Montessori education's impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundMontessori education is the oldest and most widely implemented alternative education in the world, yet its effectiveness has not been clearly established.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of Montessori education in improving academic and nonacademic outcomes compared to traditional education. The secondary objectives were to determine the degree to which grade level, Montessori setting (public Montessori vs. private Montessori), random assignment, treatment duration, and length of follow‐up measurements moderate the magnitude of Montessori effects.Search MethodsWe searched for relevant studies in 19 academic databases, in a variety of sources known to publish gray literature, in Montessori‐related journals, and in the references of studies retrieved through these searches. Our search included studies published during or before February 2020. The initial search was performed in March 2014 with a follow‐up search in February 2020.Selection CriteriaWe included articles that compared Montessori education to traditional education, contributed at least one effect size to an academic or nonacademic outcome, provided sufficient data to compute an effect size and its variance, and showed sufficient evidence of baseline equivalency–through random assignment or statistical adjustment–of Montessori and traditional education groups.Data Collection and AnalysisTo synthesize the data, we used a cluster‐robust variance estimation procedure, which takes into account statistical dependencies in the data. Otherwise, we used standard methodological procedures as specified in the Campbell Collaboration reporting and conduct standards.Main ResultsInitial searches yielded 2012 articles, of which 173 were considered in detail to determine whether they met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of these, 141 were excluded and 32 were included. These 32 studies yielded 204 effect sizes (113 academic and 91 nonacademic) across 132,249 data points. In the 32 studies that met minimum standards for inclusion, including evidence of baseline equivalence, there was evidence that Montessori education outperformed traditional education on a wide variety of academic and nonacademic outcomes. For academic outcomes, Hedges' g effect sizes, where positive values favor Montessori, ranged from 0.26 for general academic ability (with high quality evidence) to 0.06 for social studies. The quality of evidence for language (g = 0.17) and mathematics (g = 0.22) was also high. The effect size for a composite of all academic outcomes was 0.24. Science was the only academic outcome that was deemed to have low quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. Effect sizes for nonacademic outcomes ranged from 0.41 for students' inner experience of school to 0.23 for social skills. Both of these outcomes were deemed as having low quality of evidence. Executive function (g = 0.36) and creativity (g = 0.26) had moderate quality of evidence. The effect size for a composite of all nonacademic outcomes was 0.33. Moderator analyses of the composite academic and nonacademic outcomes showed that Montessori education resulted in larger effect sizes for randomized studies compared to nonrandomized studies, for preschool and elementary settings compared to middle school or high school settings, and for private Montessori compared to public Montessori. Moderator analyses for treatment duration and duration from intervention to follow‐up data collection were inconclusive. There was some evidence for a lack of small sample‐size studies in favor of traditional education, which could be an indicator of publication bias. However, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the findings in favor of Montessori education were nonetheless robust.Authors' ConclusionsMontessori education has a meaningful and positive impact on child outcomes, both academic and nonacademic, relative to outcomes seen when using traditional educational methods.

Why the time is ripe for an education revolution

“…While outcomes from schools that adhere well to the AMI program (including AMI-trained teachers, specific 3-year age groupings, long work periods, full sets of materials, and relatively large classes with high child:teacher ratios) are strong (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006;Lillard, 2017;Denervaud et al, 2019Denervaud et al, , 2020aGuerrero et al, 2023), other implementations are in need of more rigorous study. Even despite the range of variation in how Montessori is implemented, two new and separate meta-analyses of Montessori, one originating in the United States and the other in France, both reported positive effects on both academic and nonacademic outcomes (Demangeon et al, 2023;Randolph et al, 2023). In the next section the structure of Montessori education is described, followed by an explanation of how the pedagogy is constructivist, child-centered, and compatible with culturally responsive pedagogy.…”

“…Third, studies also suggest that at least in properlyimplemented Montessori, children including those from groups typically disadvantaged in this country such as low-income children (Lillard et al, 2017) and children of color (Lillard et al, 2023b), achieve as good or better academic and social outcomes than children at other (typically TTC) schools (Denervaud et al, 2019(Denervaud et al, , 2020bLillard, 2019;Snyder et al, 2022). One of the meta-analyses just cited used only studies with evidence of baseline equivalence; it showed that compared to traditional education, Montessori has significant positive impacts on both academic (reading, math, and so on) and non-academic (executive function, creativity, and so on) skills (Randolph et al, 2023). Proficiency levels on test scores are generally higher, and racial and economic achievement gaps on those tests are smaller (Snyder et al, 2022).…”

Infants follow the gaze of same-age peers, young children, and adults

“…This may especially be so later in development, when the desired and expected learning progress is more quantifiable for a child herself, given the development of children's metacognitive abilities (de Eccher et al, 2023). Furthermore, such peer learning has been shown to be highly effective for older children in school settings (Randolph et al, 2023;Topping, 2005).…”

“…Children's tendency to attribute knowledge, status, and competence to adults might facilitate their learning because focusing on what adults are attending to and talking about might be more informative than focusing on a child or a baby, who may know only slightly more than the infant themselves. Other social theories also emphasise the valuable impact of slightly older peers (Vygotsky, 1962) and the role of peers in early development is the basis for the principles underlying Montessori classrooms (Montessori, 1949) with children of larger age ranges allowing for learning from slightly older and more knowledgeable peers (Randolph et al, 2023). Zmyj and Seehagen (2013) write in their review that, while children consider adults as knowledgeable social partners, peers may be interesting for other reasons given the higher similarity between the peer's and a child's own (motor) skills and interests.…”