What do you think?
Rate this book
Montessori: Dehanin Ardindaki Bilim
In Montessori, Angeline Lillard shows that science has finally caught up with Maris Montessori: Current scientific research provides astounding support for her insights. Lillard presents the research supporting eight insights that are foundational to Montessori education and describes how each of these insights is applied in the Montessori classroom. Montessori is, however, much more than an explanation of the scientific basis for Montessori's system - amid the traditional education. In looking at the science behind Montessori's methods, it also becomes clear why traditional educational methods repeatedly fail. In reading this book, parents and teachers alike will develop a clear understanding of what happens works. Everyone interested in education, at all levels and in all forms, will take from this book a wealth of insights on how to improve teaching effectiveness. Montessori is indispensable reading for anyone looking for an alternative to our traditional system of education.
592 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
265 people are currently reading
2078 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
August 1, 2020
2020 update: My views on Montessori have shifted quite a bit; I no longer work in a Montessori school but in a public early learning center, in a special education self-contained classroom.
---
For whatever reason, despite working at a Montessori school, I am biased against Montessori. I tend to be biased against sets of beliefs that come from some time ago, mostly because I believe that science has advanced (as it always does) and that there must be some part of the belief system that has been proven wrong. I do think a lot of Montessori is really fantastic, though. And I see Montessori working its magic every day. Our school works really well; our kids are engaged and hard-working. So there is a lot in this book with which I enjoy and agree. But there's also plenty that irked me because it seems misleading or outright wrong -- the experience reminded me of reading books about children's behavior, the way you'll see a statement that says, "All children are like this," or, "If children do this bad thing, then this thing will take care of it." Neither of those can ever be true for all children. There are always exceptions -- many exceptions. At least an acknowledgment would make me feel better, but books like this don't want to acknowledge that there are many children out there that screw up their thesis. So, similarly, here is a collection of my rantings about things in this book that I view as flawed or untrue.
First, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Montessori preschool materials provide that much more physical movement than a regular preschool. Preschoolers aren't writing, so they're not going to be sitting around, copying spelling words. There are many manipulative and practical life-type materials in regular preschools. It's true that some sensorial activities (such as cube tower) provide a much more physical approach than you might see elsewhere, and that the math materials that involve bring me/are spread out on a mat are much more physical, but the materials that are done at a desk (such as the stamp game) don't really involve much movement at all. And coloring/tracing/whatever things like the map or the parts of a flower? That is not any more physical than any other pen and paper work. I'm almost offended the author things she can make an argument that labeling parts of a flower on a piece of paper is somehow physical while sitting in a desk and doing work on paper is not.
I also think it sucks that Montessori (and the author) apparently thinks that the physical and social activity done during work time is sufficient. First of all, kids aren't running in the classroom, but they may very well run and run and run on the playground. And that's good! They can't get that much physical activity during worktime -- they just can't. They have other stuff going on, other children's work to worry about. It is not sufficient. And as for social time -- yeah, they chat, but are we saying that because many adults work alongside other people, they don't ever need to have other social time? Chatting while/in-between works is not sufficient social time either. It may be for some children, but to limit children to that sucks, in my opinion. Everybody needs breaks, even from things they love, even from things that are good for them.
Untrue. Perhaps there is far less incentive to cheat, but in the Montessori classroom in which I assist, I see children "cheating". For instance, in games such as the thermic tablets or fabric matching where the child is not supposed to see but is instead supposed to use other senses, I see children either outright looking or peeking all the time. The outright looking could perhaps be explained by the child not understanding the point of the work or forgetting the lesson. Certainly, we don't ever tell the children, "You're cheating!" and instead talk about how the work is far more fun if you do it the way the lesson goes -- matching them based on looks is so easy! But what if you try this?
But I have seen children choose the work from the shelves, set it up, close their eyes, feel around, open one eye and peek (without knowing they were being observed), and then close their eyes and match. That is conscious "cheating," and the child is getting nothing for it besides his own experience. No teacher is going to praise him on matching; no child is going to go, "Whoa! You did it!" But he still chose to cheat.
I was thinking about that and realized that though I often play games on the internet, completely for my own entertainment, if I get stuck, I will look up walkthroughs or solutions and employ them so that I can continue playing. Having somebody else give me the answer does not fully dampen my enjoyment, but it may allow me to continue something otherwise too difficult for me to do in a reasonable amount of time. Nobody is rewarding me for finishing the game; there is no extrinsic reward, only intrinsic, yet sometimes it makes complete sense to find the solution somewhere else than within the confines of the game. That is true for children as well. (The words used to be written on the back of the word-building picture cards; too many children were cheating by simply copying the written word, and they had to be removed.)
Regarding Montessori's views on fantasy and the statements in this book . . .
I agree that purposely filling your child's head with fantasy pretending to be real is not a great idea, though I don't think parents do it under the guise of cultivating creativity. I think adults do it because we often wish that world could be real for us. How amazing would it be to live in a world where our fantasies really were real? A world where there is magic? I'm not arguing for the emotional healthiness of this, I'm just arguing that adults do it because they want to live in that world too, and they know that that world only exists for their children for about three or four years. Why not let it have its place before it inevitably fades away?
I also agree that fantastical books can often be pointless, which is why I prefer children's books that are easy to mark as fantastical or books that are faithfully realistic. I don't like books that present themselves as realistic and then throw in a hard-to-spot fantasy element. However, we do a lot of talk about what is real and not real, and I can tell you that most four-year-olds I see (and up) totally know that inanimate objects are not in any way alive, and that animals don't talk and behave like humans. Maybe it's just that children need to be told this, but they can easily understand that those things are not real. Every once in a while, I'll throw out a, "Was that book about something that could be real or not?" about stories that are realistic save for animal characters -- there are always multiple hands (4s and 5s more than 3s, however) that say, "Not real because animals don't talk and wear clothes."
Finally, about the sentence, "When children play house, they are expressing a desire to really keep house," and all the other statements about children shunning toys or pretend play unless adults force it on them: Maria Montessori may have made accurate observations, but they are not observations that last, untarnished, to today. There are totally kids for whom pretend play (in a fairy tale sense) doesn't grab them. They want to do the real -- and I would argue that most children, at some point, definitely want to learn about real things, use real tools and complete real tasks.
I don't encourage pretend play in my kiddos. I don't have to. They do it all on their own. We don't have many pretend play objects at all. There are some children for whom the cube tower will always be a princess castle, for whom the brown stair are mere blocks to build something amazing (not stairs). And essentially every single child that plays on our playground engages in pretend, fantastical play -- superheros, lava, monsters, etc. They're not keeping house. They're creating scenarios that we neither talk about nor encourage at school, scenarios that are not realistic or wait in their future. Yes, they also do "house"-like games, but often, it's much larger than that. And they don't get it from their teachers. So unless their parents forced pretend play on them so much that they're taking it to school, it's something that the children want to do -- despite having Montessori materials on hand all day!
In Chapter 7, Lillard addresses meaningful contexts for learning. Now, as I work in a preschool, I have no comments about elementary curriculum. A lot of that sounds very interesting. But the idea that the preschool curriculum contains "meaningful context" beyond Practical Life (which by its very nature, you know, is meaningful to their lives) is absurd. Montessori materials are some of the least meaningful and recognizable outside of the classroom materials I've seen! Lillard argues that because the same sort of things are talked about in later Montessori classrooms, there's a connection. Well, all right. But all the science before she delved into this was about making things relevant and familiar to learner, placing them within a recognizable context.
Montessori math and sensorial materials are incredibly unfamiliar to everybody but those who know Montessori. Now, for the sensorial at least, I assume that has something to do with simplicity and isolating the task -- so the color tablets are just bizarre tablets rather than being recognizable objects of varying colors. I assume it also has to do with reducing the play factor (even though according to Montessori, children shun play!). But it also makes the objects so so so unfamiliar, which is what Lillard spent the first half of the chapter railing against!
That's my issue with this book. It's not "the science behind the genius" but rather: let me pick and choose and interpret science so that Montessori always comes across looking good. And Montessori isn't bad, despite my bias. There's a lot of good stuff there! But come the eff on.
---
For whatever reason, despite working at a Montessori school, I am biased against Montessori. I tend to be biased against sets of beliefs that come from some time ago, mostly because I believe that science has advanced (as it always does) and that there must be some part of the belief system that has been proven wrong. I do think a lot of Montessori is really fantastic, though. And I see Montessori working its magic every day. Our school works really well; our kids are engaged and hard-working. So there is a lot in this book with which I enjoy and agree. But there's also plenty that irked me because it seems misleading or outright wrong -- the experience reminded me of reading books about children's behavior, the way you'll see a statement that says, "All children are like this," or, "If children do this bad thing, then this thing will take care of it." Neither of those can ever be true for all children. There are always exceptions -- many exceptions. At least an acknowledgment would make me feel better, but books like this don't want to acknowledge that there are many children out there that screw up their thesis. So, similarly, here is a collection of my rantings about things in this book that I view as flawed or untrue.
First, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Montessori preschool materials provide that much more physical movement than a regular preschool. Preschoolers aren't writing, so they're not going to be sitting around, copying spelling words. There are many manipulative and practical life-type materials in regular preschools. It's true that some sensorial activities (such as cube tower) provide a much more physical approach than you might see elsewhere, and that the math materials that involve bring me/are spread out on a mat are much more physical, but the materials that are done at a desk (such as the stamp game) don't really involve much movement at all. And coloring/tracing/whatever things like the map or the parts of a flower? That is not any more physical than any other pen and paper work. I'm almost offended the author things she can make an argument that labeling parts of a flower on a piece of paper is somehow physical while sitting in a desk and doing work on paper is not.
I also think it sucks that Montessori (and the author) apparently thinks that the physical and social activity done during work time is sufficient. First of all, kids aren't running in the classroom, but they may very well run and run and run on the playground. And that's good! They can't get that much physical activity during worktime -- they just can't. They have other stuff going on, other children's work to worry about. It is not sufficient. And as for social time -- yeah, they chat, but are we saying that because many adults work alongside other people, they don't ever need to have other social time? Chatting while/in-between works is not sufficient social time either. It may be for some children, but to limit children to that sucks, in my opinion. Everybody needs breaks, even from things they love, even from things that are good for them.
"[B]ecause there are no grades, there is no incentive to cheat."
Untrue. Perhaps there is far less incentive to cheat, but in the Montessori classroom in which I assist, I see children "cheating". For instance, in games such as the thermic tablets or fabric matching where the child is not supposed to see but is instead supposed to use other senses, I see children either outright looking or peeking all the time. The outright looking could perhaps be explained by the child not understanding the point of the work or forgetting the lesson. Certainly, we don't ever tell the children, "You're cheating!" and instead talk about how the work is far more fun if you do it the way the lesson goes -- matching them based on looks is so easy! But what if you try this?
But I have seen children choose the work from the shelves, set it up, close their eyes, feel around, open one eye and peek (without knowing they were being observed), and then close their eyes and match. That is conscious "cheating," and the child is getting nothing for it besides his own experience. No teacher is going to praise him on matching; no child is going to go, "Whoa! You did it!" But he still chose to cheat.
I was thinking about that and realized that though I often play games on the internet, completely for my own entertainment, if I get stuck, I will look up walkthroughs or solutions and employ them so that I can continue playing. Having somebody else give me the answer does not fully dampen my enjoyment, but it may allow me to continue something otherwise too difficult for me to do in a reasonable amount of time. Nobody is rewarding me for finishing the game; there is no extrinsic reward, only intrinsic, yet sometimes it makes complete sense to find the solution somewhere else than within the confines of the game. That is true for children as well. (The words used to be written on the back of the word-building picture cards; too many children were cheating by simply copying the written word, and they had to be removed.)
Regarding Montessori's views on fantasy and the statements in this book . . .
I agree that purposely filling your child's head with fantasy pretending to be real is not a great idea, though I don't think parents do it under the guise of cultivating creativity. I think adults do it because we often wish that world could be real for us. How amazing would it be to live in a world where our fantasies really were real? A world where there is magic? I'm not arguing for the emotional healthiness of this, I'm just arguing that adults do it because they want to live in that world too, and they know that that world only exists for their children for about three or four years. Why not let it have its place before it inevitably fades away?
I also agree that fantastical books can often be pointless, which is why I prefer children's books that are easy to mark as fantastical or books that are faithfully realistic. I don't like books that present themselves as realistic and then throw in a hard-to-spot fantasy element. However, we do a lot of talk about what is real and not real, and I can tell you that most four-year-olds I see (and up) totally know that inanimate objects are not in any way alive, and that animals don't talk and behave like humans. Maybe it's just that children need to be told this, but they can easily understand that those things are not real. Every once in a while, I'll throw out a, "Was that book about something that could be real or not?" about stories that are realistic save for animal characters -- there are always multiple hands (4s and 5s more than 3s, however) that say, "Not real because animals don't talk and wear clothes."
Finally, about the sentence, "When children play house, they are expressing a desire to really keep house," and all the other statements about children shunning toys or pretend play unless adults force it on them: Maria Montessori may have made accurate observations, but they are not observations that last, untarnished, to today. There are totally kids for whom pretend play (in a fairy tale sense) doesn't grab them. They want to do the real -- and I would argue that most children, at some point, definitely want to learn about real things, use real tools and complete real tasks.
I don't encourage pretend play in my kiddos. I don't have to. They do it all on their own. We don't have many pretend play objects at all. There are some children for whom the cube tower will always be a princess castle, for whom the brown stair are mere blocks to build something amazing (not stairs). And essentially every single child that plays on our playground engages in pretend, fantastical play -- superheros, lava, monsters, etc. They're not keeping house. They're creating scenarios that we neither talk about nor encourage at school, scenarios that are not realistic or wait in their future. Yes, they also do "house"-like games, but often, it's much larger than that. And they don't get it from their teachers. So unless their parents forced pretend play on them so much that they're taking it to school, it's something that the children want to do -- despite having Montessori materials on hand all day!
In Chapter 7, Lillard addresses meaningful contexts for learning. Now, as I work in a preschool, I have no comments about elementary curriculum. A lot of that sounds very interesting. But the idea that the preschool curriculum contains "meaningful context" beyond Practical Life (which by its very nature, you know, is meaningful to their lives) is absurd. Montessori materials are some of the least meaningful and recognizable outside of the classroom materials I've seen! Lillard argues that because the same sort of things are talked about in later Montessori classrooms, there's a connection. Well, all right. But all the science before she delved into this was about making things relevant and familiar to learner, placing them within a recognizable context.
Montessori math and sensorial materials are incredibly unfamiliar to everybody but those who know Montessori. Now, for the sensorial at least, I assume that has something to do with simplicity and isolating the task -- so the color tablets are just bizarre tablets rather than being recognizable objects of varying colors. I assume it also has to do with reducing the play factor (even though according to Montessori, children shun play!). But it also makes the objects so so so unfamiliar, which is what Lillard spent the first half of the chapter railing against!
That's my issue with this book. It's not "the science behind the genius" but rather: let me pick and choose and interpret science so that Montessori always comes across looking good. And Montessori isn't bad, despite my bias. There's a lot of good stuff there! But come the eff on.
March 5, 2012
I read this in consideration of using the Montessori method to homeschool my daughter in a few years.
I appreciated the balanced tone of the book, both giving a history of the American school system and the place in which the Montessori philosophy of education diverges. It included numerous citations of scientific studies which support the Montessori method. What I especially appreciated was that there did not appear to be an attempt to "pad" the data. If there was not a study to support something the author stated as such.
In general, what I like about the Montessori method of teaching is:
There is an underlying assumption that children are built to learn and given the right tools can do so at their own pace. They are not "empty pitchers waiting to be filled."
While teachers track mastery of skills, there are not grades or tests. I think this is especially useful when a child struggles with a skill. The focus on how badly one is doing is rarely incentive to do better--yet that is the primary motivator used in traditional schooling.
Montessori encourages imagination and creative play to be organic and self derived rather than providing specific toys or themes to guide creativity.
The only thing I did not see covered in any depth was how children with learning disabilities would fit into a Montessori classroom. Depending on the disability I can imagine scenarios where it would be better or worse for the child.
I appreciated the balanced tone of the book, both giving a history of the American school system and the place in which the Montessori philosophy of education diverges. It included numerous citations of scientific studies which support the Montessori method. What I especially appreciated was that there did not appear to be an attempt to "pad" the data. If there was not a study to support something the author stated as such.
In general, what I like about the Montessori method of teaching is:
There is an underlying assumption that children are built to learn and given the right tools can do so at their own pace. They are not "empty pitchers waiting to be filled."
While teachers track mastery of skills, there are not grades or tests. I think this is especially useful when a child struggles with a skill. The focus on how badly one is doing is rarely incentive to do better--yet that is the primary motivator used in traditional schooling.
Montessori encourages imagination and creative play to be organic and self derived rather than providing specific toys or themes to guide creativity.
The only thing I did not see covered in any depth was how children with learning disabilities would fit into a Montessori classroom. Depending on the disability I can imagine scenarios where it would be better or worse for the child.
March 10, 2022
The amount of time this took is the reason I don't read non-fiction but it's such a good book.
“...is a topic for empirical research”
10.03.22
I took quotations and filled half an exercise book.
This is a horrific book. It's one of the two(?) topics in the world that make me unreasonably angry. I don't even know how to describe the difference between what you might think I'm feeling and the reality. I feel physically ill.
From the Preface (by the author. Please forgive any typos.): "Twenty years ago, I was a Montessori skeptic. ... I was convinced that while Montessori surely had its strengths, traditional and other forms of education surely had theirs too, and the best educational system would combine the strengths of each system. ... The delegates of Oxford University Press asked that I write a balanced assessment of Montessori, pointing out where the evidence is not supportive as well as where it is. I have done my best to do this, but there is a real problem. Their assumption, like my original one, was that Montessori must have aspects that are supported by research, and aspects that are not. Yet her major ideas... are supported by a strong body of evidence in developmental psychology. Some of her main developmental ideas that did not take hold until later and are rarely attributed to her are now mainstream... None of the Montessori ideas that I would consider central have been "disproven." Others are not researched. The most major idea that is not supported by the evidence is her negative view of pretend play... Dr. Montessori saw adaptation to reality as the goal of development, and pretending as a frivolous expression of immature minds that were not adapting to reality. But... Dr. Montessori took her cue from children, observing them in classrooms. She observed that when the children were offered toys alongside Montessori work, they chose the work and ignored the toys. ... The reasons pretend play helps cognitive development may well be satisfied in other ways in Montessori classrooms. ... Empirical study should always be the deciding factor for how best to educate children, as it was for Dr. Montessori. Dr. Montessori described herself as an empiricist, but her methods, although acceptable during her time, are no longer the standard."
The school system that exists, that was founded centuries ago, that persists to this day with minor cosmetic changes, has no basis in fact, science, or trial and error. The 'Montessori' system is the life's work of, honestly, and I don't use this word for more than five people who have ever existed, a genius who spent most of the 20th century in between setting up schools, lecturing, writing, working on figuring out how humans learn and improving the methods she used to teach, trying to convince people of the truth of her observations. This is, empirically, objectively according to the research cited in this book, the way schools should be, how education should advance.
I know, that I probably sound crazy. I believe that what I'm saying is true, and I believe that the consequences of forcing children through traditional schools are real, though I obviously don't know the full extent of those consequences, as the studies haven't been done, but some work described in this book by the author and by the authors of he research suggest them. Motivation decreases every year a child is in traditional school. Learning takes twice as long. Teacher attitudes, as dictated by the government, and the system, actively harm children. Hating school isn't normal. Struggling to learn isn't normal. Bullying isn't normal. Not being prepared for life after school isn't normal. This isn't what normal looks like, but it is what common looks like. It's not a choice between an okay education in traditional schools and a better one in Montessori, the establishment is, with the best of intentions of probably all people involved, actively harming and mentally crippling children because of the structure of the system.
I have no standing in this matter. I'm not a teacher or a parent or a researcher in the field and I haven't even read everything that Dr. Montessori's written, but I have tried to learn about education throughout my life, and I did go through a traditional education, and the research described in this book fits with my amateur understanding and where applicable, my experiences. It's not my place to tell anyone how to raise their child or how to teach their students or how to govern their schools, but what kind of person stands by and does nothing, and says nothing? I'm not asking anyone to change or believe me or have any faith in my opinion. I just felt that I needed to say this and I hope that maybe, people might read this book and if they're not then convinced, investigate for themselves whether this is the best way to go about forming people, because the thought of the consequences to and the waste and the current situation of billions of people if this book is accurate is horrifying to me.
"Angeline Stoll Lillard received her doctorate in psychology from Stanford University in 1991.
She was awarded the Developmental Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association's Outstanding Dissertation Award in 1992 and its Boyd McCandless Award for Distinguished Early Career Contribution in 1999. A Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, Lillard is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville."
“...is a topic for empirical research”
10.03.22
I took quotations and filled half an exercise book.
This is a horrific book. It's one of the two(?) topics in the world that make me unreasonably angry. I don't even know how to describe the difference between what you might think I'm feeling and the reality. I feel physically ill.
From the Preface (by the author. Please forgive any typos.): "Twenty years ago, I was a Montessori skeptic. ... I was convinced that while Montessori surely had its strengths, traditional and other forms of education surely had theirs too, and the best educational system would combine the strengths of each system. ... The delegates of Oxford University Press asked that I write a balanced assessment of Montessori, pointing out where the evidence is not supportive as well as where it is. I have done my best to do this, but there is a real problem. Their assumption, like my original one, was that Montessori must have aspects that are supported by research, and aspects that are not. Yet her major ideas... are supported by a strong body of evidence in developmental psychology. Some of her main developmental ideas that did not take hold until later and are rarely attributed to her are now mainstream... None of the Montessori ideas that I would consider central have been "disproven." Others are not researched. The most major idea that is not supported by the evidence is her negative view of pretend play... Dr. Montessori saw adaptation to reality as the goal of development, and pretending as a frivolous expression of immature minds that were not adapting to reality. But... Dr. Montessori took her cue from children, observing them in classrooms. She observed that when the children were offered toys alongside Montessori work, they chose the work and ignored the toys. ... The reasons pretend play helps cognitive development may well be satisfied in other ways in Montessori classrooms. ... Empirical study should always be the deciding factor for how best to educate children, as it was for Dr. Montessori. Dr. Montessori described herself as an empiricist, but her methods, although acceptable during her time, are no longer the standard."
The school system that exists, that was founded centuries ago, that persists to this day with minor cosmetic changes, has no basis in fact, science, or trial and error. The 'Montessori' system is the life's work of, honestly, and I don't use this word for more than five people who have ever existed, a genius who spent most of the 20th century in between setting up schools, lecturing, writing, working on figuring out how humans learn and improving the methods she used to teach, trying to convince people of the truth of her observations. This is, empirically, objectively according to the research cited in this book, the way schools should be, how education should advance.
I know, that I probably sound crazy. I believe that what I'm saying is true, and I believe that the consequences of forcing children through traditional schools are real, though I obviously don't know the full extent of those consequences, as the studies haven't been done, but some work described in this book by the author and by the authors of he research suggest them. Motivation decreases every year a child is in traditional school. Learning takes twice as long. Teacher attitudes, as dictated by the government, and the system, actively harm children. Hating school isn't normal. Struggling to learn isn't normal. Bullying isn't normal. Not being prepared for life after school isn't normal. This isn't what normal looks like, but it is what common looks like. It's not a choice between an okay education in traditional schools and a better one in Montessori, the establishment is, with the best of intentions of probably all people involved, actively harming and mentally crippling children because of the structure of the system.
I have no standing in this matter. I'm not a teacher or a parent or a researcher in the field and I haven't even read everything that Dr. Montessori's written, but I have tried to learn about education throughout my life, and I did go through a traditional education, and the research described in this book fits with my amateur understanding and where applicable, my experiences. It's not my place to tell anyone how to raise their child or how to teach their students or how to govern their schools, but what kind of person stands by and does nothing, and says nothing? I'm not asking anyone to change or believe me or have any faith in my opinion. I just felt that I needed to say this and I hope that maybe, people might read this book and if they're not then convinced, investigate for themselves whether this is the best way to go about forming people, because the thought of the consequences to and the waste and the current situation of billions of people if this book is accurate is horrifying to me.
"Angeline Stoll Lillard received her doctorate in psychology from Stanford University in 1991.
She was awarded the Developmental Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association's Outstanding Dissertation Award in 1992 and its Boyd McCandless Award for Distinguished Early Career Contribution in 1999. A Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, Lillard is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville."
November 20, 2012
The best psychological studies just confirm what we inherently understand. Today we are so focused on "research" that we often lose sight of the overall picture. This book offers an extensive compilation of research that is based in the wisdom of Maria Montessori. No study can replace the overall understanding that she had of children through working with them on a daily basis. However, when compiled they present an overwhelming case for the accuracy of her theories.
While this is a review for this particular book, I cannot divorce my impressions from the philosophy of Montessori itself, as it was the first book I've read that introduced me to it. I find the program to be incredible, and possibly the only school system that has been developed through such extensive observation of children.
As a soon to be parent, who has worked with children in many settings, I was happy to see that Montessori is so in line with what I believe. Mainly, that children need to be left alone to explore and that they are much more capable than we give them credit for. In our current culture of "helicopter parenting", it is almost considered negligent to let a child be. While working in childcare, I always felt that if I stood back instead of getting on the floor and distracting the children, I would be viewed as lazy, while truthfully my motivation was to allow them freedom to explore. I was pleasantly surprised to find that is a key element of the Montessori program.
I also found the environment in most childcare settings to be loud and distracting, often with various toys playing different types of music. It was also visually crowded with ugly plastic toys of competing colors. Nothing about the atmosphere was ever peaceful. This exhausted me, so it must have been true for the children I worked with. In Montessori, attention is payed to every detail, so that no extraneous distraction is allowed. Maria Montessori thought that unnecessary distractions inhibited learning.
On the other hand, the Montessori philosophy introduces so much insight that is completely new to me. The materials used in the classrooms are designed so intricately that the need for adult intervention in the form of grades becomes useless. I love this concept, as it does seem much more in line with the way children naturally learn. The absence of grades is not to avoid "hurt feelings" as in many progressive schools (Montessori children also do not receive praise for their work) but that they believe grades are detrimental to the learning process. This is a new concept to me and the author goes to great lengths to back it up with interesting research.
These concepts were particularly interesting to me, although there are many other elements to the program that are thoroughly represented in the book.
Overall, I think that this book does a good job of representing Montessori for what it is. I've since read other books that reduce this in-depth theory to a few " suggestions to do at home" . I think that the entire philosophy needs to be understood to derive the most benefit. I've also read books that use Montessori as a platform for whatever the author believes, including current issues that, while probably important, were not part of Montessori. This book provides an honest and accurate picture of Montessori and the research behind it. It is not a how-to book, but an overview of the entire philosophy.
While this is a review for this particular book, I cannot divorce my impressions from the philosophy of Montessori itself, as it was the first book I've read that introduced me to it. I find the program to be incredible, and possibly the only school system that has been developed through such extensive observation of children.
As a soon to be parent, who has worked with children in many settings, I was happy to see that Montessori is so in line with what I believe. Mainly, that children need to be left alone to explore and that they are much more capable than we give them credit for. In our current culture of "helicopter parenting", it is almost considered negligent to let a child be. While working in childcare, I always felt that if I stood back instead of getting on the floor and distracting the children, I would be viewed as lazy, while truthfully my motivation was to allow them freedom to explore. I was pleasantly surprised to find that is a key element of the Montessori program.
I also found the environment in most childcare settings to be loud and distracting, often with various toys playing different types of music. It was also visually crowded with ugly plastic toys of competing colors. Nothing about the atmosphere was ever peaceful. This exhausted me, so it must have been true for the children I worked with. In Montessori, attention is payed to every detail, so that no extraneous distraction is allowed. Maria Montessori thought that unnecessary distractions inhibited learning.
On the other hand, the Montessori philosophy introduces so much insight that is completely new to me. The materials used in the classrooms are designed so intricately that the need for adult intervention in the form of grades becomes useless. I love this concept, as it does seem much more in line with the way children naturally learn. The absence of grades is not to avoid "hurt feelings" as in many progressive schools (Montessori children also do not receive praise for their work) but that they believe grades are detrimental to the learning process. This is a new concept to me and the author goes to great lengths to back it up with interesting research.
These concepts were particularly interesting to me, although there are many other elements to the program that are thoroughly represented in the book.
Overall, I think that this book does a good job of representing Montessori for what it is. I've since read other books that reduce this in-depth theory to a few " suggestions to do at home" . I think that the entire philosophy needs to be understood to derive the most benefit. I've also read books that use Montessori as a platform for whatever the author believes, including current issues that, while probably important, were not part of Montessori. This book provides an honest and accurate picture of Montessori and the research behind it. It is not a how-to book, but an overview of the entire philosophy.
May 20, 2019
This is a thorough, straight-forward, objective detailing of Dr. Montessori's educational philosophy and method. What did she observe? What were her insights based on her research? What does modern psychology tell us about her theories? The author lays out 8 principles of a Montessori education and goes into detail about each. Briefly, some of what this book covers is: (1) the education system should be designed to suit the way that children naturally learn and develop; (2) The mind and hand are closely related and we learn best when our bodies are moving in alignment with our cognition; (3) People learn better when they can make choices, not when they are controlled; (4) People learn better when they are interested in what they are learning; (5) Children are naturally motivated to learn by intrinsic reward, their motivation decreases with extrinsic reward; (6) Children are intensely social and learn well from peers and by working together; (7) Children learn better in context when they can see the relevance and application of what they're learning outside of the classroom; (8) Children respond well to order and predictability in their lives.
Sometimes it was a little dry with all the scientific data, but I don't think anyone could say that she doesn't provide research to support her claims. In the back she addresses common concerns and complaints about Montessori education, and she explains well the reasons why one Montessori school may differ greatly from another, and how you, as a parent, can determine how well (or not well...) a particular school/class/teacher is using the method as intended by Dr. Montessori.
One thing I liked that the author pointed out in regards to people who elevate Montessori education to an almost cult is that the goal of Montessori is to help children, and children are not best served by blind adherence to a particular view but by careful evaluation of what helps them the most. Dr. Montessori saw two horrific world wars and truly desired what's best for children in order to help humanity as a whole.
Sometimes it was a little dry with all the scientific data, but I don't think anyone could say that she doesn't provide research to support her claims. In the back she addresses common concerns and complaints about Montessori education, and she explains well the reasons why one Montessori school may differ greatly from another, and how you, as a parent, can determine how well (or not well...) a particular school/class/teacher is using the method as intended by Dr. Montessori.
One thing I liked that the author pointed out in regards to people who elevate Montessori education to an almost cult is that the goal of Montessori is to help children, and children are not best served by blind adherence to a particular view but by careful evaluation of what helps them the most. Dr. Montessori saw two horrific world wars and truly desired what's best for children in order to help humanity as a whole.
February 11, 2010
Did you know if you pay kids to color with markers, later they will color less than other kids?! Same is true if you require them to color a certain amount.
Good collection of educational research, but the purpose is only to show how good the Montessori method is, so the research is a bit lop-sided.
Good collection of educational research, but the purpose is only to show how good the Montessori method is, so the research is a bit lop-sided.
August 26, 2019
This appealed to me right now for several reasons. 1) My son just started in a Montessori based program for preschool, and I wanted to better understand the educational philosophy. 2) The book cites a ton of foundational research about child psychology, which is pretty relevant to my life as a parent right now. And 3) it provided a great deal of food for thought about the purpose and methods of education, both traditional and alternative. I walked away thinking Dr. Montessori was impressive in her close observation of young children, and her development of physical tools of learning that are supposed to be meaningful and intuitive. She had a great belief in the inherent dignity of children, and I see her devout Catholicism shine through in her philosophy. Not convinced that Montessori is practical for us long term, but happy I get to understand and incorporate some principles from it in our lives right now.
October 14, 2024
I feel like I should give it more stars because it was super long and extensively researched with most things. I picked this up because my neighbour kept going on and on about Montessori and I wanted to delve a bit deeper into it. Before this book, I felt like it was cultish. Funnily enough the book even said it was seen that way sometimes and after this book, I still feel it was cultish. The pedagogy seems more rigid to me than I originally thought. There are of course good things about it but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in this basket.
July 22, 2019
This book far exceeded my expectations. I expected a good discussion of Montessori outcomes, and a few insights into the process and the psychological studies involved.
What I got instead was a really deep discussion of developmental psychology AND Montessori education. This woman really gets how to think scientifically. She reviews studies that are appropriate, and always recognizes the limits of her knowledge. The number of studies in this book is amazing and educational in its own right.
What I got instead was a really deep discussion of developmental psychology AND Montessori education. This woman really gets how to think scientifically. She reviews studies that are appropriate, and always recognizes the limits of her knowledge. The number of studies in this book is amazing and educational in its own right.
June 15, 2018
Maria Montessori was an empiricist in many ways and her method developed from careful observation of children. In this book Angeline Stoll provides extensive research background to fill the voids of scientific support of the famous educational method.
In her book, Stoll addresses each of the eight principles of Montessori Education, providing support with specific research and expanded with actual Montessori practices.
1. Movement and cognition
2. Choice and control
3. Interest
4. Motivation
5. Collaborative learning
6. Meaningful context
7. Adult-child interaction
8. Order and the environment
In most of the cases Montessori proved being in line with science, upholding the value of the method.
Stoll criticizes the traditional school system in different parts of the book, with a two-fold argument: The system is based on the Lockean view of the blank-slate mind; an empty container that needs to be filled with information. Thus, the system is organized for most efficient transmission as a manufacturing line. Maria Montessori recognized that children are born with dispositions to learn and each child is different, therefore the education method should facilitate that. From Stoll’s work we can conclude that Montessori is a superior education system than the standard offer for families and society.
However, there are a few issues to consider for further research.
Winning against the standard educational system is not a big challenge. Most of recent theories of how the mind works show that the empty vessel filled in a manufacturing line is plain wrong. The true contestants are innovative models that value the same principles as Montessori; such as Forest Schools, Free education (i.e. Sudbury School), unschooling, etc. However, this kind of research is hard to find since these practices are not widespread. Probably there is no right or wrong answer as different models satisfy different needs and tastes.
The value of research has some inherent flaws. Stoll is careful at explaining the limitations and through combining independent studies she ties in the conclusions. However most of these studies were made in school setting and as a play advocate once said; “studying children in schools is like studying wildlife in zoos”. Also, as Stoll quotes, “studying children in an environment that is not well prepared would be like trying to study normal cell growth in an infected petri dish”. There is a broad spectrum of Montessori implementations, how to know how the specifics degrees of preparedness of the cases affected the results.
From the play profession point of view, it is interesting the overlapping between Montessori and play. However, Stoll explains that Maria Montessori had a limited understanding of play, reduced to toys that may sound opposite.
“Dr. Montessori divided our hours into those for leisure and those spent at school. She implies that children may well choose to play with toys in their leisure time, just as we may choose to play chess, but that in the schools she structured, children did not choose to play.”
A more comprehensive understanding of play highlights the similarities. Using Peter Gray’s definition (Free to Learn).
a) Play is self-chosen and self-directed. This is coherent with the second principle of Montessori, choice and control. Play is an expression of freedom and Montessori give agency of learning to the child.
b) Play is motivated by means more than ends. Play is activity conducted primarily for its own sake. Gray says “a playful student enjoys studying the subject and cares little about the test”, something very much related to the importance of personal interests and intrinsic motivation in Montessori. Same as grades, stars and rankings kill intrinsic motivation in education, turn free play into a competition.
c) Play is guided by mental rules. Some of the critique to Montessori are its rules that Stoll explain is a balance that give freedom in some areas and structure in others. People need rules to operate either in play, school, society and work. In play children are agents in the definition of rules maybe more than in a Montessori school, but both offer way more freedom than traditional schools. This could be one of the areas of further research.
d) Play is imaginative. Although Montessori discourage the use of fantasy in little children based on their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, creativity, play-pretend and sociodramatic elements of Montessori are based on the imagination of children.
e) Play is conducted in an alert but non-stressed frame of mind. The concept of flow is part of interest, context and even the purpose of what is the proper environment.
The role of playworkers is quite similar of the role of the Montessori teacher, their goal is to disappear and provide the right amount of clues to provoke children. Playworkers care for the quality of the playground as the teacher prepare the environment. Playworkers carefully observe the child at play just like the teacher observe the absorbent mind at work. And of course, the aphorism of Play is the Child’s Work is common to both. Of course, not everything is the same. For play advocates the affordances of items are important, the multiple uses that a person can give to a give object is discourage in Montessori classroom where each material is purposefully designed for a specific use.
It seems like children don’t find Montessori materials as alternative to toys but as engaging. Bob Hughes’ taxonomy of play (“Evolutionary Playwork”) can shed some light here. A lot of the Montessori activities and materials can fit in some of the play types.
Communication play is in the movable alphabet, sandpaper letters and other grammar exercises. Creative play is in the approach to science. Dramatic play and the understanding of how society works. Exploratory play and the multiple materials from the pink tower to the sound cylinders. Mastery play is the end of Montessori three period lesson. Object play is the constant manipulation of objects such as the brown stairs, the red rods or the wooden cylinders to name a few. Recapitulative play is involved in the timeline of life or civilization. Role Play seems to be part of the appealing of Practical Life. Social play manifests in peer-to-peer and collaborative work and the mixed age groups.
No wonder why kids can spend three hours of hard work; the program is structured as a flow of games where children enjoy enough freedom to manage their energy and attention. It is not hard to understand Maria Montessori’s reluctance about recess. In traditional schools, kids may be focused on an activity they enjoy as play and are forced to go out doing less interesting stuff. The pro-recess advocates critique the lack of freedom during breaks in traditional schools, it is not the same as in a well-run Montessori school.
Finally advances in neuroscience could open a new door of research to connect the benefits of a Montessori method as well as all other alternatives that are popping and challenging the mainstream institutionalized education system. This could very well be the subject of another book but could provide the ultimate validation to the Genius.
In her book, Stoll addresses each of the eight principles of Montessori Education, providing support with specific research and expanded with actual Montessori practices.
1. Movement and cognition
2. Choice and control
3. Interest
4. Motivation
5. Collaborative learning
6. Meaningful context
7. Adult-child interaction
8. Order and the environment
In most of the cases Montessori proved being in line with science, upholding the value of the method.
Stoll criticizes the traditional school system in different parts of the book, with a two-fold argument: The system is based on the Lockean view of the blank-slate mind; an empty container that needs to be filled with information. Thus, the system is organized for most efficient transmission as a manufacturing line. Maria Montessori recognized that children are born with dispositions to learn and each child is different, therefore the education method should facilitate that. From Stoll’s work we can conclude that Montessori is a superior education system than the standard offer for families and society.
However, there are a few issues to consider for further research.
Winning against the standard educational system is not a big challenge. Most of recent theories of how the mind works show that the empty vessel filled in a manufacturing line is plain wrong. The true contestants are innovative models that value the same principles as Montessori; such as Forest Schools, Free education (i.e. Sudbury School), unschooling, etc. However, this kind of research is hard to find since these practices are not widespread. Probably there is no right or wrong answer as different models satisfy different needs and tastes.
The value of research has some inherent flaws. Stoll is careful at explaining the limitations and through combining independent studies she ties in the conclusions. However most of these studies were made in school setting and as a play advocate once said; “studying children in schools is like studying wildlife in zoos”. Also, as Stoll quotes, “studying children in an environment that is not well prepared would be like trying to study normal cell growth in an infected petri dish”. There is a broad spectrum of Montessori implementations, how to know how the specifics degrees of preparedness of the cases affected the results.
From the play profession point of view, it is interesting the overlapping between Montessori and play. However, Stoll explains that Maria Montessori had a limited understanding of play, reduced to toys that may sound opposite.
“Dr. Montessori divided our hours into those for leisure and those spent at school. She implies that children may well choose to play with toys in their leisure time, just as we may choose to play chess, but that in the schools she structured, children did not choose to play.”
A more comprehensive understanding of play highlights the similarities. Using Peter Gray’s definition (Free to Learn).
a) Play is self-chosen and self-directed. This is coherent with the second principle of Montessori, choice and control. Play is an expression of freedom and Montessori give agency of learning to the child.
b) Play is motivated by means more than ends. Play is activity conducted primarily for its own sake. Gray says “a playful student enjoys studying the subject and cares little about the test”, something very much related to the importance of personal interests and intrinsic motivation in Montessori. Same as grades, stars and rankings kill intrinsic motivation in education, turn free play into a competition.
c) Play is guided by mental rules. Some of the critique to Montessori are its rules that Stoll explain is a balance that give freedom in some areas and structure in others. People need rules to operate either in play, school, society and work. In play children are agents in the definition of rules maybe more than in a Montessori school, but both offer way more freedom than traditional schools. This could be one of the areas of further research.
d) Play is imaginative. Although Montessori discourage the use of fantasy in little children based on their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, creativity, play-pretend and sociodramatic elements of Montessori are based on the imagination of children.
e) Play is conducted in an alert but non-stressed frame of mind. The concept of flow is part of interest, context and even the purpose of what is the proper environment.
The role of playworkers is quite similar of the role of the Montessori teacher, their goal is to disappear and provide the right amount of clues to provoke children. Playworkers care for the quality of the playground as the teacher prepare the environment. Playworkers carefully observe the child at play just like the teacher observe the absorbent mind at work. And of course, the aphorism of Play is the Child’s Work is common to both. Of course, not everything is the same. For play advocates the affordances of items are important, the multiple uses that a person can give to a give object is discourage in Montessori classroom where each material is purposefully designed for a specific use.
It seems like children don’t find Montessori materials as alternative to toys but as engaging. Bob Hughes’ taxonomy of play (“Evolutionary Playwork”) can shed some light here. A lot of the Montessori activities and materials can fit in some of the play types.
Communication play is in the movable alphabet, sandpaper letters and other grammar exercises. Creative play is in the approach to science. Dramatic play and the understanding of how society works. Exploratory play and the multiple materials from the pink tower to the sound cylinders. Mastery play is the end of Montessori three period lesson. Object play is the constant manipulation of objects such as the brown stairs, the red rods or the wooden cylinders to name a few. Recapitulative play is involved in the timeline of life or civilization. Role Play seems to be part of the appealing of Practical Life. Social play manifests in peer-to-peer and collaborative work and the mixed age groups.
No wonder why kids can spend three hours of hard work; the program is structured as a flow of games where children enjoy enough freedom to manage their energy and attention. It is not hard to understand Maria Montessori’s reluctance about recess. In traditional schools, kids may be focused on an activity they enjoy as play and are forced to go out doing less interesting stuff. The pro-recess advocates critique the lack of freedom during breaks in traditional schools, it is not the same as in a well-run Montessori school.
Finally advances in neuroscience could open a new door of research to connect the benefits of a Montessori method as well as all other alternatives that are popping and challenging the mainstream institutionalized education system. This could very well be the subject of another book but could provide the ultimate validation to the Genius.
December 8, 2013
Lillard sets out to present the empirical evidence for the Montessori Method. Using research of Montessori directly and psychological research more generally, she explains both the Montessori theory and how the evidence supports much of what goes on in a Montessori classroom. The breadth of evidence that supports many of the key claims of Montessori is impressive and worth a serious look by anyone interested in Montessori or educational philosophy in general.
Another important aspect of the book is where Lillard points out the need for more research to support various aspects of Montessori. She is also careful to note the qualifications or limiting conditions on many of the studies. These are important both because it points out paths for future researchers, but also demonstrating Lillard’s intellectual honesty. She is clearly a Montessori supporter, but she is not dogmatic about it.
A downside here is that Lillard is often critical of traditional, mainstream education, but too often in an overly general way. She paints it with too broad of a brush and so might be seen as unfairly dismissing traditional schools and teachers. This is a point reinforced by some of my students’ responses to the book. I assigned this for my graduate class in Philosophy of Education. For the most part, they liked it and found much of it valuable and eye-opening; but a few noted her easy dismissal of traditional education and felt it unfairly characterized their own experiences. If the book was: “Why Montessori is better than traditional schools” then this would be a significant failing. But Lillard is not writing this book to criticize mainstream education but to show how research supports Montessori. So the fact that she falls short in fairly dealing with traditional education is not damning for the overall quality and importance of this book.
Another important aspect of the book is where Lillard points out the need for more research to support various aspects of Montessori. She is also careful to note the qualifications or limiting conditions on many of the studies. These are important both because it points out paths for future researchers, but also demonstrating Lillard’s intellectual honesty. She is clearly a Montessori supporter, but she is not dogmatic about it.
A downside here is that Lillard is often critical of traditional, mainstream education, but too often in an overly general way. She paints it with too broad of a brush and so might be seen as unfairly dismissing traditional schools and teachers. This is a point reinforced by some of my students’ responses to the book. I assigned this for my graduate class in Philosophy of Education. For the most part, they liked it and found much of it valuable and eye-opening; but a few noted her easy dismissal of traditional education and felt it unfairly characterized their own experiences. If the book was: “Why Montessori is better than traditional schools” then this would be a significant failing. But Lillard is not writing this book to criticize mainstream education but to show how research supports Montessori. So the fact that she falls short in fairly dealing with traditional education is not damning for the overall quality and importance of this book.
May 24, 2007
I probably should give this book more than 3 stars, it is deserving of more, I think I didn't give it more because it presented, to me at least, a lot of information I already knew.
What was new to me was the presentation of the evolution of the current education system. What the author says about how schools, "traditional schools" are taught and why there is so much room for improvement, is right-on-the-money.
We are a country so unwillingly to accept unconventional educational methods, yet are jobs and how we work continue to change. Montessori is more child-centered and develops drive and an appreciation of gaining knowledge, which I think everyone should wish for their child when the reach adulthood.
I do believe Montessori is not for every child, but I also believe it gets a bad rap, because people considering it for their child don't take enough time to understand it or investigate the school they are considering. Like with anything, all private and public schools included, each is different and some do a better job than others.
At a minimum read it for her comparison of the learning methods.
What was new to me was the presentation of the evolution of the current education system. What the author says about how schools, "traditional schools" are taught and why there is so much room for improvement, is right-on-the-money.
We are a country so unwillingly to accept unconventional educational methods, yet are jobs and how we work continue to change. Montessori is more child-centered and develops drive and an appreciation of gaining knowledge, which I think everyone should wish for their child when the reach adulthood.
I do believe Montessori is not for every child, but I also believe it gets a bad rap, because people considering it for their child don't take enough time to understand it or investigate the school they are considering. Like with anything, all private and public schools included, each is different and some do a better job than others.
At a minimum read it for her comparison of the learning methods.
April 6, 2010
I found this book to be an interesting overview of the learning and cognition research related to Montessori pedagogy. Unfortunately, I think I really needed to read some of Montessori's original writings first since the book didn't really go into her pedagogy deeply enough for me to really know if the research cited was relevant to Montessori. Also, the author's frequent disparagement of "traditional public school" pedagogy and process was off-putting and, at times, irrelevant. It was clearly an opinion piece disguised as a literature review, and not a true summary of the research. That said, it was an interesting and thought-provoking read, and helped me to understand a little more about why some of the things that are occurring in my son's Montessori school are occurring.
September 3, 2010
If you want to know the solution to our current problems in education read this book. The Montessori method is equal to or superior to traditional education in every way. In addition, Montessori works best with large class sizes (~30 students per teacher), no standardized testing, and no homework. Almost the exact opposite of what is happening with "No Child Left Behind". Students attending a Montessori school through elementary school performed better than an equivalent sample of students who attended a traditional elementary school.
If you want to know why Montessori is so effective, read this book! The author has done an excellent job of organizing and presenting the research that supports Montessori.
If you want to know why Montessori is so effective, read this book! The author has done an excellent job of organizing and presenting the research that supports Montessori.
Want to read
November 19, 2011I've only read snippets from this book, and even that pretty much has me convinced that the current model of majority of our public schools (modeled after factory life and based on behaviorism) discourages life long learning. I'm not entirely sure that Montessori is *the* answer, but it's pretty obvious that the current public school system needs a complete overhaul, and political initiatives like No Child Left Behind are steps in the wrong direction. But I have to admit that I'm already completely brainwashed by Alfie Kohn, so these types of messages naturally resonate with me.
January 13, 2011
Hands down THE BEST review of the studies out there looking at how children learn and how Montessori measures up. I only wish I had read it years ago when my kids first began montessori school, as I am only now truly beginning to appreciate the gift we stumbled upon. This author did her due dilligence and is very fair in presenting the studies. A very well done book. Very readable, full of good information.
November 18, 2015
This is an amazingly detailed review of Montessori education. It frames the 50+ years of practical insights formed by Maria Montessori against the psychology-of-learning studies done over the last few decades. It's amazing how often a technique chosen by Montessori is proven affective, even though it is massively against the norm, years later.
April 14, 2012
Excellent book. All 3 of my children have thrived in Montessori from toddlers to upper elementary. This book explains the method and the science. Follow the child.
June 25, 2012
Hands down best book that backs up Montessori's observations using modern day science and modern research. Cannot recommend this book enough. I dog-eared nearly every page.
June 2, 2018
The Montessori method of teaching, what can I say about it? Well, as it turns out, not that much before reading this book. I had heard of Montessori and her method, but for some reason, I likened it to hucksterism and balderdash. Looking through this book though, I can agree with the more salient points made by Dr. Maria Montessori.
This book argues that schools of the modern era have two fatal errors woven into the very fabric of their foundations. The first error is the concept of school as an efficient factory with administrators as managers and children as raw materials. The second major error is the idea of the child as a Blank Slate, a mold, so to speak, that one pours knowledge into. Now I don’t know if Dr. Montessori expressed these ideas in a concrete form such as writing or if it was implied by her methods. The book mentions them nonetheless. The first error is understandable since modern schooling started at around the turn of the 20th century with the rise of the factory. You wanted to create workers for factories in a factory setting. With Behaviorism in vogue at the time, the idea was that all you had to do was utilize a carrot and stick method and children could learn anything at all. Just give them praise at the correct answers and derision and mockery at incorrect answers. Perhaps you could prompt them to learn their multiplication tables by threatening to hold them back. I dunno. Recently, our school systems have been churning out factory workers but modern economics has been closing the factories down. The system is outdated. As for the Blank Slate idea, modern psychology has made that theory obsolete as well.
I can agree with a great deal of what is said in this book. When I used to be in school, I was usually bored when I got to the upper grades. A dream school is one that cultivates a lifelong love of learning in all children regardless of background. It shouldn’t matter what race you are, or how affluent your parents are. The sad state of modern society is that these are the limiting factors of what happens in school. Teachers have enough on their hands trying to make lesson plans fit into a 50-minute block of time. A great deal of school reform focuses on the smaller problems and tries to apply a band-aid to what is essentially a person bleeding out from an artery.
The main ideas of Montessori’s Method are put forth in nine principles and they are all discussed in this book. So if you are like me and never really had any grounding in the Montessori method this book is really informative and well done. Since it is the third edition that I have read, it means that a lot of the developments since the first edition were included as well. As a scholarly work, it does an outstanding job with tons of references to studies and other works.
So this book was really interesting to me. It takes Montessori’s teachings and methods and exposes them to scientific scrutiny. It demonstrates that Dr. Montessori was a Genius before her time.
This book argues that schools of the modern era have two fatal errors woven into the very fabric of their foundations. The first error is the concept of school as an efficient factory with administrators as managers and children as raw materials. The second major error is the idea of the child as a Blank Slate, a mold, so to speak, that one pours knowledge into. Now I don’t know if Dr. Montessori expressed these ideas in a concrete form such as writing or if it was implied by her methods. The book mentions them nonetheless. The first error is understandable since modern schooling started at around the turn of the 20th century with the rise of the factory. You wanted to create workers for factories in a factory setting. With Behaviorism in vogue at the time, the idea was that all you had to do was utilize a carrot and stick method and children could learn anything at all. Just give them praise at the correct answers and derision and mockery at incorrect answers. Perhaps you could prompt them to learn their multiplication tables by threatening to hold them back. I dunno. Recently, our school systems have been churning out factory workers but modern economics has been closing the factories down. The system is outdated. As for the Blank Slate idea, modern psychology has made that theory obsolete as well.
I can agree with a great deal of what is said in this book. When I used to be in school, I was usually bored when I got to the upper grades. A dream school is one that cultivates a lifelong love of learning in all children regardless of background. It shouldn’t matter what race you are, or how affluent your parents are. The sad state of modern society is that these are the limiting factors of what happens in school. Teachers have enough on their hands trying to make lesson plans fit into a 50-minute block of time. A great deal of school reform focuses on the smaller problems and tries to apply a band-aid to what is essentially a person bleeding out from an artery.
The main ideas of Montessori’s Method are put forth in nine principles and they are all discussed in this book. So if you are like me and never really had any grounding in the Montessori method this book is really informative and well done. Since it is the third edition that I have read, it means that a lot of the developments since the first edition were included as well. As a scholarly work, it does an outstanding job with tons of references to studies and other works.
So this book was really interesting to me. It takes Montessori’s teachings and methods and exposes them to scientific scrutiny. It demonstrates that Dr. Montessori was a Genius before her time.
August 14, 2018
I've just finished this excellent book by Angeline Still Lillard. She discusses the Montessori method and how scientists are now confirming its effectiveness following scientific analysis and experimentation.
It's interesting first because she speaks both of the Montessori principles in a very clear fashion, and compares them with traditional teaching methods.
The author is in the USA, but these traditional methods are similar in the UK, France and elsewhere in the West, i.e. schools are based on the factories for which they are supposed to produce teenagers suitable for their needs and those of their future employers. And if your child is a round peg who doesn't fit in a square hole, well too bad.
She shows that classes have little changed in fact since the 1850s.
The author also talks about how Dr Montessori worked with supposedly retarded children who, after two years with her, passed as well or better standard school tests. Science has now shown, since the 1980s, how Montessori's methods work scientifically.
It's interesting first because she speaks both of the Montessori principles in a very clear fashion, and compares them with traditional teaching methods.
The author is in the USA, but these traditional methods are similar in the UK, France and elsewhere in the West, i.e. schools are based on the factories for which they are supposed to produce teenagers suitable for their needs and those of their future employers. And if your child is a round peg who doesn't fit in a square hole, well too bad.
She shows that classes have little changed in fact since the 1850s.
The author also talks about how Dr Montessori worked with supposedly retarded children who, after two years with her, passed as well or better standard school tests. Science has now shown, since the 1980s, how Montessori's methods work scientifically.
Read
February 9, 2021ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
The eight principles of Montessori Education discussed are:
(1) that movement and cognition are closely entwined, and movement can enhance thinking and learning;
(2) that learning and well-being are improved when people have a sense of control over their lives (free choice);
(3) that people learn better when they are interested in what they are learning;
(4) that tying extrinsic rewards to an activity, like money for reading or high grades for tests, negatively impacts motivation to engage in that activity when the reward is withdrawn;
(5) that collaborative arrangements can be very conducive to learning;
(6) that learning situated in meaningful contexts is often deeper and richer than learning in abstract contexts;
(7) that particular forms of adult interaction are associated with more optimal child outcomes; and
(8) that order in the environment is beneficial to children.
The role of education is to interest the child profoundly in an external activity to which he will give all his potential. —Maria Montessori
The eight principles of Montessori Education discussed are:
(1) that movement and cognition are closely entwined, and movement can enhance thinking and learning;
(2) that learning and well-being are improved when people have a sense of control over their lives (free choice);
(3) that people learn better when they are interested in what they are learning;
(4) that tying extrinsic rewards to an activity, like money for reading or high grades for tests, negatively impacts motivation to engage in that activity when the reward is withdrawn;
(5) that collaborative arrangements can be very conducive to learning;
(6) that learning situated in meaningful contexts is often deeper and richer than learning in abstract contexts;
(7) that particular forms of adult interaction are associated with more optimal child outcomes; and
(8) that order in the environment is beneficial to children.
The role of education is to interest the child profoundly in an external activity to which he will give all his potential. —Maria Montessori
June 3, 2021
Must read for Montessori educators! I had the opportunity to read the latest edition while taking a class with Dr. Lillard. In the book, Dr. Lillard discusses developmental psychology research that supports Montessori principles. Her writing style makes the research discussions palatable to a wide range of audiences: academics, Montessorians, and just about anyone interested in learning more about Montessori. Toward the end of the book, she answers a series of frequently asked questions, clearing up many common misconceptions about Montessori education. As a Montessori teacher, I found this section helpful when thinking about how I tend to answer the question that we always get, "What is Montessori education?"
P.S. Lillard is a spectacular speaker. She once gave a presentation at my school and the school community was talking about it for weeks on end. Invite her for a talk if you're looking for some inspiration!
P.S. Lillard is a spectacular speaker. She once gave a presentation at my school and the school community was talking about it for weeks on end. Invite her for a talk if you're looking for some inspiration!
March 23, 2020
This book has fascinating insights into child development and teaching styles. The author really seems to give a thorough review of the methods of teaching used in Dr. Montessori’s curriculum and then adds a friendly critique, including the ideas behind the instructional process. This edition contains 50 pages of end matter that includes a comprehensive bibliography, a name index, and a subject index.
I would recommend this book, because it gives the motivations behind the methods (or seems to, for the little I currently know about Montessori schooling). The author’s conversational but orderly style and heavy (but not distracting) end notes make this a pleasant read for someone new to the method. As mentioned above, the book has great resources, including links current at the time of this reading (2020) to primary and related websites.
I would recommend this book, because it gives the motivations behind the methods (or seems to, for the little I currently know about Montessori schooling). The author’s conversational but orderly style and heavy (but not distracting) end notes make this a pleasant read for someone new to the method. As mentioned above, the book has great resources, including links current at the time of this reading (2020) to primary and related websites.
September 13, 2024
This book was one of the most in depth and comprehensive looks at the Montessori method that I have read yet. It was thorough and well organized. However like many books that are “science” based it’s easy for studies to be cherry picked or presented in such a way as to support the author’s desired conclusion. I found some studies to be straightforward in supporting the author’s argument, some that definitely seemed a stretch or contradictory and quite a bit that the author herself simply says there needs to be more evidence. While I appreciate the honesty, I think in a data driven book it is important not to make claims unless you have data to support it. Overall it did deepen my understanding and I have much to consider regarding the benefits and disadvantages of this pedagogy.
May 23, 2018
The book clearly goes through the tenets of the Montessori school, how it was founded, the evidence of how their teaching "sticks" with kids, compares it to the current school system, gives examples of ways that they use movement and kid interest in learning to their advantage and the role of the teacher in the class setting. Plus, there is lots more information...the book goes in depth with research that showcases how the brain works as well as the results of Montessori practice and philosophy. One of the things I liked about the book is how they go through the facts without lots of extraneous opinions. Many ideas resonated with me, and some I rejected but overall, I feel more informed.
May 1, 2018
A great insight into Montessori education. I already was enamored with the approach, but after reading this book I love it even more. While the author is obviously coming from a pro-Montessori angle, she also does an admirable job of treating topics fairly, pointing out some areas where more research needs to be done and even a few areas where research is against the Montessori approach. A great, if textbook style, read for anyone interested to know more about the Montessori approach.
February 24, 2021
An educational philosophy that is rooted in the physical world, inculcates awe, nurtures autonomy and agency, sees life as an end and not a means, celebrates communality, considers knowledge as an infinitely interconnected web of meaning, and above all cherishes the accretion of independence in children, is surely one that is simultaneously humane and effective. A large number of studies are included in this very fascinating book. Balanced and erudite – five stars.
December 4, 2021
I do badly wanted to give this book 5 stars because it was so FULL of great info, however, I found it way too dense. Even as a person who loves to dig into the science, I found myself zoning out and having flashbacks of writing my senior thesis and pouring through studies. It stopped being an enjoyable read after a little while. I would highly recommend it as a reference book, but maybe not the most fun light summer reading?
Read
March 28, 2022NA/5 Stars
I don't feel very comfortable reading this because it is nonfiction, and anything real makes me uncomfortable rating it out of 5 stars. I found this to be very informative about the Montessori method, but I could get very bored because I don't like nonfiction all the time. I read it for an essay, and now I need to figure out how I'm gonna write it because I don't remember a whole lot.
So wish me luck.
I don't feel very comfortable reading this because it is nonfiction, and anything real makes me uncomfortable rating it out of 5 stars. I found this to be very informative about the Montessori method, but I could get very bored because I don't like nonfiction all the time. I read it for an essay, and now I need to figure out how I'm gonna write it because I don't remember a whole lot.
So wish me luck.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews