materials, shorter work periods, limited teacher Montessori training) has no benefit, except for in reading. Notably executive fcn & social skills were measured, and longitudinally (3 yrs)
• “Overall, our results call for preregistered studies investigating high-fidelity Montessori education in randomized controlled designs” lol

Montessori Preschool Elevates and Equalizes Child Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study

• Ages 3-6, 141 kids total in 2 groups, tested over 3 yrs
• “An ANOVA showed that the Montessori children were relatively more positive about school-related activities than were the control children, F(1,116)= 5.69 p= 0.02, η2 = 0.05”
  • Differences in variation b/w the two groups re: liking academic tasks is significant. Small to medium effect size (5% of variation in prefs can be explained by Montessori or not).
• 
• “Although the children in this study all really liked recreational activities like watching television and movies and playing, children in Montessori showed relatively more liking of academic tasks like reading and getting lessons from a teacher. One possible reason for this is that children have choices about how they spent their time in Montessori; such choice is increasingly rare in preschool programs generally (Bassok et al., 2016). People are generally happier when they have choices, which provide a sense of self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 2011). Other possible reasons for more school liking dovetail with those given for achievement and mastery orientation.”
• This also measured executive fcn, social skills. come back to this

Is it meaningful to test for stuff like intrinsic motivation for independent learning in 3-6 year olds? Unclear. I guess just liking school is enough?

Shunned and Admired: Montessori, Self-Determination, and a Case for Radical School Reform

• Self-determination theory & the ideas of Montessori converge quite well
  • Self determination theory component are autonomy, competence, relatedness
• If you believe in overjustifiction / undermining effect, then it’s clear how a Montessori style system of no extrinsic rewards for learning => higher intrinsic motivation for that
• The combo of no extrinsic rewards + achievement/mastery focus should lead to highest intrinsic motivation based on current psych literature

The study that the positive case rests on: Evaluating Montessori education

• 53 control, 59 Montessori students
• Nothing really related to intrinsic motivation, but benefits shown on social skills, exec fcn, theory of mind, etc. Effect sizes are pretty solid, medium in most cases and large in a couple.
• On a questionnaire regarding their feelings about school, Montessori children indicated having a greater sense of community, responding more positively to items such as, “Students in my class really care about each other” and “Students in this class treat each other with respect.”

Intrinsic Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics in Elementary School: A Longitudinal Investigation of Their Association

• This study examined the associations between intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics in a sample of 1,478 Canadian school-age children followed from Grades 1 to 4 (ages 7–10). Children self-reported their intrinsic motivation toward mathematics, whereas achievement was measured through direct assessment of mathematics abilities. Cross-lagged models showed that achievement predicted intrinsic motivation from Grades 1 to 2, and from Grades 2 to 4. However, intrinsic motivation did not predict achievement at any time. This developmental pattern of association was gender invariant. Contrary to the hypothesis that motivation and achievement are reciprocally associated over time, our results point to a directional association from prior achievement to subsequent intrinsic motivation.
• Very “do what you love” vs “love what you do” coded
• The present study shows that intrinsic motivation does not lead to higher achievement in mathematics, but does not speak specifically to the impact of intervention on intrinsic motivation and achievement. It may still be possible to improve intrinsic motivation through intervention, but at the population level, intrinsic motivation does not “naturally” increase achievement in mathematics. It could also be that within the population, the relation between intrinsic motivation and performance in mathematics differs as a function of ability level (Cleary & Chen, 2009; J~ ogi, Kikas, Lerkkanen, & M€ agi, 2015) or the nature of the mathematics skills (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). For instance, intrinsic motivation more likely predicts the quality (i.e., complex task that seeks more skills and commands personal investment) than the quantity (i.e., task with less personal cognitive investment) of achievement (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
• Finally, an important feature of the present results is that achievement level in mathematics was fairly well established early in primary school, and subsequently predicts intrinsic motivation toward mathematics. This stability of achievement and the ensuing consistent motivational trend in mathematics underscore the need to document the early school years as a crucial period for the assessment and fostering of early numeracy.

So maybe one way to refute a sub version of my hypothesis would be that Montessori’s autonomy aspects don’t actually matter that much and it’s more the focus on competence/achievement/mastery? And you can recreate that outside of Montessori if your kid is smart & goes to a strong public school?

Middle School Students’ Motivation and Quality of Experience: A Comparison of Montessori and Traditional School Environments

• This study compared the motivation and quality of experience of demographically matched students from Montessori and traditional middle school programs.Approximately 290 students responded to the Experience Sampling Method(ESM) and filled out questionnaires. Multivariate analyses showed that the Montessori students reported greater affect, potency (i.e., feeling energetic), intrinsic motivation, flow experience, and undivided interest (i.e., the combination of high intrinsic motivation and high salience or importance) while engaged in academic activities at school. The traditional middle school students reported higher salience while doing academic work; however, such responses were often accompanied by low intrinsic motivation. When engaged in informal, non-academic activities, the students in both school contexts reported similar experiences. These results are discussed in terms of current thought on motivation in education and middle school reform.
• Grades 6-8
• 
• Results from the study showed that while engaged in academic work at school, Montessori students reported higher affect, potency (i.e., feeling alert and energetic), intrinsic motivation (i.e., enjoyment, interest), and flow experience than students from traditional middle schools. The traditional students did report higher salience (i.e., perceptions of importance for their futures), how- ever, this finding must be interpreted within the context of the other expe- riential differences that characterized the two samples. For example, when looking at the students’ undivided interest (above average intrinsic motivation and salience), or the times when students said they were feeling high interest while doing something with high relevance for their futures, the Montessori students’ experiences were far more positive. Almost 40 percent of their school- work was intrinsically motivating and important; in contrast, the traditional students felt this way only 24 percent of the time. One way to gauge the practical effect of these percentages is in terms of time. Since the ESM sampled about 23 hours of academic schoolwork (i.e., 62 percent of about 37.5 total hours sampled at school), this meant that Montessori students spent approx- imately three and a half hours more per week than traditional students doing schoolwork they felt was interesting and important. Over the course of a year, this time difference is likely to have a significant impact on students’ percep- tions of school.
  • The traditional students’ higher salience levels and their significantly higher feelings of drudgery (i.e., perceiving schoolwork as important but not moti- vating) are consistent with research showing that traditional middle school contexts often emphasize performance goals (Eccles et al. 1993). Goal theory suggests that the psychological environment of classrooms and schools deter- mines students’ perceptions of goals (Maehr and Midgley 1991). Reports of high salience and low intrinsic motivation reflect the dulled attitudes that one might expect from students in a context where the future importance of what they are doing is emphasized at the expense of immediate engagement. The differences students reported in terms of flow experience have similar impli- cations. Flow is a high-challenge condition, but high challenge is not important in itself. In other words, it is only when students feel they have skills equal to the task at hand that optimal experience is likely to occur. Montessori students reported about 7 percent more flow experience, or about one and a half hours more per week.

Revise my claim / switch sides

I often try radically flipping around my hypothesis, even if I haven’t actually been convinced that it’s wrong - sometimes when I’m feeling iffy about arguing for one side, it’s productive to just go ahead and try arguing for the other side. I tend to get further by noticing how I feel about the “best arguments for both sides” than by trying from the start to be even-handed.

What’s the inverse of my hypothesis? Montessori schooling is equally or less effective than traditional schooling at fostering intrinsic motivation in students for independent learning.

What are the best arguments for this?

• Higher achievement/competence/mastery => higher intrinsic motivation. But not the other way around, at least a population level
  • Maybe Montessori’s autonomy aspects don’t actually matter that much and it’s more the focus on competence/achievement/mastery? And you can recreate that outside of Montessori if your kid is smart & goes to a strong public school?
• It might be extremely kid dependent. Maybe some kids need the structure of a traditional education? In other words the three aspects in self-determination theory of competence, autonomy, relatedness, may matter differing amounts for each kid. Perhaps Montessori is too high a dose of autonomy for some kids.
• I think I am making an implicit assumption that my kid will be smart enough that they would outpace traditional education quickly / will value learning in and of itself in some fashion? In other words they will be similar to me. That may not be true at all.
  • Yea I guess maybe none of these studies apply since by definition they are all population level and I am thinking on the individual level. Lol. But that’s always oging to be an issue so w/e.
  • Even if this assumption is false… ideally I would still like to foster intrinsic motivation for independent learning, or at least AVOID the hatred of public school/learning (or at least certain topics within it eg math) that seems to be a fairly common case

Yea I think an even more specific version of what I care about is: Montessori schooling is more effective than traditional schooling at fostering intrinsic motivation in students for independent learning, or at minimum avoiding instilling hatred of learning.

And the inverse could expand to: Montessori schooling is equally or less effective than traditional schooling at fostering intrinsic motivation in students for independent learning. It has an equal or higher chance of instilling hatred of learning in students as traditional schooling.

It would make me sad if we had a kid who hated learning. My view is that kids instinctively want to learn things (it’s really all they know how to do…), and that desire has to be “taken away” from them in some way, which happens most commonly thru public schooling.

Is it possible that we have a kid who just instinctively / naturally doesn’t like learning? I find that scenario hard to believe? I am not defining learning as narrow academic learning here, so it seems impossible unless the kid has a developmental disorder or something?

I mean if you believe Judith Harris Nurture Assumption & Henrik essay, it’s ultimately about culture. Finding a culture, selecting a peer group, that values learning. I really think this could be a huge side effect of actually doing dinner parties/board walks type stuff, and modeling the culture within it like we want. Build that culture! Build that exceptional milieu for our kid to grow up in and ask real questions of adults. I need to get better at this too, just asking interesting questions that make ppl think.

So another objection to my hypothesis could be – it’s all about culture and it doesn’t matter if it’s Montessori or a Jesuit school or a magnet school or whatever.

Another objection to my hypothesis is just that… education pedagogy research simply does not replicate & because there’s basically no randomized controlled trials it’s all kind of a waste of time and vibes based. Is that true? If so I should just learn something else.