Teaching: Daoust Sees 4 'Clusters' of Montessori TeachingCarolyn Daoust's An Examination of Implementation Practices in Montessori Early Childhood Education, submitted to the University of California-Berkeley, won the American Montessori Society's award for the best Ph.D. Dissertation of the year in April. Daoust's research raised some striking issues about the wide range of practices that go by the name Montessori. How much ought teachers adapt the approach while still calling it Montessori? We asked her to explain her findings. You looked at how 66 Montessori preschool teachers reported that they implemented the approach using five dimensions. What dimensions did you choose and why? I chose to look at work period length, the extent of mixed-age grouping (1, 2 or 3 age levels), whether teachers presented materials to children individually or in small groups rather than to the whole group, the percentage of classroom materials that were traditional Montessori materials and extensions, and the extent that children were provided with opportunities for choice. I selected these dimensions initially based on my own classroom observations, and later by looking at Montessori research to see if others had found the same discrepancies that I was finding. The studies suggested that many Montessori environments had been significantly modified and may not be providing children with the types of experiences typically associated with the approach. Your research led you to group the teachers into four clusters, four distinct ways of doing Montessori teaching based on those dimensions. Could you describe those clusters? One cluster contained 12 teachers who emphasized a long work period (2 1/2 to 3 hours), gave few whole group presentations, and implemented mixed-age grouping in a 3-year span. These teachers indicated that most of the materials in their classrooms were traditional Montessori activities. In addition, the teachers in this group tended to structure snack as an individually chosen activity and permitted children to make their own work choices. These teachers were also more likely than the other educators to limit a child's exploration of a material that hadn't been presented yet. I labeled this group traditional because these teachers were inclined to implement practices that were consistent with Montessori's writings and the recommendations of the AMI and the AMS. Another group consisting of 24 teachers also implemented elements of authentic Montessori education, though not to the same extent as the traditional educators. This group, which I labeled contemporary, provided a work period averaging 1 1/2 hours, and primarily demonstrated materials to small groups or individual children but did give some whole group demonstrations. This group of teachers supplemented the Montessori materials in their classrooms to a greater degree than the traditional teachers, and provided multiage grouping spanning mostly 3 years, but in some cases only 2 years. In addition, these practitioners generally facilitated individualized snack, permitted children to explore an exercise that hadn't been demonstrated yet, and allowed children to make their own activity choices. A third group of teachers tended to combine elements of the Montessori approach with practices typically found in other models of early childhood education. The 27 educators in this group emphasized whole group instruction, provided relatively short work periods (averaging 1 hour and 14 minutes), and grouped children in mixed-age classes spanning 2 or 3 years or in single-aged classes. This group permitted children to explore materials that hadn't been presented yet, and tended to require children to be present at circle time. These teachers were also more likely than the other educators to provide snack as a group activity and to guide children in their work choices. I labeled this cluster blended to capture the mix of Montessori and other early childhood practices that were implemented in these classrooms. A fourth cluster, which consisted of only 3 teachers, also integrated aspects of the Montessori system with other approaches to early childhood education. The teachers in this cluster used mixed-age grouping in a 3-year span and presented children with many opportunities for classroom choice. Yet these practitioners provided a short work period (averaging 1 hour and 12 minutes) and only included a limited quantity of Montessori materials in their classrooms. Furthermore, these teachers tended to provide whole group lessons, although one practitioner did not give any instruction at all. I labeled this group explorative to reflect the teacher's emphasis on choice and the use of a range of early childhood materials. You are arguing that some people who consider themselves Montessori teachers are implementing practices that are inconsistent with the philosophical principles of the approach. What practices cross the line? Some of the practices that teacher's enacted which could be considered inconsistent with Montessori's recommendations were single-age grouping, interrupting and/or limiting the work period, assigning or requiring work in particular curriculum areas rather than allowing children to choose their own activities, not permitting children to work together, and presenting materials collectively rather than to small groups or individual children. Of course, when deciding whether a practice crosses the line it depends on the circumstance. A new program may start with only a small group of just 3-year-olds, or children new to Montessori may need to be guided toward activities until they are able to make their own work choices. In each of these cases, however, the practice in question is only enacted temporarily. In other instances, such as when materials are presented to the whole group on a daily basis and few individual or small group presentations are given, an important aspect of Montessori education seems to be missing. If when giving material presentations the teacher is to take into account each child's developmental level, interests, and abilities, how can any material be presented to a whole group of 3, 4 and 5 year-olds at one time? Most children won't even be able to see the demonstration, obtaining feedback about the appropriateness of the activity through the child's responses is impossible, and time is taken away from the work period. If we really believe that children learn by doing, we need to minimize the amount of time they spend passively observing and increase the amount of time they spend engaging in self-selected, hands-on activities. Some of the teachers I surveyed who reported giving group demonstrations indicated that they preferred to present materials individually, but that there wasn't enough time to fit these lessons in during the work period. This is one reason why a long work period is so important. But how long is long? While the AMI recommends a 3-hour uninterrupted work period, only a third of the teachers I interviewed agreed or strongly agreed with this idea. More than half of the teachers responded as if they had never heard of such a thing, and the average work period length for the whole sample was only 1 hour and 34 minutes. This suggests that finding consensus on this dimension for what crosses the line is not going to be easy. A number of teachers, primarily in the blended subgroup, limited children's activity choices by assigning them work to complete. Not only is this practice inconsistent with Montessori's perspective that children have internal needs that determine their activity preferences, it also goes against research suggesting that children benefit from educational choice and that removing choice can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation and children's learning. There is research support, in fact, for all five dimensions of Montessori practice that I examined. I touch on this research in my dissertation, but Angeline Stoll Lillard (2005) covers this in depth in her recently published book Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius . When determining what crosses the line, it would be important to not only consider Montessori's perspectives, but also to take into account our own classroom experiences as well as research findings related to our practices. If teachers in Montessori schools are blatantly ignoring Montessori principles, there seems to be at the very least a truth in advertising question. That seems to lead to three questions: 1. Why is this happening? 2. So what? Is this diversity of approaches a problem? 3. If it is a problem, who should do what? A majority of the teachers I interviewed indicated that they were making some intentional modifications to the approach. Yet, approximately half of the teachers in each of the three largest subgroups reported having modified the approach little or to a very moderate degree. Even the blended cluster included teachers who did not see themselves as substantially altering the method. This suggests that a minority of teachers may not have been aware that they were changing traditional Montessori practices in their classrooms. For these educators, it would appear to be less of a truth in advertising question, and more of an education issue. Although some teachers informally indicated during the interview that it had not been their choice to make changes to the method, most of the teachers (86%) rated the extent that school policies and procedures had impacted their ability to implement the approach the way they ideally would to a minimal or very moderate extent. Overall, situational constraints, such as parental concerns and demands, lack of planning and preparation time, etc., impacted the teachers's implementation of the approach minimally or to a moderate extent. Nonetheless, no differences were found between the subgroups on this variable. This suggests that situational constraints influenced implementations, but that they did not play a major role in explaining why some teachers changed the method to a greater degree than others. Cluster differences were found on the extent of the teachers's agreement with practices associated with Montessori education. Teachers in the traditional group were significantly more likely then the contemporary or blended educators to agree or strongly agree with more traditional Montessori practices, such as a 3-hour work period. Why there is less agreement is unclear. It s possible that these teachers maintain beliefs about teaching and learning that differ from Montessori's perspectives, or that they just lack information or understanding about what traditional practices are and how these are implemented. Diversity of approaches becomes a problem when parents enroll their children in a program expecting one thing and then find another. It is also a problem when teachers believe they are implementing authentic Montessori practices when they are not. In both situations, it would help if Montessori organizations with accrediting authority for teacher training and school affiliation could clarify their positions on key Montessori practices in specific terms as well as establish limits for acceptable variability in implementation. If a program wants to combine Montessori and other early childhood educational practices, they should make it known that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, it does become a truth in advertising issue. |
Publications | Order | Links | Contact
© Copyright 2005 Jola Publications
All Rights Reserved
