/

A COMPARISON OF MONTESSORI ANDTRADITIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOLS:

MOTIVATION, QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE, AND

SOCIAL CONTEXT

by Kevin Rathunde

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research could not have been conducted wit/lOll/the help o{'many peop/('.J would like 1.0 thank the st iuietus. teachers. stu! etunintsttetors who enthu-siastically participated in this study Professor IVlihaly Csikszentmihnly!has been a continual source ot insight and support. He provided the compari-son det» nnd was a co-investigator on the project. Annette Haines, as researchassociate. put in an enormous amount oittnie and passion and was essential[or [he success of the project. Julie Carmalt provided invaluable help at tiieUniversity of Utah. The 0 'Shaughnessy Foundation, Dekko Foundation.and Hershey Foundation provided essential Iinenciel support. Finally. Iwould like to thank David Kahn for seeing the connections between Montessoriphilosophy and optimal experience theory and having the courage 10 initiatea study that compared Montessori schools to traditional middle schools.

INTRODUCTION

By the time readers of The NAlv[TA Journal see these words. t\VO

articles from this study will be under review by academic journals:Middle School Students' Mati va lion and Qualily of Experience: A Compari-son of Montessori and Traditional Middle Sc11001s (Rathunde &Csikszentmihalyi) and The Social Context ofl\,fiddle School: Teachers.Friends. and Activities in Montessori and Treditione! School Environments

Kevin Rathunde is Associate Professor in the Department of Family andConsumer Stiuiies at the University of Utah. He received his PhD in 1989from the Committee on Human Development at the University oi Ctiicego.His research adopts an experiential perspective and is focused on adolescentdevelopment in the family and the role ot interest in education and lifelonglearning.

The N,4 ArIA Journal t 3

(Rathunde & Csiksz entmthalyt}.' It will take some time before thesearticles are published. Therefore. the purpose of this article is toprovide a summary of the key findings from the study, without thepainstaking details that are necessary in a research article.

In keeping with this informal format. let me start with a fewpersonal observations about the study. Before David Kahn asked meto take on this project. I did not know much about: Montessori schools.r had picked lip a few facts from the child development literature, but

that was about it. My onlypersonal experience witha Montessori approachwas sixteen years agowhen my eldest daughterattended a preschool inIllinois that offered a"Montessori component ,.one day a wee k. When Ifirst heard the suggestionthat the Montessori phi-losophy had many thingsin cornrnon with flow

theory, a perspective I knew very well, I was curious, but not yet excitedabout the project. Much of my past research had been focused on thefamily context of flow experience (Rathunde, "Family Context"); edu-cational contexts were always an import.ant. part. of the picture, butthey were not at the center of my interest.

I mustadmit that n:irn pleased t()wport. back~up'~orti~~ news: Studentfinth~MC1nt~ssori.micMles~h66/srep;itedmore .

'positi~~'moti~~tiod and experifmcethan:clf!1f1t~H~cj.s~~Ple(/fstud~b.t$·fr~.T·.tra?i-.·••··ti?naIln.r1dleS9,.,p?{s.A.~~.mberofoth.erfi ndings coriflrrned that the .Montessori

, -""- :",'-:." .. <,'- .,.---.':-.------.,'..--:-.,, .':".' :,:-.::--- ".'

schools created a more positive cornrnu-nityfor early adolescenteduoatlon.

After being invited to a meeting in New York where the lack ofresearch on Montessori schools was a central topic of discussion,David Kahn informed me of his plans to initiate a study of Montessorischools and flow experience, and asked me ifI would be interested inbeing a principal investigator on the project. I started reading theMontessori literature and soon discovered for myself the connectionbetween the flow experience and Maria Montessori's emphasis 011

spontaneous activity. Now my interest was piqued. I wrote an article

..... _ -- -- -..- - -.-.--.-.--- _ - - _ .

'Interested readers can request a copy of the submitted articles tror» Dr. Rathunde(ematl: rati111nde@rcs.lltah.edu).

14 The NAMTA Journal > Vol. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

for The NAMTA]ournal outlining three connections between Montessorieducation and optimal experience theory: (1) an experiential orienta-tion. (2) attention to the context of experience, and (3) a view of humannature that celebrated a child's intrinsic motivation (Rathunde."Montessori Education and Optimal Experience"). When the fundingfor this study finally became available. first from the 0 'ShaughnessyFoundation and later from the Dekko Foundation, I gladly took on theproject and gave it a home at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.From there. it was easy to coordinate meetings with ProfessorCsikszentmihalyi at the Quality of Life Research Center in the Peter F.Drucker School of Management at Claremont Graduate University(Claremont, CA).

It is worth repeating that I am not a member of the Montessoricommunity. Despite the fact that I feel a connection to the Montessoriphilosophy of intrinsic motivation, my only task and responsibilitywas to report what T found after exploring the data. Now that T havecompleted the comparative part of this study, however, lmust admitthat I am pleased to report back supporttve news: SWdeTlIS in tneMontessori middle schools reported more positive motivation and experiencethan a matched sample of students from traditional middle schools. Anumber of other findings confirmed that the Montessori schools cre-ated a more positive community for early adolescent education. Thesefindings are presented here in two parts. Part .I will compare theMontessori and trad itional students' quality of experience. Part 2 willfocus on the social con texts of rhe Montessor iand traditional schools,and the factors involved in creating a supportive learning community.

These results provide positive reinforcement for the Montessoricommunity. As a supportive outsider, however, I would encourageMontessor ians also to think about these findings in the broadercontext of r-iiddle school education. As many of you know. there aretrends in current education ,Policy that emphasize student perfor-mance without much regard for the quality of student experience. Eventhough many Montessori schools are private, they are likely to beinfluenced by these developments in the culture. Therefore. in addi-tion to summarizing the results of the comparison, this article will alsofocus on the quality of middle school education.

The NAMTA Journal IS

PART L: COMPARING MONTESSORI AND TRADITIONAL STUDENTS'

MOTIVATION AND QUALTTY OF EXPERIENCE

The difficulties that many young adolescents encounter in middleschool have been well documented (Carnegie Council on AdolescentDevelopment; Eccles. Midgley, Wigfield, et al.: U.S. Department ofEducation). During the transition from the elementary school years,young adolescents may begin to doubt the value of their academicwork and their abilities to succeed (Simmons & Blyth; Wigfield et al.).A central concern of many studies is a student's motivation; a disturb-ingly consistent finding associated with middle school is a drop instudents' intrinsic motivation to learn (Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley).

Why the downward trends in middle school? Are these trendsinevitable? These are questions that have motivated a great deal ofthought in the literature on motivation and education. Earlier in thecentury. most thinkers thought that puberty brought on a period of"storm and stress" that inevitably disrupted life in the family and inschool. However, most researchers now believe that the negativechanges that often occur in middle school result from a mismatchbetween the typical learning environment at school and an adolescent'sdevelopmental needs (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, et al.).

Jacquelynne Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles. Midgley, Wigfield,f" al.) have written exte nstve ly all the poor fit between adolescents'developmenta 1stage and the school environment. Young adolescentsare developing a greater capacity for deductive thought and the abilityto "see below the surface of things," These same cognitive skills,however. also increase the capacity for self-evaluation, self-conscious-ness. and a potential loss of se If-esteem (Covingto n). YDung ado les-cents also want to exercise more choice and autonomy in the processof self-definition, and they increasingly look to peer relationships forfeedback (£1 ikson: Simmons & Blyth). Middle schools, however, oftenprovide a context that does not fit well with these emerging character-istics. Despite the students' capacity for more independent thought,the typical school environment is more rigid and provides feweropportunities for freedom of choice (Eccles, Lord. & Mldgely) Al-though adolescents are more peer-oriented, middle schools oftendiscourage collaborative work (Wentzel). When adult mentors are

16 The NAkffrl Journal • Vol. 28, No.3· Summer 2003

needed more than ever, teachers are seen as more remote and impersonal (Feldlaufer, Midgley. & Eccles). At a time of increasing self-consciousness, middle schools emphasize public evaluation andgrades more strongly than ever (Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley).

These mismatches could not come at a worse time in development.Many scholars point out that habits formed in adolescence couldundermine lifelong learning and the future quality oflife (Sternberg;Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider). Therefore. a great deal of effort hasbeen invested over the lastfifteenyears trying to identifythe qualities of classroomsand school cultures that en·-hance student success andmotivation (Ames; Anderman.Maehr, & Midgley). Unfurtu-nately. Montessori ideas havegone unrecognized and havenot contributed to the debateabout how to reform middleschools. One obvious reasonfor this oversight. is that MariaMontessori wrote more aboutearly childhood than aboutadolescence. However. thetransposition of Montessoriphilosophy to the middle school environment is clearly possible.According to the NAMTA database of schools, approximately 250middle schools now incorporate some aspects of a Montessori model.Furthermore, when the Montessori philosophy is applied to middleschools, itis surprisingly consistent with contem porary perspectiveson motivation and school reform.

Tt1~ most obviOl,Jsimplication'oLflowtl)~()r'Y for middleschoorreformisthe

.imp()rtan~~of:pla2ing ahigh vaiGe on.,s"tude'ntexperience/'This experiential"

pers~e¢tiye 'ls.th~istroQgesi, fink bee.tyieenOPtim~lexperi~nce.theory and

'.'MontessorieClu~ation.,Maria .Mon-tessortbelteved that.children's spon-tarieou$concentration revealed theessence ofpeinghurrlan, and there isli£t1edoubtthat",ihat she had in mind

'wheH' speakirigal50ut .conc~ntrati()'nw~s .sornethlnq akin' to flow.

Montessori Ideas and Contemporary Motivation Theory

Two contemporary motivation theories, goal theory and flowtheory, have important implications for middle school reform andmuch in common with Montessori philosophy. Before discussing theresults from the study. it is important to lay down a conceptual

The NAMTA Journal 17

framework for understanding why we expected Mcntessori studentsto report a more positive quality of experience in school. In otherwords. both theories can help illustrate different positive dimensionsof the Montessori schools.

Goal TheOIYGoal theory suggests how students' goals mediate the quality of

their engagement at school. Two qualitatively different kinds of goa Isare distinguished: task and performance (Anderman & Maehr). Task-focused students are intrinsically motivated: they are drawn to nov-el ty and the desire to rnaster challenging tasks. Performance-focusedstudents. in contrast. are worried about public evaluations of theirability; this can disrupt learning by diminishing risk-taking and effort(Dweck & Leggett). Since the characteristics and structure of manymiddle schools appear to reinforce and socialize performance goals(Anderman. Maehr. & Midgley). attempts to change classrooms andschool cultures have focused on strategies that presu rnably reinforcestudents' task focus. These strategies have been summarized with theacronym "TARGET" (Task. Authority, Recognition. Grouping, Evalu-ation. and Time).

It is remarkable how much the policies and practices of theMontessori schools in this study reflected the TARGET proposals. Forexample. a task [ocuswas emphasized by a common school culture thatcelebrated intrinsic motivation. Teachers. consistent with theirMontessori traini ng. gave students freedom to select projects andseveral hours per day to complete them. Authority was not rigidlyhierarchical in the Montessori classrooms; students often planneddetails offield trips. had input into various topics of study. and werecalled upon in "Ieadershi p groups" to help maintain the classroomsand the school. Recognition of students was done in ways that avoidedachievement competitlon. For example. one frequently used strategywas to have students identify a topic of personal interest. research it.and then be responsible for presenting the information to the class.Ability grouping was rarely practiced; instead, studentgroups weretypically based on shared interests. Because a significant amount ofdaily time was unstructured. students also had ample time for peerinteraction and were encouraged to collaborate with others. In termsof eveluetion. only about one quarter of the Montessorl students re-

18 The NAUTA Journal, Vol. 28. No.3' Summer 2003

ceived grades: and those who did, did so voluntarily (i.e., it was nota mandatory practice). Finally, time was often managed in t1exibleways. For example. block scheduling at some of the schools allowedteachers to expand or contract their meeting time with students de-pending upon what was happening at the moment in the classroom.

AlIaI' these observa tions are based on site visits made to theMontessori schools and on conversations with teachers. The fiveschools, of course, were not exactly the same. but there was consis-tency on the basic principles outlined above. The schools were alsosimilar in terms of students' freedom of movement, the buzz in theclassroom, and the informal and aesthetically pleasing classroomenvironments in each of them. These qualities were readily apparent.and they distinguished the Montessori schools from the more formaland structured environments one typically encounters in middleschools.

Flow TheoryOptimal experience theory, or flow theory. is familiar to many

Monressorians. Flow is an intrinsically motivated. task-focused statecharacterized by full concentration. a change in the awareness of time(e.g .. time passi ng quickly). feelings of clarity and control, a mergi ngof action and awareness, and a lack of self-consciousness[Cstkszentmihalyi, Flow). The experience is triggered by a good fitbetween a person' 5 skills in an activity and the challenges afforded bythe environment. Flow has been shown to promote learning anddevelopment because experiences of deep and total concentration areintrinsically rewarding. and they motivate students to repeat anactivity at progressively higher levels of challenge (Csikszentmihalyi.Rathunde, & Whalen).

The most obvious implication of flow theory for middle schoolreform is the importance of placing a high value on student experience.This experiential perspective is the strongest link between opti ma Iexperience theory and Montessori education. Maria Montessori be-lieved that children's spontaneous concentration revealed the es-sence of being human. and there is little doubt that what she had inmind when speaking about concentration was something akin to flow.

The NAAt1A Journal [9

According to E.M. Standing's biography of Montessori, a key turningpoint in the development of her method occurred after observing athree year- old child who was so engaged with wooden cylinders thatshe could not be distracted. Montessori was impressed with children'spowers of concentration: "It has been revealed that children not onlywork seriously but they have great powers of concentration .... Actioncan absorb the whole attention and energy ofa person. It valorizes allthe psychic energies so that the child completely ignored all that ishappening around him" (Montessori. U npublished lectures, 83-84).Witnessing this episode apparently evolved into the main theme of theMontessori method: creating a school environment that fostered deepengagement and concentration.

According to optimal experience theory, a school or family contextenhances flow experience by (a) supporting students' interests and (b)challenging student.s to work at developing those interests(Cs ikszenrmihalyi & Rathunde: Rathunde, "Family Context"). In thisway. a dynamic interrelation of involuntary' and selective modes ofattention is initiated (seejarnesj-c-or what. Dewey once referred t.o asbeing "playful and serious at the same time" (218). Such a combinationis thought to provide an efficient use of attention that generates thernorneriturn necessary to t.rigger flow experiences (Rathunde, "TheExperience of Interest": Rathunde. "Family Context"). For example. ifa school context were only supportive. children would be susceptibleto "fooling." or jumping haphazardly from one interest to the nextwithout focusing on a goal. Conversely. if a context were only chal-lenging-the more typical condition in most middle schools and highschools-children would be susceptible to" drudgery," or being tole!what to concentrate on without an emotional investment in what theywere doing at the moment.

The policies and practices of the Montessori schools in this studyalso reflected the above implications of optimal experience theory. Forexample. consistent with the idea of combining playfulness andseriousness, the schools emphasized the Montessori theme of keepi ngbody and mind united through the integration of acting and thinking inthe classroom (Montessori. From Childhood to Adolescence 24-25), Inthis way, the teachers avoided the overtly didactic methods moretypical of traditional middle schools (e.g., frequent lectures). Such

20 The NA;VfTA Journal • Vol. 28, No.3' Summer 2003

methods often separate thinking from its experiential context andresult in drudgery. Consistent with the idea of creating a balancedcontext that supports and challenges students' interests. the schoolsin the study practiced the traditional Montessori doctrine of freedomwith discipline. Although most nori-Montessorians only recognize aMontessori environment as one where a student is given the freedomto choose an activity and explore his or her interests. Maria Montessorialso emphasized the need for discipline: "You must not imagine tbatliberty is something without rule or law" (cited in Standing 286). Inthese two ways. the Montessori schools employed strategies that wereexpected to enhance student concentration and flow.

In summary, many of the policies and practices ofthe Montessorischools in this study were consistent with two contemporary motiva ..tion perspectives, goal theory and flow theory. The expectation thatthe Montessori students would report a more positive quality orexperience was based on these similarities.

The Design of the Study

Some information about the design of the study must be presentedin order to provide readers with a context for understanding theresults. However, many of the details about the study's methods andstatistics can be safely eliminated without jeopardizing an under-standing of what was found. Those readers who would like moreinformation than is presented here can find it in the two articlessubmitted for publication (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, !vDddleSchool Students' Motivation: Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi. The SocialContext of Middle School).

Who Participated?Five Montessori schools from four U.S. states participated in the

study. Approximately 150 sixth and eighth grade students (60';\0female and 40% male) attended the five schools and filled out thenecessary measures. The traditional middle school students wereselected from a larger study involving twenty middle schools andapproximately 400 students in grades six and eight (seeCsikszentmlhalyi & Schneider). The full sample encompassed allsocial class levels. and approximately half of the students were frontethnic minority families.

The NAAfTA Journal 21

Some of the first analyses in the study took a closer look at the fullsample of traditional students; the results indicated that the fullsample was too different from the Montessori students to offer a faircomparison. Using questionnaires and other sources of information.we found that the traditional students had larger class sizes, many ofthe schools were locatedin the inner city. there were higher numbersof minority students. and their average grades were lower (e.g.,compared to the small sample of Montessori students who receivedgrades). More importantly. their family backgrounds were very differ-ent. The traditional students came from families with fewer resources(e.g .. computers. books). more divorce. lower parental employment. ahigher number of children, less parental education. Jess parentaldlscussion about school, less parental monitoring of school activities,and Jess parental involvement at school.

Since previous research has shown that family characteristics.socioeconomic status (SES). and ethnic background are stronglyrelated to students' engagement in the classroom (Finn; Lee & Smith;Marks; Wentzel), a subset of schools was selected that matched theprimarily European American and higher SES status ofthe Montessoristudents. Six ofrhe twenty middle schools in the traditional samplesatisfied the matching of criteria (average parental education equ iva-lent to a bachelor's degree. ethnic composition approximately 75%European American. small teacher-student ra tios). The final sarn pieof traditional students included approximately 160 students (55'1;)female. 45% male).

To confirm that the two samples were indeed similar and alloweda fair comparison of schools. the samples were compared again usingall the variables described above. This time. there were no statisticallySignificant differences between the two samples on any of the indivldus}.family. SChO.0:. or community variables. The ethnic breakdown of thesample was almost exactly the same (approximately 7596 white).parents had similar levels of education (bachelor's degree or higher).and the schools were all modern. attractive. and with good student-teacher ratios (approximately 15: 1). Table 1 lists the backgroundvariables comparing the two samples.

22 The iVAMTAJournal • Vol. 28. No.3' Slimmer 2003

r--------------------

iTable 1. Comparison of the Montessori and

Traditional Students on Background Variables

No differences in parents' education

• Similar attractive schools with good teacher-student ratios

• Similar ethnic breakdown

• No differences in home resources

• Similar parent-child discussion about school

• Similar monitoring of school activities

• Parents just as involved at school

• Same number of siblings

• No differences in percent of intact homes

• No differences in mother/father employment

• Similar grades (half A's and half B's)

I!

j

I

I1- .. . ..__ ._ _._ _ _ _. _. _ __ _. __ __ '.._ .. _...... _ _.,

Dntn Collection and the Experiential MessutesIn addition to making sure that the Montessori and traditional

samples were similar in terms of background, it was also importantthat. the students in both samples used similar procedures and mea-SUf(~S. Therefore, data collection from the Montessori students was setLip using the procedures and measures that had been establishedseveral years earlier in the study of traditional students. In otherwords, students received the same instructions for filling out thevarious measures, and the measures themselves contained the samequestions formatted in a similar way.

Students in both samples responded to the Experience Sam piingMethod (ESM). The ESt--,1uses watches programmed to signal studentsapproximately eight times per day between the hours of 7:30 am and10:30 pm for seven consecutive days (see Csikszentmihalyi & Larson).When the watches" beeped," students took out a response form andanswered questions about what they were feeling at the moment,where they were, what they were thinking about. and other questions

The NAt\1TA Journal 23

about their momentary experience. Students in both samples alsocompleted a detailed questionnaire with similar questions about theirbackgrounds.

The five main ESM measures used in the study of traditional publicschools were also used in this study: affect (general mood or happi-

ness). potency (energy level orexci ternenr). salience (feelingsofimportance). intrinsic moti-vation (sense of enjoyment andinterest). and flow. A sixthmeasure was added. undividedinterest (bringing enjoymentand importance together).based on work done in previ-ous family and education stud-ies (Rathunde, "The Experienceof Interest"; Rathu tide ... Fam-ily Context"). A more completedescription of these six mea-sures is presented in Table 2.More detailed informationabout the reliability of the mea-sures can be found in the re-

search articles (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi. Mkld!« School Students'Motivation: Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, The Social Context oFI\,1iddJeSchoon.

Ttre vre aults 'sho,wedthat theMontessoristudenls ~epOrled,asig'";.17ifi¢antIY:b:eit~r'qOality .ot,eie~ri5.

.,.~~c.~.,.in:aC~de:pis..,i9/~,thfh,··tf?~tr~ditionatstud~nts:' There, \\Iere'strong differences suggesting .that:MoqtessdristuderH~ were,feeling

" -. -'\'-,-:-.-. --. ." .:.-, ..'~ .. ,--'. ."

nl0re actiVG,strong,e~cifed,happy,relaxed. sociable. and proud while:enga~ed in academic' work. They,were 'aisoenjoying themselves'.more, they were more interested in

·wh.at."t(ley weredoing·iandlhey·wCl.ntedto bedOinga'caderniqwork'm{)ret~~'Jfheti~ditlbnal,si~d,~i;ts."

In addition to the undivided interest percentage described inTable 2. three other interest" quadrants" were computed using theintrinsic motivation and salience variables. Distntetestvees. the op po-site of undivided interest, or times when intrinsic motivation andsalience were both below average. Two kinds of "divided interest"were also calculated: Fooling described times when intrinsic motiva-tion was above average but salience was below average. and drudgerydescribed times when salience was above average and intrinsic moti-vation was below average. The assumption underlying this classifica-tion comes from John Dewey. who suggested that the ideal mentalcondition was to be "playful and serious at the same time" (218): he

24 The NAJ'vfTAJournal • Vol. 28. No.3' Summer 2003

r~'"-..-...-------.--...-.~-....-- ...--.--..-.....- ..--..-. --.....- --.---..-- --.---.-.-.-.-.-----.--...-...- -.-.---..-..-..-.i Table 2. Understanding the Measures

IHow THE COMPOSITE MEASURES WERE CALCULATED

. 1. Several individual items were added together to create four "composite"

measures:

AFFECT = happy + relaxed + sociable + proud

POTENCY = strong + active + excited

SALIENCE = challenge + importance to self + importance to future

INTRIWSIC MOTIVATION = enjoyment + interest + wish to be doing the activity

2. A value for each composite was calculated for two contexts at school: 1)

when students were doing academic activities (e.g. working in class,

presentations, homework, etc.); and 2) when students were doing non-

academic activities (e.g. eating lunch, socializing. leisure, etc.). The ESM

item "What was the main thing you were doing'?" was used to distinguish

these two contexts.

INTERPRETING THE COMPOSITES

All of the measures are standardized so that a score of "zero" means

average for the week. Therefore, an affect score of -.16 in academic

activities would mean that students' affect while doing schoolwork was

below their average levels of affect for the week.

How FLow AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST WERE CALCULATED

Some of the ESM items were used to create percentage scores of flow and

undivided interest.

1. When a student responded to an ESM signal, if their skills and challenges

were both above their average levels for the week, that was considered a

flow signal; when a student's intrinsic motivation and salience were both

above their weekly levels, that signal was considered undivided interest.

FLOW: above average challenge and skill

UNOIVfiJb" INTEREST: above average intrinsic motivation and salience

2. A percentage value for each of the above variables was computed for

academic and non-academic contexts at school. For example, if a student

responded to 1 0 ESM signals while doing academic work, and 4 of them

indicated above average skill and challenge, the flow percentage would Iequal 40%. The percentage for undivided interest was computed exactly the Isame way. J

The NAMTA Journal 25

-II

II

II

I

IIII

referred to divided states that. were overly playful or overly serious as"fooling" and "drudgery," respectively.

Analysis PlanNone of the statistical details ofthe analyses will be presented in

this article. However. a basic description of the technique used. anda primer on some terminology, is useful for making sense of thefindings.

The statistical technique selected was multivariate analysis ofcovariance (or MANCOVA). This is a technique that assesses differences between several variables and factors at the same rime, whileadjusting or "controlling" for any differences in important back-ground variables, Such an approach attempts to verify that school-related differences found between the Montessori and traditionalstudents are not related to differences in the students' grade level,education of their parents. ethnic background, or gender.

When all of the conditions of the multivariate analyses are suc-cessfully met, then one can say with confidence that a particulardifference is meaningful or Significant. Statistically speaking, a signifi-cant difference means that there is less than a 5 in 100 chance that thed.ifference could have occurred by chance: or conversely, we could beat least 95% sure that the differences were real and not random. Thenotation used to represent such a finding is p < .05. or probability isless than 5 in 100. Many of the findings in this study were muchstronger than this conventional rule of thumb. There were very fewSignificant differences related to grade level or the background vari-ables. Therefore, the remainder of this article focuses on Significantdifferences that occurred between the Montessori and traditionalstudents.

We hypothesized that students in Montessori middle schoolswould report more positive motivation and experience than the tradi-tional students. This expectation was based on the fact that thepolicies and practices of the Montessori schools were more in line withcontemporary motivation theory. However. most of these positive differ-ences were expected to occur in academic rather than non-ecedetuic activities.

26 The NAMTtI Journal • Vol. 28. No.3' Summer 2003

rn other words. non-academic activities were outside the" mission" ofthe school and less influenced by pedagogical differences. In thosecircumstances. therefore, students were expected to report similarexperiences.

Results (Part 1): Do Montessori Students Have MoreOptimal Experience While Working in School?

The ESM results are based on approximately 4.000 signals col-lected from the Montessori and traditional students while they wereat school: about 2,500 of those 4,000 signals captured students doingacademic work. Figure 1 summarizes the results for three of thecomposites that measured students' experience in academic work:affect. potency, and intrinsic motivation. The results showed that theMontessori students reported a significantly better quality of experience inacademic work than the traditional students. There were strong d iffer-ences suggesting that Montessori students were feeling more active,strong, excited, happy. relaxed, sociable, and proud while engaged inacademic work. Theywere also enjoying themselves mere. they weremore interested in what they were doing, and they wanted to be doingacademic work more than the traditional students.

II

:

IL. _

Figure 1. Affect, Potency, and Motivationin Academic Activities

0.1r------------------·----Average

for theweek

·0.3,,·,,·--,,-·,,-,,--,,--···--------,,---·--·--

-04 .4t;.M6.~~~ss'Qf'iiStud~nt'~.~ -""...,..._j. I }:I;Trad11i(),nal$tudel)fs -0.44

-0.5'-------------------'Affect Potency Motivation

The NAA,tTA J01l1'/1ul 27

In addition to the comparison of the Montessori and traditionalstudents, figure 1 also provides additional interesting informationabout experience while working at school. The Montessori students'affect, potency, and motiva-tion in academic work wereabout the same as their aver-age levels for the week. Inother words, they seemed tobe just as engaged whiledoing work in school as theywere the rest of the weekdoing various activities out-side of school. Another wayto make the same point is totake a closer look at the po-tency variable. The score of"0" tells us that theMontessori students' po-tency was rightat their aver-age for the week. Thataverage, in terms of the categories on the ESM forms, suggests a mildlypositive state (feeling "some" potency). In contrast, the traditionalstudents' score of -.19 suggests their potency in academic work wasbe Io 'v" their weekly average. These students did not feel any positivesense of strength or excitement: relative to their experience in othercontexts, they felt weaker and more bored while working in school.

. - -- -.- - . . .

achievement ~rp~rfbrri1anCe goals inways that can undermine or ignOre theimport~ncebf intrinsic motivation.

, .. "

Theprimary'experifJnce. forthe tradi~~'.,: ',':-, .,< >', . ,-"":".:;;<:-':<,'--," ~.:~,:

tiOflClI'stUqentT•."Yasw~CltJbhn Dewey;.~terredto as9fudgery.Drpdgery is the

.feeling that whCltore.is doingTSimpor-ianttQ futl1tegoalS,but pursu.ing trasego~js is notmotivi:Hing or ,enjoyabl~ atthe'moment.,Therefore, the trad itklna Istud~rits\high~~Hence.6~.IY.serves .toconfi~~·.fheprbblemthari~ often .re-ported in theinfdcjie school literature:Traditional'schoCllsofte'n focus on

The fact that Montessori students were feeling about the same inschool as the rest of their life may not. at first glance, seem like a ringingendorsement of school; however. such a pattern of experience isactually quite positive. ESl'vl studies for the past twenty years havefound that students' quality of experience doing schoolwork is usu-ally much less positive than their experience during the rest of theweek. This is true even for young adolescents who have specialacademic gifts and talents (see Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde. & Whalen).Therefore, the fact that Montessori students are feeling about the samein schoolwork as in the rest of their lives (e.g., feeling" some" sense ofexcitement and strength) suggests that school is not an aversive place;it fits well into the ecology of their lives.

28 The NAMTA Journal • Vol. 28. No.3' Summer 2003

The ESM measure of salience showed a different pattern. Both theMontessori and the traditional students reported salience levels wellabove their weekly average while they were doing academic work.This was not surprising: students understand that schoolwork isimportant to their futures. What was surprising was that the tradi-tional students reported Significantly higher salience levels than theMontessori students. On closer inspection, however. this findingturned out to be a "false positive." Low levels ofintrinsic motivationaccompanied the traditional students' feelings of high salience. Inother words. the traditional students had the feeling that what theywere doing was important; but as they were doing these academicactivities, they were not feeling much interest or enjoyment. Figure 2illustrates the combinations of intrinsic motivation and salience re-ported by the Montessori and traditional students.

There are two striking differences in Figure 2. First. the Montessoristudents reported a significantly higher percentage of undividedinterest-times when high motivation and high salience occurred atthe same time. In other words. Montessori students reported aboveaverage intrinsic rnottvation and above average salience 40% of thetime in academic work. In comparison, the traditional students re-

45c

'" 37"0

'"OJ

a 29

c:

21cQ)

o

OJ 130..

Nigh MotivationHigl1/mportance

Low MotivationHigh Importance

Low MotivationLow tmpottence

High MotivationLow lmportencei

IL_~~ _

The NA MTA Journal 29

ported undivided interest only 24% of the time. The primary experi-ence for the traditional students was what john Dewey referred to asdrudgery. Drudgery is the feeling that what one is doing is importantto future goals. but pursuing those goals is not motivating or enjoyableat the moment. Therefore, the trad itional students' high salience onlyserves to confirm the problem that is often reported in the middleschool literature: Traditional schools often focus on achievement orperformance goals in ways that can undermine or ignore the impor-tance of intrinsic motivation.

Flow ExperienceThe ESM composites suggested that the Montessori students were

having more optimal experience while doing academic work. How-ever. there was one additional, important way to verify if this wasindeed the case. Flow theory suggests that when challenges and skillsare both above average for a student. the conditions are optimal forflow experience. A great deal of research over the years has shown thisto be the case (see Csikszentrni halyi, Flow). Figure 3 iIIustrares thecombinations of high skills and high challenges observed in the twogroups of students. As expected. the Montessori students reportedmore flow-like conditions while doing academic work. This finding.in combination with the others on affect. potency. motivation, andLInd ivided interest, make a strong empirical case that the Montessoristudents' experience was more optimal in school-related activities.! --------_._._.___.-..----.--- ..-.--- ---- ..~ --.-------.--..--.---.---.~------ ---------- ..--- ..---- ..- -------- ..__.- _..---"'-j

i Figure 3. Flow in Academic and Non-Academic Activities iI 40 Ii ~ Ii c 35 II u, 30 I

I 0 25 I[ !I 20 .

I ~ 15

I ~ 10

II_______ =; .... ._.__._---------1

:10 The NAMTA. Journal • Vol. 28. No. 3 • Slimmer 2003

Experience in Non-Academic WorkWhat about the times when students were doing non-acadernic

work? The expectation was that when students were eating lunch.hanging out in the halls. talking with friends. and so on. that theywould report fairly similar experiences. In other words. in activitiesthat were outside the missions of the schools. we did not expect. to seemany positive experiential differences in favor of Montessori stu-dents. This lack of difference, in fact, is what we found. The Montessoriand traditional students reported similar levels of potency. intrinsic moti-vation, and undil/ided interest while they were doing non-academic ectivi-lies. Only two variables-affect and salience-showed the same patternobserved in academic work. That is, the Montessori students stillreported more positive affect in non-academic activities and the tradi-tional students reported higher salience. Furthermore, Figure 3 illus-trates that traditional students actually perceived non-academicactivities to be more flow-like than did the Montessori students.

The above reversals are very important to the interpretation of thestudy. If the Montessori students reported more positive experience inboth academic and non-academic work, it might be argued that theirESM responses were biased and indiscriminate (l.e.. they just wantedto make their schools look better). The fact that the Significant differences in intrinsic motivation. flow, potency. and undivided interestdisappeared in non-academic activities diminishes the plausibility ofa bias explanation. Students were not aware of what school experi-ences were being targeted; as far as they knew, a negative responsewhile eating lunch. walking to class. or talking to a friend in the hallscould just as easily have made their schools look" bad." The fact thatstudents in both samples reported similar experiences during theirdown time suggests that a general school bias was not. a major factoraffecting the results. Given the clear differences in the pedagogicalapproach of the Montessori schools. an approach that was moresensitive to students' intrinsic motivation and self-direction. a muchmore plausible explanation of the findings is that the policies andpractices of the Montessori schools (i.e., the school culture) wereresponsible for the superior quality of experience reported by theMontessori students.

The /VA ut» Journal 3 I

PART 2. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT Of MIDDLE SCHOOL: TEACHERS,

FRIENDS, AND ACTIVITIES IN MONTESSORI AND TRAlJlTlON/\L SCHOOLS

The quality of student experience was not the only outcome ofinterest in this study. In addition to problems of student motivation.many scholars have identifiecl deficiencies in the typical social con-text that young adolescents encounter after leaving the elementarygrades. Do Montessori middle schools provide a more healthy commu-nity for learning than traditional middle schools? Can differences inthe social contexts of the two types of schools help to explain thedramatic experiential differences that were reported in Part lor thisarticle? These questions will be addressed after summarizing some ofthe social context problems that have been identified in the educationIiterature.

Why the negative experience and lower motivation in many middleschools? Part of the problem is the social context. There are three mainareas of concern that are the focus in Part 2 of this article: (1) There is<1 growing distance in teacher-student relations at a time in earlyadolescence when adult support is crucial (Feldlaufor, Midgley. &Eccles): (2) there are fewer opportunities for meaningful peer interac-tion (Eccles, Lord. & Midgley) at a time when peers are becoming morehighly valued (Brown; Savin-Williams & Berndt): and (3) there is agrowing emphasis placed on one-directional communication (e.g ..lectures. searwork, and viewing media) (Guthrie & Davis: Mac Iver.Young, & Washburn) just as young adolescents are becoming morecable ofmore complex thought and communication (Piaget: Sternberg).Research suggests that these three problems in middle schools canhave a negative impact on student motivation. experience, and achieve-ment.

Schools are inherently social places, and their interpersonal dy-namics have a great potential to influence student motivation andinterest (juvonen & Wentzel). Teacher-studen t relations, of course, areof central irnportance. Many studies have confirmed the iIIIportance ofteacher support. on student achievement and other ou tcoines (Fraser &Fisher: Midgley. Feldlaufer, & Eccles; Wentzel). From an experientialperspective. feeling that teachers care and can be trusted is essentialfor students' ability to invest themselves in the moment. The same

32 The NAMTA Journal • Vol. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

applies to parenting: adolescents who feel supported at home reportmore positive affective states (Rathunde. "Family Context "). Teacherscan also influence student experience by the way they structureopportunities for student autonomy and by what they communicateabout the goals of the learning environment. For example, when ateacher creates an environment that emphasizes public performanceinstead of task-engagement or mastery, student motivation suffers(Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley).

While teacher influences on student experience are universallyrecognized as important. peer influences are often neglect.ed. Whenthey are discussed and studied, it is usually in relation to the devel-opment of adolescents' social skills (Brown). Much less is knownabou t how peers provide a context that. affects adolescent motiva tionin middle school (Eccles. Wigfield, & Schiefele: Ryan). A growing bodyof research, however. suggests that successful peer relationships needto be taken seriously: studies show that. they are important for studentengagement. efficient cognitive strategies, adjustment to school, andacademic achievement (Bernd l &. Keefe: Ryan &. Patrick; Wen tze l}.Positive interactions with peers may also be important for a student'sself-regulation at school. For example, when discussion in the class-room is promoted and students can draw on information from otherperspecttves.Jt improves a student's ability to strategtze and plan atask (Dimant & Bearison; McCaslin &. Good).

Classroom activities are another important influence on studentmotivation and the social dynamics of a school. After leaving theelementary grades, students report a steady decline in interest, choice.and the enjoyment of classroom activities (Gentry, Gable, & Rizza).Part of this decline might be related to the greater use of textbooks thatformalize instruction, eliminate student choice, and minimize real-world applications (Guthrie & Davis: Mac Iver. Young, & Washburn).More importantly, the organization of activities in a classroom canimpact interpersonal relations at school (Ryan & Patrick). Studentsreport that active, collaborative, and bi-directional tasks. such asworking with friends, help them to learn. In contrast, passive. one-directional activities, like listening to a lecture or watching educa-tional videos, are perceived as less helpful (Freeman. McPhail, &

The /VA AfT1 Journal 33

Berndt). When tasks are more collaborative. students also report astronger mastery goal orientation (N ichols & Mi ller) .

The next set of analyses in the study focused on differences inteacher-student relations, peer relations, and the activities that con-nected students and teachers in the Montessori and traditional schools.We expected that the social contexts in the two types ofrniddle schoolswould differ in these three areas, and that these differences would helpto explain why the Montessori students reported more positive expe-rience in their academic work.

Social Context Measures

Before presenting the results of the social context analyses, a briefexplanation of the measures is necessary.

Teechet-Sciiool MeesureStudents rated their teachers and schools on a background ques-

tionnalre. A statistical proced ure called" factor analysis" was used toidentify three main dimensions of teacher-school quality: supportive,orderly, and safe. Table 3 provides a quick summary of the individualitems that make up each dimension.

Friends and Classmates MeasureThe students' ESM responses were used to provide a subtle mea-

sure of how students felt about their classmates. After each ESM signalthat occurred during academic work at school. students would indi-cate whom they were with by placing a check in a box. There were tenpossible choices, including the two categories of interest here: "friends"and" classmates/ peers." When the watch signaled a student, he orshe could select the singular choices of" classmates/ peers" or "friends."Students were also free to indicate the combined choice of "classmates/peers"and "friends" if that was how they perceived the social environment. Weused this free-choice situation to construct three percentage measuresof how students perceived their compatriots at school: classmates(only), friends (only). and classmates-and-friends. In other words, ifa student responded to ten signals while engaged in schoolwork, andfour signals indicated they were with classmates, two with friends,

34 The NAMTA Journal • £'01. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

- - -.__ ._.._ _..- . __ __ ._._ _....•.._- ........• _ _ _- - _ _.-••......... _........ ---,Table 3. I

Questions on the Teacher and School Measure iII

II

III!

II. _ __ __..:tl~e_~t~~::~ _:~f: _.__..__.._. __ _.__ _..__...1

SUPPORTIVE

• Students & Teachers Get Along

There Is School Spirit•• Discipline Is Fair

• Teaching Is Good

Teachers Interested in Students

• Teachers Praise Student Efforts

• Teachers Listen

ORDERLY

• Students Not Disrupt Class

Disruptions Not Interrupt Learning

Misbehavior Not Tolerated•SAFE

Teachers Not Put Down Students

Students Not Put Down Students

and four with classmates and friends. the corresponding percentageswould equal 40%, 20(10, and 40'X), respectively.

Classroom Activnies MeasureA subsection of the ESM coding scheme for academic activities

dealt specifically with classroom activities; these codes provided anopportunity to compare the two samples on the instructional practicesthat occurred in the classroom. In addition to an "unspecified" cat-egory for times when students responded generically to the "whatwere you doing" question (e.g., "working in class"), there were twelveadditional codes that provided some detail about classroom instruc-tion. These twelve categories were recoded into four qualitativelydifferent instructional practices: passive listening (listening to a lec-ture, listening and taking notes, listening to a discussion); collaborativework (participating in a discussion, lab work in a group, grou p work/activity, group presentation, talking to the teacher); individual work(individual lab work, individual work/activity, solo presentation);and media (watching TV, film, or video). After selecting this group of

The NAI1.-1TAJournal 35

detailed classroom signals, percentage variables were calculated foreach student and for the Montessori and traditional schools.'

Results (Part 2): Do Montessori Schools Provide a MorePositive Community for Learning?

The findings in Part 2, similar to those presented in Part 1, focuson the Montessori versus traditional school comparisons. Once again,there were very few statistical differences associated with grade levelor any of the background variables (parental education, ethnicitv. andgender).

Figure 4 summarizes the findings for the students' perceptions oftheir teachers and schools, All of the teacher-school variables wereSignificantly different for the two school contexts. Montessori stu-dents reported more support from teachers. more order in the class-room, and a greater feeling of emotional/psychological safety. Thefindings here are clear and simple to interpret. The Montessori stu-dents were much more positive about the quality of their schoolenvironments, Overall, the Montessori students (1) saw their teachersas more fair, friendly, and interested in them: (2) did not perceive asmuch chaos in the environment in terms of disruptions and rnisbehav-ior; and (3) felt safe from the emotional pain associated with putdownsby teachers and students. There is little doubt that some of the positiveexperiential findings reported in Part 1 are related to the more positiveperceptions that Montessori students had of their teachers and schools,Past ESM research has shown that a supportive and orderly socialcontext enhances students' quality of experience (Csikszentmihalyi,Rarhunde. & Whalen; Rathunde. "Family Context").

"These particular percentage variables are less reliable than (he overall schoolactivity codes because they are based on a smaller number or signals and,therefore. can Iluctuate more easily. In addition, these codes depended upon thedetail "voluntarily" provided by students (I.e .. if students responded with ageneral phrase like "in class" and did not specify what they were doing. it couldnot be coded into one of the more detailed classroom practice categories).However, all of the students had an equal chance to report what they were doing.and both samples received the same instructions for responding to the ESM:therefore, these measures provided some useful information about classroompractices.

3() The »uut» Journal • Vol. 28, No.3 • Summer 2003

r--I

II

I

I

,

~------------I

i;Figure 4. Students' Perceptions of

Their Teachers and Schools

;.Monj~ss9ri.Stud~~f.afrtiditlonafStlidents 4~3

Teacher Support Classroom Order Feeling Safe

i~__~_I

The findings for students' perceptions of their friends and class-mates were the most surprising of the study. Figure 5 illustrates theresults. The Montessori and traditional students perceived a verydifferent social context with respect to their peers. The Montessoristudents more often perceived their peers as friends-and-classmates'while they were doing schoolwork; the traditional students. in con-trast, saw their peers as classmates only. Both differences were highlysignificant in statistical terms. The Montessori and traditional stu-dents reported the same percentage oftirne with just friends.

It is hard to overestimate the magnitude of these results for Friendsand classmates; Figure 5 does not do justice to the size of the difference.Another way to think about the practical significance of these findingsis in terms of time. If students were doing five hours of academic workper school day, the figure suggests that Montessori students spentabout two hours more per day feeling like they were working withfriends and classmates. In contrast. the traditional students were

The NAAD"A Journal j 7

......... ~.--..--.-.- - ~._.._-_ _.- -.-.- ..--..--_ .. _ - _ _---_ _ ..•- __ ._--_._---_. __ .---"-_.-._---_. __ ._. _ -_ .. _._. __ .- -_. - ._----1"-"'---'

75.0 r::=:-----------;::::::;;====::::;;:==::::;]• Montessori Student

Traditional Students

Figure 5. Time Spent with Classmates & Friendsin Academic Work

'"E 56.3

I-

o37.5

cQ)

u

U>CL 18.8

II!I 0

Lspending about two hours more per day feeling like they were withclassmates but not friends. When one starts to multiply these timedifferences by days, weeks, and months, the Montessori and tradi-tional social contexts appear to be very different.

.A plausible explanation for this difference is the way the two typesof schools were organized. The traditional middle schools were morelikely to have students sitti ng in class together listening to the teacheror working on a class assignment. In the Montessori classrooms, ifstudents were not working alone, they were moving in and outofsrnallgroups. Because the groups were based on shared interests rather thanstudents' c);)ility levels. the composition of students in the groupscontinually shifted as new interests formed. In the traditional si tua-tlon .. it makes sense that students would report being with class-mates-the social context is impersonal. On the other hand, ifstudentsare working in small groups, or with one or two other students doinga similar project, the intimate situation lends itself to tbe feeling ofsharing work with friends and classmates.

38 The NA UTA Journal • Vol. 28, No.3' Summer 2()03

r

II

IIIi

I

IIi Passive

Listening

il~~te: Numbers are time percentages of classroom activities that could be specifically identified.

Figure 6. Classroom Activities in Montessoriand Traditional Schools

•••i'M9n!,~~SOriSh.lderlS.·.Q>Tradilional;SiGdentS!

-.•.. '-'-.v ,"" '. .' --. • -'.

6

CollaborativeWork

IndividualWork

WatchingMedia

The suggestion that the classrooms in the two types of schoolswere organized differently is not speculation. The ESM was used tocOlnpare the activities of students in the two school contexts. Figure 6presents confirmation that the Montessori and traditional studentsengaged in a different mix of classroom activities. All ofthe differencesillustrated in the figure are statistically significant. The Montessoristudents spent: less time in the passive listening category (listening toa lecture or discussion. taking notes) and less time watching TV. film.or video. They spent more time than the traditional students workingon collaborative and individual projects.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of questions that are often asked by people whoare aware of my involvement in this study. The questions come fromMontessorians who are interested in the results and what it all meansfor their schools. from colleagues interested in education and devel-opment. and from friends and acquaintances who are just curious.

The NAAfTA Journal 39

Despite the different interests of all these individuals, the questionsthat keep coming up are often very similar. Therefore, they provide anexcellent way to summarize the study and discuss its implications,

What did we find?

Results from the study showed that while engaged in academicwork at school. Montessori students reported higher affect, potency(feeling alert and energetic). intrinsic motivation (enjoyment, interest).and now experience than students frum traditional middle schools,The traditional students did report higher salience (fee lings of impor-tance for their futures). However, when this fincling is interpretedwithin the context of the other experiential differences, it is not verypositive. For example, when looking at the students' undivided inter-est (above average intrinsic motivation and salience), or the timeswhen students said they were feeling high interest while doing some-thing with high relevance for their futures. the Montessori students'experiences were far more positive. Almost 40% of their schoolworkwas intrinsically motivating and important; in contrast. the tracli-tiona I students felt this way only 24% of the time.

Results also showed clear differences in the socia! environmentsof the two types of schools. Montessori students reported more favor-able impressions of their schools and teachers. Teachers were seen asmore supportive. classrooms were seen as more orderly, and theoverall environment was safer from the slings and arrows of putdownsfrom teachers and students. In addition. various time use estimatessuggested that the Montessori students had more positive perceptionsof their classmates. more often perceiving them as friends as well asclassmates. Finally, other time use estimates showed that Montessoristudents spent less time in class listening to lectures and watchingmedia and more time working in collaborative and self-directed ways,

There are a number of other findings discussed in the articlessubmitted for publication; but the above summary covers the mainfindings thus far. It is also worth noting that there is more informationto look at. and there will be more to report in the near future,

40 The NAMTA Journal • Vol, 28. No, 3 • Summer 2003

Could the results be due to bias? In other words, were theMontessori studentsjust trying to make their schools lookbetter?

There are several reasons why the bias explanation does not makesense. First, we used a technique with the ESM that was designed toeliminate any "cheating" with respect to high or low responses. Wecalculated each student's mean on each variable for the week, and thatmean became a student's baseline. Therefore. the differences in schoolexperience that were found between the Montessori and traditionalstudents could not be due to the Montessori students trying to inten-tionally make their schools look better. Such a way of respondingwould only have raised the baseline fur those students. The findingsin this study suggest that learning in school is a more positive expe-rience in the lives of Montessori students than it is in the lives oftrad itional students. Secondly, the plausibility of a bias explanationis also reduced by the fact that students in both samples reportedsimilar experiences during their" down time" when the pedagogicaldifferences between the two school contexts were not an issue. Finally.the time use differences we found (e.g .. more time in group work andless time watching media) are not subject to a response bias. There isno way to put a positive or negative spin on time use unless studentsare simply lying about what they were doing when the watch signaledthem.

Could the positive results for the Montessori students bedue to other advantages they possess?

Itis impossible to eliminate all of the potential differences betweengroups of students that are being compared. That is the nature ofcomparative educational research (Watson). However. steps weretaken to statistically control for SES, gender. and ethnic differences,and a great deal of time was spent matching the samples and verifyingthat that t!ie students came from families with similar levels of educa·tion, nu rnber of siblings, parental employment, incidence of divorce,home resources, and school-related parental discussion and involvement. The two sets of schools were also similar with respect to themodern and attractive school environments, small to moderate size,favorable teacher-student ratio. and strong communities in whichthey were located. The Montessori students, as a group, had manyadvantages; but so did the students from the traditional schools.

The NAAfTA Journal 41

There is one advantage that the Montessori students did possess.For most of them. the transition from the elementary grades did notrequire moving to a new school or building. For example. three of thesix traditional middle schools were housed in buildings that wereseparate from the students' elementary schools: only one of the fiveMontessori schools required such a transition. Such transitions areknown to be difficult for students. However, if the differences observedin this study were simply the result of school transitions. one wouldexpect that by eighth grade the transition effects would have subsidedand students would have looked similar again. That is not what wefound. There were very few grade effects; that is. the Montessoristudents in sixth and eighth grade reported more positive experienceand motivation. For one important variable. the perception of class-mates as friends. the difference between the Montessori and tradi-tional students actually increased from sixth to eighth grade. Therefore.it is unlikely that all of the differences we found were simply the result:of school transitions.

Why are the results important for Montessorians'?

This question is better answered by Montessor ians themselves,but I will offer my opinion. There are a few different: levels on whichthese resu lts can be seen as important for the Montessori COIn rnu 11ity.OIl the most basic level. the results are a confirmation that the peda-gogical approach facilitates students' intrinsic motivation and flowexperience. There has been very little independent research that hasassessed the benefits of the Montessori approach: this is especiallytrue in relation to middle schools and young adolescents. This studyprovides some independent confirmation. The teachers and schoolsinvolved. therefore. should see the results as an affirmation of whatthey are doing.

In addition to this much needed research and confirmation, Ibelieve that this study could lead to new insights and growth withinthe Montessori community. Many conceptual doors have been openedbetween Montessori ideas and ideas in the motivation. education. anddevelopmental literature. There was not time to discuss all of theseconceptual links in the present article; however. they are discussed illmore detail in a previous NAMIA]oumal article (Rathunde ." Montessori

42 The NAAfTA Journal • Vol. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

Education and Optimal Experience"), a theoretical article recentlysubmitted to an acadernicjournal (Rathunde, An Experiential Petspectivei, and the two research articles also under review (Rathuncle &Csikszentrnihalyi, 1\4iddle School Students' Motivetion; Rathunde &Csikszentrnihalyi. TheSocial Context ofII/fiddJe School). Inter-ested readers are en-couraged to take acloser look at thesearticles. One of themost important con-nections discussed inthem is the connec-tion to flow theory.However. there areother interesting.theoretical perspec-tives that are relevant for reflecting on Montessori education. Such across-fertilization of ideas could initiate a productive dialogue andresult in positive changes.

ifhas:becoMe 'c' a'commo nanclllnfottu nate

.trend .rn'Oursoclet;t~J~intaboutachieve-ment,ou~ot:ont~xt'.lpotheritords,theg()al ofperfOrmanc~'has be~<i;ne all~imr)(;rtant ~nd

·{Iittle~ttehti()n'ispa idlo themaans to thatqoa I.

ThtffheEin'si8'q~ality~d~c~tionqnq echieve-;'meht'aie the verythfngs thid were found itrttiis'.. ,- - ...~.- ... -..'

study:- rn.otivation, flow. interest. strong· teacher-stUde'ntrel/;1fiOns, peer cOllabOration, and selfcdirectedaildactive pursuits in the ctesstoom.

c .• c' ..

Another possible benefit to the Montessori community may comein a few years. after these studies have been published and assi milatedby the education community, The results of this study may lead otherresearchers and scholars who are interested in education to take a newlook at the dynamics of Montessori education. Only time will tell.

Finally. as I have mentioned a few times, there will be moreanalyses ancl results in the near future. Many of the analyses to comewill look withtn the Montessori schools (I.e .. the comparative part of theproject is Lrgely complete), Looking within the Montessori schoolscould result in findings that can be applied to further improvingstudent experience and motivation.

The NA MTA Journal 43

Why are these results important for the Montessori middleschool students?

Many skeptics will look at these results and say, "O.K., the stu-dents have better experience in school. they like their teachers, they feelmore connected to their peers-vso what? How does it affect what reallycounts-their education and achievement?" This is a valid question:

however. its assump-tions are shortsightedand its answer is obvi-ous. It has become acommon and unfortu-nate trend in our soci-ety to think aboutachievement out of con-text. In other words, thegoal of performance hasbecome all-importantand little attention is

paid to the means to that goal. The means to quality educntiov: andachievement. are the very things thet were Iound in this study: tnotivntion,How. interest. strong teacher-student relations, peer collaboration. and seIf~directed and ective pursuits in tile classroom.

ArlOtherpossiblebenefit to.the M'oritess(j'ricon'lril.unity mayc~rne·.~in:a;:fe~··Y~ats,aft~f·i

.thesestudie~h~velJeenpUbl.ished anda~-'~imiJat~d:byt'h~.~d;uGation;communit'y.:The:results'ofthis$tUdYfnayiea{jOJhE3r i:esea~ch?

.ers aridsdlolars~w'hb ar~ihterested in eduC:__<: ": .'" :::,~~-;:__. :.';<.,":-" .,_:~;':,), J<,: ":'._ . "-::.>:., ~:':'.;-:' ',':> ." '-:'<'~i-':,cation t9takeal1ew look at tt,iedynamicsof'M()ntessorj:eduGatio'n\O~ly~ime";ill telL"

. " .••. ,Co,.' ..... '. '.. ';", • •... ...•• ..'

Proof of the above statement. can be found in many past studies.The exact ESM variables used in this study (e.g.. motivation. flow.interest) predicted superior talent development in a sarn pie of talentedteenagers (Csikszentmihalyi. Rathunde, & Whalen). These same vari-ables have predicted positive outcomes in other ESM studies, mostrecently in a study of career development (Cstkszentmihalyi &Schneider). Scores of studies have likewise confirmed that feelings ofinterest and intrinsic motivation result in superior student achieve-ment (see Deci &. Ryan and Renninger, Krapp, & Hidi for reviews). Inother words, positive experience in academic work is not a frivolousvariable that can be discounted and ignored.

Maria Montessori understood the importance of positive experi-ence when she commented, "The paths the child follows in the active.construction' of his individuality are indeed identical with those

44 The NAMTA Journal· Vol. 28, No.3' Summer 2003

followed by the genius. His characteristics are absorbed attention, aprofound concentration which isolates him from all the stimuli of hisenvironment" (Spontaneous Activity 218-219). William James and JohnDewey. the rnost celebrated American psychologist and philosopher,respectively. also emphasized the connection between experience andeducation. If further proof is needed. it can be found inCsikszentmihalyis study of creativi ty (Creativity): the interviews inthat study clearly show the intimate connections between motivation,deep engagement. and creative accomplishment.

The Montessori students in this study will benefit in the futurefrom their better quality of experience. When they enter high school orcollege. more ofthem will have learned how to enjoy working hard. Inaddition to this experiential advantage. other benefits are likely toemerge from thei r middle school experiences. A great deal of researchhas validated the importance of teachers and peers for adolescenteducation and achievement. Perceiving teachers as supportive iscrucial for students' motivation and achievement (Goodenow; Fraser& Fisher: Harter; Wentzel). Successful peer interaction at school hasbeen associated with student engagement. useful cognitive strategies,problem solving. adjustment to school. academic achievement, andself-regulation (Berndt & Keefe; Brown; Dimant & Bearison: McCaslin& Good; Ryan & Patrick). Given that teachers and students create thesocial context in which students spend dozens of hours each week.there is little doubt that the quality of these relationships in theMontessori schools will be a significant advantage for the futuresuccess of the students.

Why are these results important beyond the Montessoricommunity?

WiLh this question, I return to a theme introduced at the beginningof this article. Current education trends are emphasizing students'performance with little regard for their quality of experience. There isa growing backlash against approaches that appear to emphasizemaking students feel good at the expense of the rigor of their education.I suspect that Montessorians are already well aware of this backlashand have been dealing with it for generations. The problem with thiscritique of experience-centered approaches is that it is based on a false

The NAi\.ITA Journal 45

premise. namely. that the goal of such approaches is for students tohave fun. However, it is important to draw a clear distinction betweenflow and fun: the former requires high challenge, the latter does not.Once this idea becomes more accepted, the pedagogical debate willbecome more meaningful and productive.

Until t.his debate comes of age, I would suggest that the importanceof this study for non-Montessorians lies elsewhere. There is a prepon-derance of evidence accumulating about the problems of middleschools (Eccles. Midgley. Wigfield, et al.). These problems are occur-ring 1110re often as public schools drift: toward transmission models oftop-down education, standards-based testing. and a narrowing per-spective that equates intellectual skills with a thin set of cognitiveskills that ignore affect and t.he quality of experience. Over the lastfifteen years. great effort and expense have been invested in reformingschools and trying to enhance adolescents' motivation and achieve-ment (Ames: Maehr, Midgley , & Urdan). However, these reform move-ments are faCing an uphill battle: It is hard to prove the value of thesuggested reforms because itis so difficult to change the culture ofaschool. That is where the wider value ofthis study, I believe. comes intofocus. The Montessori schools in this study provided establishedschool cultures that reflected many of the reforms prornoted by current.motivation theory (more student self-direction. student leadership.less competition and emphasis on grades. and so on). The benefitsassociated with the Montessori schools, therefore. provide evi dencethat supports the case for reform,

I hope that other reformers in the field of education take notice ofthis study. not because it pats Montessori schools on the back. butbecause it supports some of the very ideas they have been trying toimplement. The Montessori school cu lture, supported by a century-oldphilosophy of intrinsic motivation. could help make the case forturning away from an even greater narrowing of the meaning ofeducation.

46 The NAkrrtl Journal • Vol. 28. No.3· Slimmer 2003

REFERENCES

Ames, C. "Classrooms: Goals. Structures, and StudentMotivation." Journal of'Educational Psychology 84 (1992):261-271.

Anderman. E.. & M.L. Maehr. "Motivation and Schoolingin the Middle Grades." Review of Educational Research 64(1994): 287 -309.

Anderman, E., M. Maehr. & C. Midgley. "Declining Moti-vation after the Transition co Middle School: Schools CanMake a Difference." Journal of Research & Development ill

Education 32.3 (1999): 131-147.

Berndt. T., & K . Keefe .: ,Friends' Influence on Adolescents'Adjustment to School." Cflnd Development GG (1995):1312·1329.

Brown, B.B. "Peer Groups and Peer Cultures." At theTlitesuold: The Developing Adolescent. Ed. S.S. Feldman &G.R. Elliott. Cambridge. 1\.1A:Harvard UP. 1990. 171-19G.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. TurningPoints: Preparing American Youth for the 2/,' Century. NewYork: Carnegie Corporation. 1989.

Covington, M. Making the Grade: A Self- Worth Perspective OIl

Motivation and School Reform. New York: Cambridge UP,1992.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology ofDiscovery and Invention. New York: Harper Co llins, 19%.

Csikszenrrnihalyl. M. Flow: The Psychology of Optima/ Expe-rience. New York: Harper & Row, 1990.

Csi kszentmihalyi, M.. & R. Larson. "Validity and Reliabil-ity of the Experience-Sampling Method." Journal of Ner-vous & Mentel Disease 175.9 (1987): 52G-53G.

Csikszentmihalyi. M .. & K. Rathunde. "The Developmentof the Person: An Experiential Perspective on the Onto-genesis of Psychological Complexity." Theoretical Models

The Hi /lITA Journal 47

of' Human Development. Ed. R.tvi. Lerner. New York:Wiley, 1998. Vol. I of Handbook olChlld Psychology. Wil-liam Damon. ed.-in-chief. 5th ed. 4 vols.

Csikszeutrnihalyi. M .. K. Rathunde, & S. Whalen. TalentedTeenagers: The Roots of Success and Failure. New York:Cambridge, 1997.

Csikszentmihalyi. M., & B. Schneider. Becoming Adult: HowTeenagers Prepare for the World of' Work. New York: Basic,2000.

Dect. E.L., & R. M. Ryan. Intrinsic Motlvntion and Self-Deter-mination in Human Beheviot. New York: Plenum, 1985.

Dewey.}, How We Think. 1910. Mineola. NY: Dover, 1997.

Dimant, R., & D. Bearison. "Development of Formal Rea-soning During Successive Peer Interactions." Develop-mental Psychology. 27 (1991): 277-284.

Dweck, C.S., & E.L. Leggett. "A Social-Cognitive Approachto Motivation and Personality." Psycbologics! Rel'ie~-F95(1998): 256-273.

Eccles.] .. S. Lord. & C. Midgley. "What Are We Doing toEarly Adolescents? The Impact of Educational Contexts011 Early Adolescents. '.'Americsn jourruil oi Education 99.4(1991): 521-542.

Eccles, J .. C. Midgley. A. Wigfield, C.M. Buchanan. D.Reuman, C. Flanagan, et al. ..Development During Ado-lescence: The Impact of Stage-Environment Fit on YoungAdolescents' Experience in Schools and Families." Ameri·can Psychologist 48 (1993): 90-1 OJ.

Eccles, J., /\ .. Wigfield. & U. Schiefele. (1998). "Motivationto Succeed." Social. Emotionel, and Personality Develop-ment. Ed. N. Eisenberg. New York: Wiley. 1998. 1017-1095. Vol. 3 of Hentibook ot' Child Psychology. WilliamDamon, eel.-in-chief. 5th ed. 4 vols.

Erikson, E. Identity: Youth ilnd Crisis. Oxford. England:Norton. 1968.

48 The NA,\[[A Journal • Vol. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

Feldlaufer.ll.. C. Midgley. &J,S. Eccles. "Student, Teacher.and Observer Perceptions of the Classroom BehaviorBefore and After the Transition to Junior High School."journal of Ear(r Adolescence 8 ([988): 133-156.

Finn. J.D. School Engagement and Students at Risk. Washing-ton. DC: National Center for Educational Statistics . .1993.

Fraser. B.. & D. Fisher. ..Predicting Student Outcomes fromTheir Perception of Classroom Psychosocial Environ-ment." American Educational Research journal 19 (1982):·198-518.

Freemari.]., J. McPhail. &]. Berndt. ..Sixth Graders' Viewsof Activities That Do and Do Not Help Them to Learn."The Elementsry School journal 102 (2002): 335-347.

Gentry. M .. R. Gable. & M. Rizza. "Students' Perceptions ofClassroom Activities: Are There Grade-Level and Gen-

der Differences?" JournaJ of Educational Psychology 94.3(2002): 539-544.

Goodenow. C. "Classroom Belonging among Early Ado-lescent Students: Relationships to Motivation andAchievement." journal orEady Adolescence J 3 (1993): 21-43.

Guthrie, J .. & M. Davis. "Motivating Struggling Readers inMiddle School through an Engagement Model of Class-room Practice." Reading and Writing Quarterly 19 (2003):

59-85.

Harter, S. "Teacher and Classmate Influences on ScholasticMotivation, Self-Esteem, and Level of Voice in Adoles-cents." Sucial Motivetion: Understanding Children's School1I.4jus1 1TJrJ/t. Ed. ]. juvonen & K. Wentzel. New York:Cambridge UP. 199G. I 1·42.

James, W. The Principles of Psychology. New York: HenryHolt. 1890.

The N.4.1l,1TA Journal 49

[uvorien, .I., & K. Wentzel, e ds. Social J\-loU\'ation: Under-standing Children's School Adjustment. New York: Cam-bridge UP. 1996.

Lee, V. E., & [.B. Smith. "Effects of School Restructuring onthe Achievement and Engagement ofMiddle-C rade Stu-dents. ,. Sociology of Education 66 (1993): 164-187.

Mac Iver. D., E. Young. & B. Washburn. "InstructionalPractices and Motivation During Middle School (withSpecial Attention to Science). " The Development ofAcilif'l'e-merit Motivation. Ed. A. Wigfield &]. Eccles. San Diego:Academic Press, 2002. 333-351.

Maehr, I'vt, C. Midgley, &. T. Llrdan. "School Leader asMotivator." Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (1992):

412-431.

Marks. H. "Student Engagement in Instructional Activity:Patterns in the Elementary. Middle, and High SchoolYears." American Educational Research Journal 37 (2000):153-184.

McCaslin, M. & T. Good. Listening in Classrooms. NewYork: Harper Collins, 1996.

Midgely. c., H. Feldlaufer. & J. Eccles. "Student/TeacherRelations and Attitudes toward Mathematics Before andAfter the Transit ion to Junior High School." Child Devcl-opment 60 (1989): 981-992.

Montessori, M. From Childhood to Adolescence. 1948. Trans.A.M. Joosten. 2nd ed. New York: Sc:hocken. 1976.

Montessori. M. Spontaneous Activit)' in Education. 1916.Trans. Florence Simmonds. New York: Schocken. 1965.Vol. I of The Advanced Montessori I\flethod. 2 vols.

Montessori. M. Unpublished lectures. Dr. MariaMontessori's International Training Course. London,England,1946.

50 The NAMTA Journal » Vol. 28. No.3· Summer 2003

Nichols. J.. & R. Miller ... Cooperative Learning and StudenrMotivation." Contemporary Educational Psychology 19(1994): 167-178.

Piaget. J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children New York:International Universities Press. 1952.

Rathunde. K. "The Experience of Interest: A Theoreticaland Empirical Look at Its Role in Adolescent TalentDevelopment." Advances ill Motivetion and Achie~'ement8. Ed. P. Pintrich & M. Maehr. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.1993.

Rathunde, K. All Experiential Perspective on Education: A.Comparison of Optimal Experience (Flow) TheOlY andMontessori Education. Manuscript submitted for review.2003.

Rathunde, K. "Family Context and Talented AdolescentsOptimal Experience in Sehoul-Related Activities." Jour-nal of Research on Adolescence 6.4 (1996): 603-626.

Rathunde. K... Montessori Education and Optimal Experi-ence: A Framework for New Research." The NAMTAJournal2G.l (2001. Winter): J 1-43.

Rathunde. K .. & M. Csikszentrnihalyi. Middle School Stu-dents' Motivation and Quality of Experience: A Comparisonof Montessori and Traditional Middle Schools. Manuscriptsubmitted for review. 2003.

Rathunde, K.. &. M. Csikszentrnihalyi. Tile Social Context ofMiddle Schoo): Teachers. Friends. and Activities in Montessoriand Traditional School Environments. Manuscript submit-teel for review. 2003.

Renninger. K .. A. Krapp. & S. Hidi. The Role of Interest inLearning and Development. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum. 1992.

Ryan. A. "The Peer Group as a Context for tile Develop-ment of Young Adolescent Motivation and Achieve-ment." Child Development 72 (2001): 1135-1150,

The NAMTA Journal 51

'\ I I ,.

Ryan, A., & H. Patrick. "The Classroom Environment andChanges ill Adolescents' Motivation and EngagemenrDuring Middle School." American Eiiucstion«! Researchfourna138 (2001): 437-460.

Savin-Williams. R., & T. Berndt. "Friendship and PeerRelations." A t the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent.Ed. S.S. Feldman & G.R. Elliott. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUP, HJ90. 277-307.

Simmons, RG., & D.A. Blyth. Moving into Adolescence.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987.

Standing, E.M. Merie Montessori: Her Life and ~Vork. 1957.New York: Penguin. 1984.

Sternberg. R]. "Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom:The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings."Educational Psychologist 36 (2001): 227 -245.

Watson. K.. ed. Doing Comparative Education Reseercii: Is-sues and Problems. Oxford: Symposium Books, 2001.

Wentzel. K. "Social Relationships and Mottvation in MiddleSchool: The Role of Parents, Teachers, and Peers." [our-nal of Educntions! Psychology 90 (1998): 202-209.

Wigfield, A., j.s Eccles. D. Mac Iver, D.A. Reuman. &. C.Midgley. "Transitions During Early Adolescence:Changes in Children's Self-Esteem Across the Transitionto Junior High School." Developmental Psychology 27(1991): 552-5G5.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Re-search and Improvement. Preparing Young Children forSuccess: Guideposts for Achieving Our First National Goal.all America 2000 Education Strategy. Washington, DC:Author, 1991.

52 The NAMT!l Journal • Vol. 28, No.3' Summer 2003