Research Watch 4 Brat is Lava

8/3/2019 Research Watch 4 Brat is Lava

1/24

1

Contents

Personalized Learning p. 2

Children's Needs p. 3

Guides and Pilgrims p. 4

The Self-construction of the Brain p. 5

The Brains Story Mode p. 6

Research issues p. 7

European Montessori Research Studies p. 8

The Environment p. 9

Action Research p.10

Aspects of Child Development p.12

Sensorial Education p.14

Executive functions p.15

Sensitive periods p.17

Brains, Bugs and Bach p.19

Rewards p.20

Language and Reality p.22


2/24

2

(2008, January). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.86; p.31.

Montessori approach has vital understandings,based on years of tried and tested practice, and

this is being ignored or subverted. We need tohave faith that the method is effective, and not beseduced into the latest mainstream fashion. Wealso need influential spokespeople who can relaythese insights to those in power - and that issomething that is sadly lacking in the UK.

There are other straws in the wind blowingin our direction. The Basic Skills Agency com-missioned a report by Elizabeth Jarman on theeffects of early years environments. A summary,entitled Communication Friendly Spaces, is

available or the full report and a toolkit to assistwith implementation can be ordered for 20 fromwww.elizabethjarmantraining.co.uk. Current or-thodoxy is that nurseries and playgroups shouldbe vivid, vibrant places festooned with childrenswork. Jarman found that this type of displayoften acted as a visual overload, making it difficultfor children to concentrate. There are too manypeople (some Ofsted inspectors included) whocannot see that to have everything but the pro-verbial kitchen sink hanging off the ceiling is just

not a good idea. A peaceful and calm environ-ment will help the children to become peacefuland calm in themselves.

References:

Gilbert, C. (2007). 2020 vision: report of theteaching and learning in 2020 reviewgroup. Retrieved fromhttp://www.decs.sa.gov.au/ learning

technologies/files/links/2020_vision.pdfJarman, E. (n.d.). The communication friendlyspacesTM approach. Accessed fromhttp://www.elizabethjarmantraining.co.uk

Lillard, A.S. & Else-Quest, N. (2006). EvaluatingMontessori Education. Science 313(5795),1893-4

Sebba, J. et al. (2007).An Investigation of Per-sonalised Learning Approaches used bySchools. Sussex University Research Re-port 843 retrieved from www.dfes.gov.uk

Ward, H. (2007, September 7). Give the young-est your best teachers. Retrieved from theTimes Educational Supplement websitehttp://www.tes.co.uk/article.asp?Storycode=2433058.

A little while ago there was a good deal ofpublicity surrounding the Science article on An-

gelina Stoll Lillards research (2006) on the effec-tiveness of Montessori schooling - and quiterightly so. However there is actually a steadydrizzle of reports, which support one or otheraspect of the Montessori approach, and which itis very easy to overlook.

There have been a number of interestingresearch findings coming out of the University ofDurham recently. At the annual conference ofthe British Educational Research Association inSeptember, Professor Peter Tymms reported the

results of a study into the effects of good earlychildhood experience. It had concluded thatgood experience in the early years was moreimportant than later schooling, and therefore thebetter teachers would give more value if placedwith the younger children. This is hardly new,but what was striking, in the Times EducationalSupplementreport (Ward, 2007), was that someheadteachers, faced with this report, dismissed itsaying that they could not take the better teach-ers away from the older children in case their

SATs scores suffered!Equally mixed has been the response to

the report on personalised learning by ChristineGilbert earlier this year (Gilbert, 2007), before herappointment to the higher echelons of Ofsted.Probably for most of us, personalised learningmeans following the childs needs (which hasbeen a central plank of the Montessori approachfor 100 years). Indeed, Gilbert defined it asfocusing in a more structured way on eachchilds learning in order to enhance progress,

achievement and participation. The DfES (as itthen was) accepted this definition, but then wenton to further define personalised learning ashaving five components, including assessmentfor learning, curriculum entitlement and choice,workforce remodelling etc. This has sadly led tono little confusion. Recent research (Sebba,2007) confirms this; showing, for example, thatsome schools actually see personalised learningas a way of endorsing current activities! Anoth-er school believed it had personalised its curricu-lum by putting up bilingual signs.

These are just two recent examples ofimportant research insights being re-interpretedby mainstream practitioners. I believe that the


3/24

3

(2008, April). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.87; p.32.

asked me the other day what I thought childrenshould be doing. My answer? They need to beoutdoors getting really heathily dirty. This is anaspect of the Secret of Childhood that childrenreveal their strength when they come into contactwith Nature.

Another aspect of that secret is that chil-dren have far more ability and potential thanadults normally realise. This is also being pickedup in various research studies. One such(Hamlin et al, 2007), at Yale University, showedthat babies as young as 6 months can recognise

helpful characters in a simple puppet show, anddemonstrate a preference for them, even whenthe events do not directly affect them. Theresearchers suggest that this ability may be in-nate and may be the basis of moral and socialdevelopment. This is quite a controversial pointof view - for background information interestedreaders could try Professor Blooms fascinating(and very readable) account of child develop-ment; Descartes Baby.

References:Bloom, P. (1994). Descartes baby. London;

HeinemannDonnelly,M. (2005, October). Talking stories on

CDROM - how do they benefit their users?Education 3-13 33(3), 32-37

Hamlin, J.K., Wynn, K. & Bloom, P. (2007). Na-ture 450, 557-559; summarised atwww.nature.com/news/2007/071121/full/news.2007.278.htm

Harlen, W. (2007). The quality of learning: As-

sessment alternatives for primary educa-tion. Cambridge; University of CambridgeFaculty of Education.

Howe, C. & Mercer, N. (2007). Childrens socialdevelopment, peer interaction and class-room learning. Primary Review ResearchBriefing 2/1b avaiable fromwww.primaryreview.org.uk

Sigman, A. (2005). Visual voodoo: The biologi-cal impact of watching TV. Biologist 54(1);12-17

Sigman, A. (2007). Remotely controlled. 2nd ed.London; Radon House

How often have you heard people say thatchildren need competition to prepare them for therigours of the real world. This attitude conflictswith the fundamental concepts of Montessoripeace education, and research is increasinglyshowing just how much more effective co-opera-tion is compared with competition. ProfessorRobin Alexander is currently conducting a reviewof primary education in the UK and has commis-sioned a series of 32 reports on aspects of cur-rent practice. The ones which are complete areavailable online (together with a very useful sum-

mary, or briefing) at www.primaryreview.org.ukand report 2/1b (Chlidrens Social Development,Peer Interaction and Classroom Learning byChristine Howe & Neil Mercer) marshalls a greatdeal of evidence that supports the importance ofcollaborative learning.

There is a great deal of valuable informa-tion which is being clearly summarised in thesereports and briefings. Another of the reports(Harlen, 2007) documents the lack of dependabil-ity in the current testing regime, and the stress it

places on both teachers and pupils. Children just dont need the sort of pressure they aresometimes being put under.

Many of us are also concerned about thepressure from Ofsted and elsewhere to havecomputers in the nursery (a pressure which willincrease with the even more prescriptive EYFS).There is a very real question as to just howeffective they are. (How can moving coloureddots on a screen ever compete with genuinehands-on experience?) An interesting study a

couple of years ago (Donnelly, 2005), looking atsoftware to support reading, found that the use ofthe software actually reduced both recall andunderstanding, even though the children pre-ferred it.

This study reinforces the research done byDr Aric Sigman, whose article in The Biologist journal, highlighting the damage TVs and com-puters can do to the very young, caused contro-versy some two years ago. His book RemotelyControlled has just been updated and re-pub-

lished by Random House. Someone (whoseyoung child is very electronically orientated)


4/24

4

(2008, July). Research watch. Montessori International I p.33.

Children like to be allowed to completetheir work in their own time, to find answers forthemselves, to be active in their learning and to

be taught by well-organised and fair teachers.This could come from a Montessori teachersmanual, but it is the conclusion of some researchat Bishop Grosseteste University College inLincoln, U.K. Hopkins (2008) also found thatchildren appreciate being recognised for theirachievements. False or incessant praise isrecognised by children for what it is, and Montes-sori teachers do not use praise as a means ofrewarding children - but it is important not to losesight of genuine appreciation.

Now and again the press trumpets thatscientists have found the gene for, say, intelli-gence or musicality or something else. Usually,when you look into it, they have found a gene thatis present in many (but not all) people who sharea particular characteristic. However, graduallymore and more of these are turning up and thereis an increasing impression being given that hu-man nature is largely a matter of genetics. Simi-larly, analyses of brain function have sometimes

been used to support the same view. It has beenknown for some time, for example, that musi-cians brains actually react physically to music ina way which is different from the rest of us. Theconclusion has usually been drawn that they aresomehow born differently. However recent scananalyses, by Elizabeth Marguliss team at Arkan-sas University, have shown (seewww.newswise.com/p/articles/view/537352) thatthe difference is enhanced when musicians heartheir own instrument. They argue that this is

much too specific to be an innate characteristic,so it must be a result of training or of themusicians own early environment. It may per-haps be the case that a small genetic differencehas been greatly influenced by the musiciansenvironment and training. However, we shouldnever forget that whilst our children may comewith varying genetic endowments, this can bevastly enhanced by a good, prepared, environ-ment.

Sometimes a piece of research, whilst

having nothing ostensibly to do with Montessori,unwittingly reveals the poverty of mainstreameducation. One such piece ( Press) exploresaspects of why children often find school boring.They suggest it may be either under- or over-

stimulation. But they see boredom as valuable,as, they suggest, it gives space for creativethinking! Part of their final conclusion is worthquoting though; It is one of the most oppressivedemands of adults that the child should be inter-ested, rather than take time to find what interestshim.

The American Montessori Society organ-ises annual prizes for the best Montessori re-search doctoral thesis, and masteratedissertation, each year. They have just put up anumber of these onto their website. This yearswinner is entitled Guides & Pilgrims by Linda

Gatewood Massey This thesis does not readlike academic philosophy. The opening para-graph commences There were two Montessoriclassrooms at Oak Hill Middle School, tuckedaway in the furthest corner of a rambling publicschool building. Our classroom windows lookedout onto a field enclosed by tree-blanketed hills,at the fields edge an underground spring sur-faced, creating an oasis in the midst of suburbanstreets for brown-backed geese, soft-eyed deerand lone eagles. The classroom, too, created a

kind of oasis... and it continues in a similar vein.To be sure there are some arcane passag-

es, but one does not need to know whathermeneutic phenomenology is to understandand be moved by the account of the authors ownpilgrimage, as she moved to an older age-group,finding herself out of her comfort-zone anddogged by the demands of tests and state curric-ula. Eventually she found her way back andmuch of her thesis is based on conversationswith other Montessorians, who tell of their own

personal transformations and the goodness ofwork that calls children to concentrate their ener-gies and grow into active, caring and responsiblepeople. If only there were more research of thisilk!

References

Belton T. & Priyadharshini (2008) Boredom andSchooling: a cross-disciplinary explorationE. Anglia University Press

Hopkins, E. (2008). Classroom conditions to en-

sure enjoyment and achievement. Educa-tion 3-13.

Massey, .G. (2006). Guides and Pilgrims. fromwww.amshq.org/research/dissertations.htm


5/24

5

(2008, October). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.89; p.33.

Paula Polk Lillard, in a presentation toNAMTAs Fourth Adolescent Colloquium (2008),drew attention to three major pieces of research

which supported and illuminated Montessoris dis-covery that the major task of childhood was to buildthe adult, in other words self-construction

The first was many years ago, whenMerzenich (later a professor at California Universi-ty) did some post-doctoral research using micro-surgery to insert electrodes into individual neurons(nerve cells). He could then determine exactlywhich part of the body they were linked to. Theneuron was then cut. Seven months later thebrains were re-checked and, instead of the con-

fused signals he had expected, Merzenich foundthat the brain had re-wired itself. This was amongstthe very first evidence that the brain could re-organ-ize itself. This is a fundamental pre-condition forthe process of self-construction: what we are is notfixed in the brain.

The second, some ten years ago, by Pas-cual-Leone of Harvard Medical School, involvedtaking brain scans of people learning Braille(chosen because it involves motor activity in thefingers as well as mental work). Between Mondaysand Fridays, when intensive practice was beingundertaken, the scans showed significant changes,but by the following Monday (after the weekendrest) the scans were back where they started! Itwas six months before the Monday scans showedany sign of consolidating the Friday gains. At thesame time the gains from Monday to Friday de-creased. Permanent learning had now takenplace, but this research shows that permanentlearning is slow and requires consistent work overa period of time. That is why swotting is ineffectualin the long term and testing regimes (with their

inevitable teaching to the test) actually inhibit truelearning and self-construction.

The third piece of research, for which Kan-del received a Nobel Prize in 2000, showed that notonly are neuronal connections affected by learning,but so are the neurons genes. They may beswitched on or off, depending on experience (i.e.learning and memory). In other words peopleconstruct their own brains, in co-operation with theirenvironment, just as Montessori realised. Kandelhas recently brought out a historical and autobio-

graphical account of this work, entitled In Search ofMemory.

A very recent addition to this work, of partic-ular interest to those working with children on the

autistic spectrum, is the discovery (Morrow et al.,2008) that autism is related to this genetic switch-ing, in this case to a failure to switch on one of up

to 6 genes. This raises the possibility of finding ameans of switching the genes back on, or compen-sating for them chemically, but also confirms thecrucial importance of the very early years, as this iswhen the critical switching fails to take place.

It is striking that such a simple process, asswitching one or two genes on, can have suchdevastating effects. It may be because the switchaffects what are called executive functions - that isthe mental activities which centre around our abilityto control our thoughts and activities, thus making

a measured response to ever-changing environ-ments possible. This phrase executive function isnot part of the Montessori jargon, but it deserves tobe. Full development of executive functions inearly childhood is an almost invariable pointer tolater maturation and success. And what is the keyfactor? It is the childs ability to concentrate.

Concentration is strongly linked to self-con-trol. Self-control or self-regulation is a key compo-nent of classroom adjustment and also a keyindicator (in its absence) of later problems in ado-lescent life. Adele Diamond of the University ofBritish Columbia recently devised an executive-function training programme (Tools of the Mind)which focused on self-regulation and she found(2007) a clear improvement .

This is just an early finding and much re-search remains to be done. However it is signifi-cant that two of the key qualities of the normalisedchild, the ability to concentrate and self-discipline,have been shown to be so central to executivefunctioning. The Times Educational Supplementrecently ran a series of introductory articles (the

series was called Brain Power) between July 18th

and August 29th, and these form an excellent intro-duction to recent work which can be accessedonline at www.tes.co.uk/search.

References:

Diamond A. et al. (2007) Preschool Program Im-proves Cognitive Control Science 318 pp.1387-88 & supplementary online data

Lillard P.P. (2008) Montessori, the Brain, and theYoung Adult The NAMTA Bulletin May 2008 1-8

Morrow E.M. et al. (2008) Identifying Autism Lociand Genes by Tracing Recent Shared Ances-try Science 321( 5886) pp.218-223


6/24

6

(2009, January). Research watch. Montessori International Ip.31.

It is not always widely appreciated justhow different the Montessori Method becomesfor children over the age of 6. When children

move into the next plane of development, theirneeds change and the teaching approach mustchange too. Not a few schools in the UK arebeginning to keep children on after the usual (andtoo early) school starting age of 4. Initially thereis plenty of work for them, particularly ion the latermaths and language schemes; but, as they de-velop themselves and enter into a new phase ofgrowth, the directress must develop herself too.Primary Montessori education is most emphati-cally not just more of the same.

One surprising aspect of this new phase isthe role of story telling. Montessori believed thatchildren now needed myths and legends to ena-ble them to absorb some of the deeper (and moreabstract) truths of philosophy and religion. Thisis a theme which is particularly developed in theearly part of her book To Develop the HumanPotential. The stories which underlie the GreatLessons (which provide the fundamental struc-ture for the primary curriculum) are an excellentexample.

Harry Brighouse, professor of philosophyat Wisconsin, has recently recommended (in achapter in Hands book) using books such asWhere the Wild Things Are to introduce primaryaged children to philosophical ideas - in this caseideas such as the nature of monstrosity and theambivalence of love (the monsters loved Max somuch they wanted to eat him up.) In a similarvein Eileen Jones has recently published a studydiscussing how novels can often help children in

need of therapy.This is perhaps not what we usually thinkof when we think of Montessori, and much of thisis not appropriate to the younger child, thoughMontessori herself was less strict about avoidingfantasy than some of her followers. She wrote(in the chapter on art in The Montessori Elemen-tary Material) of her children spending hoursdoing artwork whilst she read to them, and thefirst book on her list? Hans Christian Anderson.Stories have great power and Montessori real-

ised that.Several strands of recent research into

story telling were reviewed by Jeremy Hsu (inScientific American Mind 19(4) August 2008).Distinct areas of the brain are involved in sharing

stories and gossiping and there is evidence frombrain scans that there is a distinctive story modethat the brain can adopt. Recent research

(particularly into advertising) suggests that peo-ple accept ideas more readily when their mindsare in story-mode as opposed to a more analyti-cal mind-set. Further research is needed toexplicate that this also holds true for abstractideas, but it does seem likely - confirmingMontessoris original insight.

It is also at this age that the development,or lack of development, of executive functions(those mental activities which involve the controlof thought and action - discussed in Research

Watch in the last issue) begin to become veryapparent. Research is showing that executivefunctions are enhanced by vigorous physical ac-tivity (Carlson, 2008) appropriate parental behav-iours (Kochanska, 2008), the use of the hands(Sigman, 2008) and many other factors.

Physical activity, not just getting up out oftheir seats, was commended by Montessori; theydid not have climbing frames but her childrenimprovised with railings which they climbed on,with her blessing. She was also at the forefrontof involving parents in her schools. Her stresson the significance of the hands hardly needsmentioning. This is all totally in accordance withan authentic Montessori approach and the re-search should give us all confidence to perseverewith our work and not be pressurised into water-ing down the approach with mainstream fashions.

References:Carlson, S.A. et al (2008) Education and aca-

demic achievement in elementary schoolAm. J. Public Health 98:4, 721-727.Hand, M. & Winstanley, C. (eds.) (2008) Philos-

ophy in Childrens Literature London &New York, Continuum.

Jones, E. (2008, June). Bookwork. CounsellingChildren & Young People.

Kochanska, G. et al (2008) A developmentalmodel of maternal and child contributionsto disruptive conduct http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/18684154)

Sigman, A. (2008) Practically Minded: the bene-fits and mechanisms associated with acraft-based curriculum Ruskin-Mill Educa-tional Trust


7/24

7


Sometimes a single piece of research pro-vides a dramatic new insight into a long-standing

issue. More commonly there is a steady drip-feedof results until the evidence becomes overwhelm-ing. The latter is perhaps the case with the effectsof TV on children. This research area was men-tioned in the April-June Montessori InternationalResearch Watch and the latest piece to add to thepuzzle has come from Dr Louise Hardys team atthe University of Sydney, published in the February2009 issue of American Journal of PreventativeMedicine. They were specifically looking at theeffect of TV watching on cardio-vascular health andthey found a range of effects. One of the statisticsthat they discovered was that, for 13-15 year oldgirls, watching over 4 hours a day was linked to noless than a 50% reduction in fitness! This is trulyalarming. Hardys overall conclusion was thatmore than 2 hours a day would damage childrenshealth. What did Montessori say so long ago abouthands-on activities and nature? And what wouldshe think nowadays?

Two other recent reports also reinforce ear-lier studies. An Ofsted report on maths teaching,Mathematics: Understanding the Score, available

to download from the Thematic Reports section ofOfsteds website, notes that, despite some exam-ples of very good teaching, in general childrencannot apply their mathematical learning to every-day life. This, they feel, is due to teaching to thetest rather than teaching for understanding. InMontessori classes, children can use a mathemati-cal activity until they themselves feel they are hap-py with it, and can move on with confidence - notjust because the other children are being moved on.The other (interim) report was by Pricewaterhouse-

Coopers (the accountants!) at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/ data/uploadfiles/dcsf-rr065.pdf onthe new government initiative to enhance person-alized learning by having single-level tests (takenon readiness) and individual tuition available asneeded. These are laudable aims, but PwC foundmajor problems both with the tests (appallingly lowpass rates) and with the logistics of providingenough one-to-one tutors. In Montessori classesit is the prepared environment that is the centralteacher and there is no external testing (just as

there are no external rewards). When will theyever learn?Many, many years ago Montessori famously

proclaimed that her New Children would build aNew World. It has not quite happened like that, of

course, and it is worth asking the question why. Isthere any relevant research which might help to

provide an answer? If Montessori does not makea difference, why are we doing it?The first point to make is that research does

not provide simple answers, ever. John Chattin-McNicholls, author ofThe Montessori Controversyand professor of education at Seattle, observed(in a paper included in Loeffler M. (ed.) (1992)Montessori in Contemporary American CulturePortsmouth NH, Ginn Custom Press) that earlychildhood research is bedevilled by problems suchas small sample sizes, short-term sampling andconfounding the effects of the teacher and theeducational model by using single representativesof a model. In addition Montessori research hasproblems in that there is such a wide variation inMontessori practice and there are few standardmeasures to assess Montessori goals (such asnormalization,etc.)

Secondly, Montessori is still a minority ap-proach. How many Montessori schools are thereworld-wide? How does that compare with thetotality of schools? Of the children in Montessorischools, how many have the benefit of Montessori

right up to the age of 18? No-one knows thecorrect answers to these questions but they areobviously going to be small numbers relatively. Sohow do we measure the effectiveness of Montesso-ri education. One way might be to look at highachievers, at least two Nobel prize winners (one forliterature, one for Physics) were Montessori chil-dren. Is that a significant proportion? Again wedo not really know because we do not know thenumbers. There is the meat there for a majorresearch project.

However, general educational research hasshown, fairly conclusively, that quality nurserieshave a positive effect on children (and, contrari-wise, that poor ones have a negative effect, andalso that prolonged hours before the age of two canincrease anti-social behaviour.) These were someof the conclusions of the EPPE (Effective Pre-school and Primary Education) projects latest re-port (see http://www.ioe.ac.uk/ecpe/eppe3-11/eppe3-11pubs.htm). This is possibly one of themost significant reports on early years and primary

education in the UK and its findings underlie SureStart and the EYFS. There is much in the reportsto support Montessori practice, and much that wecan learn from, but the critical conclusion is theimportance ofhigh qualityprovision.


8/24

8

(2009, July). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.92; p.31.

At the 2007 Swedish Montessori CentenaryConference, organized by the Teachers College inStockholm with support from the Universities of

Gteborg, Lund, Malm and Kristianstad, a net-work of Montessori researchers was set up.MORE (MOntessori Research Europe) has as itsprimary aim, the improvement of communicationbetween universities and other academic institu-tions in Europe which are involved in research inthe field of Montessori Pedagogy. At the momentthis is being carried out by informal networking, anelectronic newsletter and annual meetings in con-cert with the Montessori Europe conference - whichthis year will be in Cracow starting on Friday 16th

October.The MORE newsletter contains details of

ongoing research projects from around Europe.These include the 2004 study by Dr Wilhelm Suf-fenplan of Cologne University which was based oncomparative test of pupils in primary fourth gradeclasses across seven states. The study included663 Montessori pupils from 12 different schools.The schools were classified into four contextgroups, based on data on the social conditions ofthe pupils. In most cases the Montessori pupilsshowed higher scores, except for two cases, essay

writing skills and spelling, where the pupils fromgood areas did better. However Montessori chil-dren from poorer areas were clearly advantaged inthese areas.

There have been numerous research stud-ies at the Montessori centre at the University ofMuenster, under the direction of Professor HaraldLudwig. Examples include the 2007 research byEsther Grindel based on case studies of giftedchildren in Montessori settings. She found thatgifted children were generally helped in Montessori

settings, and the problem of under-challengingwhich is widespread in traditional classes wasmitigated. However that was critically dependenton there being good organisation of free activitytime, with enhanced learning possibilities. NicoleHanewinkel carried out a study into the processesof learning fractions using the Montessori materials.She looked particularly into the way children mayarrive at an autonomous construction of mathemat-ical rules. Sung-Hui Kim carried out a study intowhether Montessori education furthers early child-

hood creativity. She considered the differing con-cepts of creativity amongst Montessorians and theircritics and, using the TSD-Z test scores (a Germantest of creative thinking using a geometrical draw-ing procedure) she concluded that creativity is en-hanced, but only if children are able to work

independently and they are supported in carryingthrough their own ideas.

Professor Hildegard Holtstiege, formerly at

Muenster and now in her 80s, has been research-ing early education within the context of Montessorieducation since 1971. Among other areas she hasproduced verification studies on Montessoris in-sights into sensitive periods, the absorbent mind,observation, and the hand and eye - the tools ofintelligence. One of the major results from thisenormous corpus of research is the critical impor-tance of the maternal drive and the repercussionsof its repression in contemporary society.

There are also briefer notes in the newslet-ters on a range of research studies, including workat the Centre for Montessori Studies at Roma TreUniversity (which, directed by professor Clara Tor-nar, focuses on three areas - historical studies,quantitative and qualitative studies of applicationsof Montessori pedagogy and offering a range ofservice activities i.e. CPD, a masters degree pro-gramme and the publication of scientific abstracts.)Two projects which are currently being piloted area study into the identity of the Montessori school;and looking at the learning to learn process.

There is also a Montessori Research Centre

directed by Nadeshda Grigorjevna at the StateUniversity of Belgorod in Russia. Her focus isparticularly on the cosmic education aspect ofMontessori and they have organised a number ofinternational conferences. At the Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, Poland, professorRyszard Kucha has just started a major internation-al project which will result in a massive study in twovolumes; the first focusing on studies inMontessoris own life and her educational con-cepts, and the second looking at the implementa-

tion of Montessori across six continents.The MORE network currently has 45 mem-

bers involved in Montessori research (2 of whomare from the UK) and of them 11 hold universityprofessorial chairs or are emeritus professors.Germany heads the list with 13 members and noless than 6 professors, with Poland, Russia andSweden having a relatively large representation. Itis perhaps rather too easy for us in the UK to loosesight of the international standing and status of theMontessori movement - to be honest we have a

long way to go to catch up. However, with thecommencement of a Montessori degree pro-gramme last year at the Kent & Sussex MontessoriCentre, and the completion of two major researchprojects at the Institute of Education, London, per-haps events are beginning to move.


9/24

9


One of the main tenets of the Montessoriphilosophy is the importance of the environmentin child development and learning. When we usethe word environment we usually mean eitherthe prepared environment of the classroom or thenatural environment, but equally the built envi-ronment of the street is important. The waybuildings and their structures affect our mindshas recently been reviewed by Emily Anthes andshe has collected some interesting findings.These include research by Meyers-Levy showingthat the higher the ceiling feels the more abstractthe thinking tends to be. This linked to her earlier

work that lower ceilings made people feel physi-cally constrained as well. The feeling of freedomis obviously important as well as the actuality.However there is a place for a lower ceiling,where concentration on detail is important tosomeones work (e.g. a surgeon or an account-ant).

Another study (by Wells, and recently con-firmed by Tanner) showed that having openviews to natural settings (gardens or forests)actually increases concentration in children, rath-

er than acting as a distraction. Even the effect ofa green decor can be positive. Sullivan studieda group of children with ADHD and found parentsreported amelioration of symptoms when thechildren had been out in a natural environment,but also even when in a green room. StephenKaplin of Michigan University has linked this towhat is called the biophilia hypothesis - that is theidea that as we evolved in a natural environmentwe are genetically predisposed to it and modernlife, with its crowds and speed and generally

increased stimulation, reduces our ability to con-centrate on the task in hand.

This over-stimulation is an increasingcause of concern. Dimitri Christakis of Washing-ton University has recently (2004) shown thathaving the TV on in the background inhibits lan-guage development in young children. Thisenhances his teams earlier work showing thatTV and video viewing slows down speech devel-opment and also results in reduces ability toconcentrate. A parallel study in 2009 by Profes-

sor Michael Abramson of Monash University,Melbourne, showed that children who used pre-dictive texting were faster but significantly lessaccurate at other tasks. Baroness Greenfield,

director of the Royal Institute, writing in the DailyMail suggested that these speedy exchangeswere contributing to a decline in attention span insociety at large. However Abramson himself inan email (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc ac-cessed 14.8.09) expressed himself reassured bythe results as they showed no effect on thinkingand learning, only behaviour. Abramson is nowextending his studies to younger children (whereone would expect a greater effect due to thegreater plasticity of the young brain) but it has tobe admitted that research is ambiguous. Thereare studies which claim to show an improvement

at some tasks due to the use of modern media.That does make it so much more difficult fordirectresses to know whether to resist the pres-sure from the mainstream to include computersand electronic toys in the nursery.

The environment is important in otherways too. The chemical environment has allsorts of effects, and so do the chemicals we takeinto our bodies - our food. In a ground-breakingstudy in Tennessee, Kerri Tobin of VanderbiltUniversity found that a diet with more fast-food

resulted in a reduction in up to 19 points in nu-meracy and reading scores, with an averagereduction of over 12 points. Obviously testscores are not everything and behavioural effectswere not tested. Also the research was onchildren of 10 to 11 years (adjusted for socialfactors) but it would be quite reasonable to ex-pect similar, if not greater, effects on youngerchildren. Healthy eating has always been anintegral part of the Montessori approach, andnow it is supported by the EYFS as well. This

research points up how important this aspect ofour work is.

Of course we should never forget the im-portance of the classroom environment. Theway we present the materials is a critical factor inthe childrens responses. Many years ago Nan-cy McCormack Rambusch, who re-estab-lished the Montessori approach in the USA,called attention to the importance of learning tolearn. This is something which has been pro-moted for many years by Professor Reuven Feu-

erstein of Jerusalem, who studied with Piaget.He feels that children innately lack the emotional.social and problem-solving skills necessary todeal with school, so they pick them up by imita-


10/24

10


tion. But if the skills are not demonstrated (i.e. inan impoverished environment) they need to havethem taught. Billy ONeil, head of the ScottishFeuerstein Training Centre, has recently com-pleted a pilot study in the Borders region, devel-oping the approach and this is an ongoing project.Whether or not it would be useful to introduce thespecific techniques of Feuersteins, there is animportant point to be learnt. Childrens abilitiesare not fixed, they are modulated by their envi-

ronment. We can, and do, make a difference.

References:Anthes, E. (2009, May). Building around the

Mind. Scientific American Mind20(2) pp.52-57.

Christiakis D.A. et al (2004) Early TelevisionExposure and Subsequent Attentional Prob-lemsArchives of Paediatrics & AdolescentMedicine 113(4); 708-713.

What is Montessori Research?

There is a great deal of educational research outthere, with all sorts of different methods beingused to find things out, but I want to pose aquestion arising from it all. Is there a specificallyMontessori approach to research? In otherwords, is any one method particularly suited toMontessori? This question was identified as acentral concern by Professor Clara Tornar (of theUniversity of Roma Tre, Centre for MontessoriStudies) in a lecture to the doctoral course ininnovation and evaluation of educational stems(see www.egora.uni-muenster.de/ew/mz). Mon-tessori herself specifically recognised this issue,noting (in The Montessori MethodStokes edition1912 pp. 28/30) that every branch of experimen-tal science has grown out of the application of amethod peculiar to itself... [so] our problem then,is this: to establish the method peculiar to exper-imental pedagogy.

Montessori saw herself as establishing a scientif-ically valid method of education and, in manyways, she saw the Casa dei Bambini as laborato-ries. Particularly at the Via dei Marsi casa, sheconducted her observational experiments.These consisted of three phases: (a) the creationof an environment fostering the free expressionof the childs needs and abilities - if a new andscientific pedagogy is to arise... such study mustoccupy itself with the observation of free chil-

dren. (Ibid p.28), (b) extensive, careful andobjective observation without preconceptions ofany sort (Ibidp.29) and (c) progressive adapta-tion of the environment and the materials to bet-ter fit the child.

This methodology is very very close to what isnow termed action research, which is a method-ology usually credited to Kurt Lewin (first pub-lished in his 1946 paper Action Research &Minority problems in J. Soc. Issues). Actionresearch differs from traditional academic re-search. Academic research usually involves anexpert (often from a university) investigating aparticular feature of a process or situation.Typically they would make measurements beforethe process, and then again after it. So, forexample, if an academic researcher wanted tofind how effective dressing frames were, theywould measure the childrens dressing abilitiesbefore and after using the frames. For validitythey would also measure the progress of amatched group who did not have the frames touse. The researchers would not, themselves,get involved. Their stance is that of a fly on thewall and ideally their presence has no effect onthe childrens learning and development.

Action research is the complete opposite. Actionresearchers are right in the thick of it all. Theyare involved and committed. If they see some-thing that is not working well then they assess thesituation and (in collaboration with everyone else,and based on the research observations andresults) they change the situation. This changeis evaluated and further improvements are madeif possible. Changes like this, as you go along,would make academic research quite impossible.

However, continuous improvement, based onsound on-going research, is the very heart ofaction research. It is still research, so the find-ings must be valid and reliable but action re-search is essentially transformational.


11/24

11

How does that relate to Montessoris ap-proach?

Her first stage was to establish a setting wherechildren could freely express their inner needs(within the social bounds of respecting other

childrens freedom and of courtesy.) In contem-porary terms this corresponds to the requirementto provide conditions which enable the data to bevalid. The concept of validity is contentious butis often taken to involve peer scrutiny, triangula-tion of data collection and clarity of methodology,for example. In a Montessori context, validity isenabled by freeing the children from adult pre-conceptions.

Her second stage was to observe. From the

start she stressed the need for gathering dataprecisely and objectively (see AnthropologicalPedagogy, 1912 p.19), which corresponds to theneed for reliability. There are various ways ofenhancing reliability (i.e. accuracy and repeata-bility) which have been developed since herdays, but the principle is identical.

The third stage was the progressive re-structur-ing of the environment and/or materials. To-wards the end of her career she re-stressed thistransformational aspect of research. In theDiscovery of the Child (Clio 1988 ed. p.34) shewrote that a scientific education based on objec-tive research should be able to transform normalchildren. Action research is thus effectively thefundamental Montessori approach to making ed-ucation scientific.

Action research is also at the heart of the newMontessori foundation degree course. The first

cohort of graduates at the Kent & Sussex Mon-tessori Centre researched topics such as:

How best to convert a car-park in aninner-city Montessori school into an out-side area/garden for the children;

Reactions to a questionnaire for pro-spective parents;

Mark-making in relation to the Mon-

tessori approach to early literacy;Developing a partnership with the local

authority in setting up free-flow betweenthe inside and outside environments;

Establishing a forum for parents to de-velop ideas on how to make a greatercontribution to the running of a pre-school;

Writing and evaluating a picture bookfor children about the nursery, to informthem before starting and reinforce their

attendance after (for example) the longsummer break.

The value of this research is not only the actualfacts which are discovered, but also the develop-ment of an attitude of enquiry and reflectionwhich is implicit in the process of being an actionresearcher. The action researcher asksher/himself questions, like

What, concisely, have I been doing?What are the outcomes for the children?

How can I improve my practice?These are simple questions, but the whole proc-ess can be very revealing and lead to a muchgreater degree of professionalism. But, ofcourse, most importantly it focuses the attentionof the researcher on meeting the needs of thechildren. The EYFS requirement to alwayshave regard to the interests of the child is ofenormous significance in this context. And insystematically following the childs interests wewill find ourselves transforming both the childs

environment and ourselves. This is the authen-tic Montessori approach to research.


12/24

12


Sometimes research just confirms whatwe, as Montessorians, have always known.However, that is not to say that the research is a

waste of time. It is always useful to have harddata to back up a point of view. A case in handis the value of children undertaking real tasks(possibly via the Practical Life Exercises) ratherthen just role-playing. Markella Rutherford, anassociate professor of Sociology in Massachu-setts, has just completed a study of parentingmagazines entitled Childrens Autonomy andResponsibility: an analysis of child rearing ad-vice. On the basis of her study she commentedthat in earlier generations, children... were giv-en meaningful opportunities to be responsible...This helps them develop a caring attitude andkeeps them grounded.

Another case is some recent researchinto the effects of smacking children. Lisa Ber-lin and her colleagues at Duke University, NorthCarolina, studied 2,573 toddlers of ages 1, 2and 3 years. They found that spanking at age 1predicted more aggressive behaviour at age 2and lower mental developmental scores at age

3, although this was moderated by social factorsand verbal punishment was not found to havethe same effect. Another study at Duke(Lansford, 2009) looked at the effects of physi-cal punishments from age 5 upwards Shefound a clear link between ongoing physical dis-cipline and teenage aggression.

The whole question of discipline is a diffi-cult one. On the one hand, no-one wants toreturn to the bad old days when some socially-accepted childrens punishments were clearly

abusive by contemporary standeards. On theother hand, the relaxation of parental disciplinehas not usually been replaced with any concep-tion of self-discipline and so we have a spoiltgeneration to borrow the title of Dr AricSigmans new book. He sees authority (not thesame as punishment) as fundamental. His so-lution is to curtail childrens rights because hefeels that contemporary empowerment of chil-dren has not been accompanied by preparationfor the actualities of modern life. Not everyone

would welcome that by any manner of means -there is too much abuse to go down that road -but authority can and should be properly used,for example to lay down ground rules and thuspave the way for self-discipline.

Dr. Sigman (who has contributed fre-quently to Montessori Internationalmagazine)has also been prominent in calling attention to

the dangers of electronic media exposure to thevery young. Research is gradually amassingthat, at the very least, the brain is affected andaltered in its functioning by the extensive use ofelectronic devices. Two recent studies havehighlighted specific instances of this. Dr Heath-er Kirkorian and her colleagues at Massachu-setts University studied the effects of having theTV on in the background in the home, the effectwas to decrease both the quality and quantity ofparent-child interactions. This, she stated,shows that background TV has negative conse-quences for child development. Professor Dav-id Nicholas recently presented details of hisresearch on how children are accessing infor-mation. (BBC2 The Virtual Revolution 20th Feb-ruary 2010) He found they were flitting over thevirtual landscape and not concentrating on asingle source, e.g. reading a book. This is notautomatically a bad thing, but it is very differentway of learning. Baroness Greenfield, director

of the Institute for the Future of the Mind, at Ox-ford, is one of many who are alarmed at thesechanges. She recently announced a new re-search initiative, entitled A Brain for Life, togather hard data on these changes. She com-mented that her hypothesis is that young peo-ple may be at risk of losing the ability to gainreal understanding. (see www.telegraph.co.uk/education/7220021/Computers-in-schools-could-be-doing-more-harm-than-good.html)

Sometimes research does indeed confirm

our existing understandings. However, to bebalanced, does have to be admitted that somestudies do (at least at first blush) appear to goagainst our approach. Dr Sebastion Suggate,during his Ph.D. research at Otago University,New Zealand, studied the effects of startingreading early and late (i.e. after 7 as in theSteiner schools). One international (using thePISA data), and two New Zealand studiesshowed clearly that there was no differencewhatsoever in later achievement. Dr Sugate

confessed he was surprised by his results, butsuggested that later starters were better pre-pared through play and linguistic interactionswith adults.


13/24

13

Perhaps a critical point here is one of readiness.Many children are not really ready to read untillater and it is unfortunate that there is often pa-rental pressure on the nurseries to provide thattuition. The point of reading is not just mechan-ical conveyance of information, it should also

involve an induction into the joys and delights ofbooks. Reading is, of course, the flip side ofwriting and Montessori saw that writing, the cre-ative process, should preceded reading and pre-pare the ground for an explosion into reading ata point when the child was prepared and ready.It is thus, essentially, a creative process.

Creativity itself is very much on the agen-da. Ofsted have recently published a report ondeveloping creativity. It is certainly needed.As Sir Michael Bichard, a former senior civil

servant at the DfES and author of the report onthe Soham child murders, commented at theNorth of England Education Conference in earlyJanuary 2010 Sadly, too often our educationsystem does educate people out of their creativi-ty. Whether the Ofsted report will help is an-other question. Some national newspapers(and not the tabloids) reported that Ofsted hadconcluded that teachers should not allow chil-dren to follow their own interests. If you readthe report that is not quite what is said, but it

does lay a considerable emphasis on planningfor creative activities.

The question is whether creativity can be

planned for in that way. If you see creativity aspurely free expression, then obviously not.However Montessoris own view was more sub-tle than that. She believed that you should firsttrain the hand and eye, and only then give thechildren their freedom to express themselves

creatively. She famously wrote that to conferthe gift of drawing we must create an eye thatsees, a hand that obeys, a soul that feels; and inthis task the whole life must co-operate. In thissense, life itself is the only preparation for draw-ing. Once we have lived, the inner spark of vi-sion does the rest. It is a shame that thisunderstanding is not more widely disseminated,even in Montessori settings!

References:

Berlin, L. et al (2009, September). Correlatesand consequences of spanking and verbalpunishment for low-income White, AfricanAmerican and Mexican American toddlers.Child Development.

Kirkorian, H. (2009). The impact of backgroundtelevision on parent-child interaction ChildDevelopment80(5); 1350-9.

Lansford, J.E. (2009). Trajectories of physicaldiscipline: early childhood antecedents anddevelopmental outcomes Child Development

80(5).Montessori M. (1965) The Montessori Elementa-

ry Material Cambridge MA, Robert Bentley


14/24

14


For Montessori, sensorial education was acentral strand of her method. She noted that all

information reaches us via one or other of thesenses and thus reasoned that training the sens-es would refine the intelligence generally.

This was one of the points which wasattacked by the leading Froebelian, ProfessorKilpatrick in his influential 1914 critique of Mon-tessori which was a major factor in the demise ofMontessori in the U.S.A. in the early years of thiscentury. The evidence for what is called transferof learning (i.e. the idea that training in one areacan lead to improvement in a different area - an

assumption of methods like Brain Gym) is gener-ally agreed to be very weak (with the possibleexception of music). As a direct result of this, thevalue of the Montessori sensorial didactic materi-als is nowadays generally phrased in terms of,firstly, preparation for early maths (sequencing,shape, etc.) and, secondly, pre-skills for earlyliteracy (pincer grip, left to right directionality, etc.)The case may also be made for the materialspromoting concentration and thus leading tonormalization. However, recent research sug-

gests this may not be the whole story.Professor Burkhart Fischer, director of the

Optomotor Laboratory of the University ofFreiburg, has been researching dyslexia (andmore latterly dyscalculia) for the past 15 years.It appears that the many of the problems are notwith the senses themselves, ears & eyes oftenfunction just like other childrens, but rather withthe way the brain processes the information. Histeam has developed a series of targeted exercis-es to develop these mental skills - effectively aprogramme of sensorial education.

They have concentrated on some veryspecific skills. Saccading is the way the eyerapidly makes tiny movements to scan complexsources (like a page of print) in order to build upa detailed picture, as usually only a very smallpart of the field of view is seen in detail. We arenot aware of this going on, but dyslexics oftenhave reduced saccading. The remedial tasksinvolve using a computerised system to project

moving images and also to track the eye move-ments and adjust the task. Subtizing is theknack of recognizing quantities without actuallycounting, a sort of sensorial awareness of num-ber. Dyscalculic children often show a reduced

ability here, and the team has also developedcomputerised skill development programs. The

results have now been published and show posi-tive effects after a 3 week training course, andalso that the positive effect appears to persistlong-term . The team have also shown thatphonological training has a positive effect.

This work is focused on children with par-ticular problems, but it may be that the ideas arealso of value to all children. After all, Montessorideveloped her sensorial programme fromSeguins work, which was specifically designedfor deaf children. Co-incidentally, whilst this

article was being written, the Times EducationalSupplement published a story (Rogers, 2010)about a school where one class will enjoy apeppermint aroma while they work and anotherwill have a constant background noise of runningwater and rustling leaves. It is difficult not toconclude that they have totally misread the script,but watch this space to see what happened.

Research into special needs is providingother insights into the senses. People on theautistic spectrum are often assumed to have

deficits in their cognitive processing and socialskills. However, recent work at UCL(Remington, 2009), also using computerisedtasks, measured how distractibility varied withtask-complexity the results suggest that autisticspectrum subjects are actually much more ableto process large amounts of sensory information.Such enhanced skill is not exactly an advantagein our society, being able to make small talk isseen as a more valuable attribute than being ableto remember an entire train timetable. However,this new understanding (that autism is at least inpart a social construct) may lead to the develop-ment of sensorial training exercises. At the veryleast it confirms just how important the sensesare to learning.

At the MSA conference in London in 2007,Claire Healy spoke about a new attitude to errorand how making and self-correcting errors iscentral to the Montessori approach to learning.This view has been confirmed by research

(Richland, 2009) at the University of California.They showed that taking a test before learningthe material (and thus making many mistakes)was more beneficial to learning than taking thetest after the learning had taken place. They


15/24

15

suggest that pre-testing challenges the learnerwho is then more active in directing their attentionto problem-solving. Getting the wrong answer ismuch more useful than just studying, provided(and this is a vital caveat) the correct answer isavailable shortly afterwards. Does this not tie inwith the Montessorian concept of control of errorand the idea of auto-education in general?

On a totally different topic, everyone must now beaware of the benefits of the natural environment,not just Montessorians. However, a meta-analy-sis (a study of studies, i.e. putting the findings ofseveral researches together to get more reliableresults,) by Jo Barton and Jules Pretty (2010) atEssex University has shown that as little as fiveminutes of green exercise has positive effects.They studied various age-groups, for young chil-

dren the positive was mainly in self-esteem. Forthe middle-aged, the effect was more marked inmood. The researchers found no great differ-ence between urban open spaces and woodland,but waterside habitats showed a greater change.The biggest change of all was with mentally-illpatients, but they showed benefits with all sub-jects, and, unless it was a whole-day outing, short

and not over-vigorous activity was best. This isa dose we could all take.

References:Barton, J. and Pretty, J. (2010). What is the best

bose of nature and green exercise for improv-ing mental health? A multi-study analysis.Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 3947-3955.

Fischer, B. et al (2008). Effects of daily practiceon subtizing: visual counting and basic arith-metic skills. Optometry and Vision Develop-ment 39(1) 30-34.

Kilpatrick K.H. (1914) The Montessori systemexaminedNew York, Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, D. (2010, April 23). Primary pumpssounds and smells into year 6 classes to bidto improve results. Times Educational Supple-ment.

Remington, A. et al (2009). Selective attentionand perceptual load in autistic spectrum disor-ders Psychological Science 20(11) 1388-1393.

Richland, L.E. et al (2009). The pre-testing effect:Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhancelearning? J. Experimental Psychology Ap-plied 15(23) 989-998.


There are a number of hot topics in psychol-ogy at the moment, and one of these is ExecutiveFunctions (EF). Typically there is no agreed defini-tion of these, and even the name is contentious; somepsychologists preferring the term Executive System,or Supervisory Attentional System (SAS). However

there is general agreement on what EFs are, and theircrucial importance especially in child development.

EFs are, basically, the brain processes whichunderlie the conscious control of action and thought.That is rather vague, and almost every book on thesubject has its own definition. Adele Diamond, pro-fessor of developmental cognitive neuroscience at theUniversity of British Colombia who spoke at the Mon-tessori Europe conference in Amsterdam, suggeststhat there are three main components to EF. The firstis inhibitory control, otherwise known as self-control,which enables a child to resist an impulse and delib-

erately do something different and more appropriateto the situation. The second is working memory, theability to hold something in mind whilst consideringthe implications. The third is cognitive flexibility, i.e.being able to quickly and easily change the focus of

attention in response to changing demands or priori-ties. Obviously these are of critical importance forchildren with special needs (ADHD children lack in-hibitory control, autistic spectrum children have re-duced cognitive flexibility, etc.) and a great deal ofresearch has focused on these aspects. However

EFs are equally important for all children.One important point is that EFs have to be

learnt, they are not inbuilt, unlike language acquisitionfor example. A.R. Luria, a Russian psychologist anddisciple of Vygotsky who pioneered much of the re-search into EFs, was adamant (1966) that highermental functions are complex, organized functionalsystems that are social in origin. This is now gener-ally agreed. Diamond has even suggested that someof the recent explosion in ADHD diagnoses may bedue to children not acquiring EF skills whilst veryyoung. The implication one might draw is that what

many (?all) of these children need then is not Ritalinbut a differently structured environment.

Some recent research has particularly high-lighted the importance of the parents in the develop-ment of EFs. Annie Bernier of Montreal University


16/24

16

and her colleagues investigated (2010) whether EFslike impulse control, working memory & set shiftingcould be predicted from the quality of parent-infantinteractions. They found that maternal sensitivity (orthe quality of attachment), mind-mindedness (or thedegree of awareness the mothers showed of theirinfants thought processes) and autonomy-support allcorrelated with the development of EFs. But by farthe strongest factor was the extent to which the moth-ers supported the childrens own goals, choices andsense of volition (their will).

Another study, by Claire Hughes & Rosie En-sor (2010 studied a socially diverse sample of 125British children at ages 2 and 4. Their study con-firmed a number of established points, like the impor-tance of early individual differences in socialunderstanding and the negative effects of harshparenting. They also found that while EFs were not

particularly related to positive parenting, they werevery clearly linked to deliberate maternal scaffolding(in the sense of careful provision of experiences),childrens opportunities for natural observationallearning and consistent parenting.

This whole area of EFs is a fast-moving one.Much recent work has shown that childrens EF skillsand what is called their theory of mind (the ability toappreciate that other people have individual mindsand can make mistakes akin to Piagets idea ofdecentring) are very closely linked and may even beidentical. This remains to be clarified, as does the

question of exactly how many distinct EFs we have.However there are also some crucial lessons whichcan be learnt, and which correspond very closely withMontessori ideas. The first is, obviously, the crucial

importance of the early years. Then there are thepositive effects of self-direction, autonomy or inde-pendence, learning through observation and consist-ency of direction. Does that ring any bells?

We have known for some time that Montessorihas profound social effects in adulthood (though theresearch evidence is not yet conclusive) but this latestresearch is beginning to show that Montessori-styleapproaches to young children have neurological ef-fects too. Admittedly the research is mostly onfamilies, but it is a reasonable assumption thatschools & pre-schools would have similar effects.Brains, and mental abilities, are not fixed and what wedo, research is now showing, makes a very consider-able difference to the way that childrens brains work

References:

Bernie,r A. et al. (2010.) From external regulation to

self-regulation: Early parenting precursors ofyoung childrens executive functioning Child De-velopment 81(1) 326339, available onhttp://psychology.uchicago.edu/academics/doctoral/developmental/Bernier%20Carlson%20Whipple%20IN%20PRESS.pdf

Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. (2010) Do early social cogni-tion and executive function predict individual differ-ences in preschoolers' prosocial and antisocialbehavior? in Sokol B.W. et al. (eds.) Self- andsocial-regulation: Exploring the relations betweensocial interaction, social understanding, and the

development of executive functions. Oxford: Ox-ford University PressLuria, A.R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man.New York: Basic Books.


17/24

17


There is no evidence for the Montessoriconcept of sensitive periods in humans, only in

animals. claimed an eminent professor of psy-chology at a recent conference (not a Montessorione!) in Eastern Europe. Now it is true that agreat deal of experimental work on sensitiveperiods has been carried out on rats, owls, mon-keys and kittens - some of it (like a major seriesof experiments which involved blinding kittens)very dubious ethically. It is also true that therehas been considerable confusion over the use ofthe terms sensitive period which is when devel-opment is exquisitely suited for a process

(although it can be learnt with more difficultylater) and critical period which, when passed,cannot be remedied. However it is not true thatthere is no evidence from human development.

Eric Knudson (professor of neurobiologyat Stanford University, who has led a lot of thework on owls) reviewed the research on sensitiveperiods, from the perspective of economics andthe need for early childhood intervention. Manyspecific neural processes have been shown todepend on sensitive periods, e.g. infant facial

recognition (Pascalis, 2005) showed, by present-ing infants with pictures of macaque monkeyfaces, that there is a sensitive period for facerecognition between 6 and 9 months. One pieceof research, (Schorr, 2005) with which ProfessorKnudson was associated personally, studied theability to fuse sound and lip movements to inter-pret speech, which was shown to have a sensi-tive period up to 2 years by studying children ofvarious ages who had cochlear implants to curecongenital deafness. He has also consid-

ered how gene switching is time-dependant(another way of saying there are sensitive peri-ods for epigenetics) and discussed how theproperties of many brain circuits have beenshown to be particularly sensitive to the shapinginfluences of experience during early life Hecommented Although some capacity for plastici-ty persists in virtually all neural circuits through-out our lifetimes, many circuits are particularlysusceptible to the influence of experience duringsensitive periods as they are maturing(Knudsen, 2004)

Work on early intervention has been car-ried out in Australia (Mifsud, 2005), using evi-dence that there is a sensitive period for

susceptibility to anxiety and depression Thereis also much evidence of the effects of depriva-

tion e.g. in Eastern European orphanages(Nelson, 2007) and, of course, there is a largeamount of evidence for sensitive periods fromstudies of language acquisition and (easy, ac-cent-free) second language acquisition.

James Heckman (2007), professor of eco-nomics at Chicago University and a co-writer ofKnudsons paper quoted above, noted (amongstmany other things) that a child born with a cata-ract on the eye will be blind if the cataract is notremoved within the first year of life and drew the

conclusion that in both animal and human spe-cies there is compelling evidence of critical andsensitive periods in development.

On another tack, I have sometimes no-ticed that research, which at first blush has norelation to Montessori education, or even anyeducation, can be distinctly significant. Onesuch example, from the Medical Research Coun-cil epidemiology unit in Cambridge, was a studyof over 20,000 people who were given a geneticsusceptibility obesity score. There was a corre-

lation between the presence of genetic markerslinked to weight gain and obesity, but the link wasdramatically more pronounced in inactive individ-uals. In other words, no-one is born to be fat, itis a lifestyle choice. Similarly, there are undoubt-edly genes which predispose people to anti-so-cial or non-productive activities, but like theobesity genes it is not a life sentence. Thesegenes are profoundly susceptible to the environ-ment, and is the importance of the environment(particularly the early one) not an essential part ofour understanding?

Coming back to the educational sphere,there is a great deal in the Early Years Founda-tion Stage documentation which we all welcomeand acknowledge as progressive and positivelybeneficial for all children. However, it is impor-tant not to make over-enthusiastic claims, likeclaiming there is no difference between Montes-sori and the EYFS. There are some profounddifferences, like (to take one example) the re-

peated claim in the EYFS that all childrens learn-ing takes place through play. Nina Chien (2010)and her colleagues observed 2,751 children en-rolled in state kindergartens in the U.S.A. Theyidentified four main profiles of engagement in


18/24

18

children (free play, individual & group instruction,and scaffolded learning) and their findings areinteresting. Poorer children flourished with indi-vidual instruction (as one might, perhaps, expect)and the Montessori approach was not included.However one result stood out, children all faredworst with free play. This is a warning to us allnot to critically accept mainstream ideas on playand learning.

There is another aspect of current main-stream thinking which also needs to be chal-lenged. That is the assumption that effectivelearning requires targets to be set (and achieve-ment measured). This is particularly explicatedin the DfE guide Personalized Learning - A prac-tical Guide where target setting is the secondcharacteristic and the document states that Thetargets for 2011 will ensure that expected prog-

ress is maintained for all children... However,the evidence is that target-setting may itself becounter-productive. Professor Ibrahim Senayand his colleagues at Illinois University recentlyused an analysis of self-talk to study subjectsability to complete simple tasks. He found that ifthe volunteers were told to set themselves atarget they performed significantly less well thanif the subjects were told to set themselves atarget than if they were just asked to think open-endedly about the task. In other words, those

who were asserting their will power (by determin-ing to meet their targets) were effectively closingtheir minds to any creative possibilities in thetask, and thus cutting themselves off from beingintrinsically motivated. Looked at like that, it isobvious that targets will reduce success.

The common theme from these disparatepieces of research? Dont accept receivedwisdom or expert opinion without question.

Think, explore, challenge. Keep your mind opento all sorts of possibilities!

References:

Chien, N. et al. (2010). How do different kinds ofclassroom engagement affect childrensschool readiness gains in Pre-Kindergar-ten? Child Development81(5); 1534-1549.

Nelson III C.A., et al (2007). Cognitive Recoveryin Socially Deprived Young Children: TheBucharest Early Intervention Project. Sci-ence 318(5858); 937-1940.

Heckman, J.J. (2007). The economics, technolo-gy and neuroscience of human capabilityformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) 104(33);13250-13255).

Knudsen E. I. (2004) J. Cognit. Neurosci.16:14121425.Knudsen, E.I. et. al. (2006). Economic, neuro-

biological, and behavioral perspectives onbuilding Americas future workforce Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences 103(27); 10155-10162.

Mifsud, C. & Rapee, R. M. (2005). J. Am. Acad.Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 44:9961004).

Pascalis, O. et al (2005). Plasticity of faceprocessing in infancy. PNAS 102(14);

5297-5300.Schorr, E.A. et al (2005). Auditory-visual fusion

in speech perception in children with coch-lear implants PNAS 102(51):18748-18750.

Senay, I. (2010). Motivating goal-directed be-haviour through introspective self-talk: therole of the interrogative form of futuretense. Psychological Science 21(4) 499-504.


19/24

19


Sometimes research throws up some trulyunexpected results. A case in point was when

researchers from a pharmaceutical firm, Immod-ulon Therapeutics based in London, tried inject-ing terminally-ill lung cancer patients with a liveculture of Mycobacterium Vaccea. It was al-ready known that M. vaccae primed the immunesystem, but the double-blind trial revealed thatthe treated group experienced a remarkableboost in attitude and mood. Infections can havedevastating effects on mental functions, especial-ly in the very young and the old, as I was madeaware a few years ago when an elderly relative

developed a UTI and rapidly became apparentlypsychotic. However, this is the first time that apositive effect of infection has been demonstrat-ed. Graham Rook, of the Royal Free and Univer-sity College Medical School in London, hashypothesized that one reason why depression isbecoming an epidemic is that people are nolonger routinely exposed to M. vaccae in ourincreasingly anti-septic environment. So will wehave a happiness injection soon? Really I hopenot, but this research emphasizes the importance

of exposure to nature, and to happy people.Have you ever noticed that the calmness of theMontessori classroom sometimes appears to becatching? Perhaps this is more than just imita-tion.

Another area of research which provedsurprising (but which probably should not havedone) is the whole area of brain plasticity. Brainplasticity (or neuroplasticity or cortical re-map-ping) refers to the brains ability to change itsneurons (nerve cells) and their organizationalnetworks. Until fairly recently it was a generalassumption in brain science that the adult brainwas relatively fixed. This was based in part onresearch into critical periods (such as Hubel &Weisels classic experiments on kittens) whichseemed to show that once brain function hadbeen fixed that was pretty well immutable, ex-cept perhaps in very young children. Paul Bach-y-Rita began to question this when his elderlyfather, who had a serious stroke years before,

was nursed and trained back to competence byPauls brother and then, at the post-mortem, hediscovered that the original damage was abso-lutely massive. Initially Bach-y-Ritas 1967 workwas rejected but eventually it was published

abroad. He had by then re-discovered ShepherdIvory Franks 1920s work on late recovery from

stroke, and also Fleurens experiments in the1840s when he showed that removing large partsof birds brains totally incapacitated them, but thefunctions could be recovered after a lapse of time(a year or more). This area of brain plasticity isnow a live field of research, with considerableimplications for education - implications whichhave yet to be realis One of the great names inthe filed is Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran,who is the former director of the Center for theBrain at the University of California and is well-

known for his work on phantom limbs and brainmapping, among other topics. The phenomenonof phantom limbs is when amputees can still feelpain, sometimes excruciating, from the removedlimb. Professor Ramachandran and his wifeshowed (1966) that the pain could be relieved byan arrangement of mirrors whereby the braincould see the amputated limb - actually an illu-sion based on a reflection of the other limb - andby moving the phantom limb around the paindisappeared. This work showed that the mentalmap of the body, discovered by Penfield, can beeasily modified. The brain is not fixed, it showsconsiderable plasticity. More remarkable casescan be found in the professors latest bookentitles The Tell-Tale Brain.

Another area is that of musics effect onthe brain. It has been known for some time thatlong-term instrumental training has a structuraleffect on the brain, due perhaps to the intensityand multi-sensory aspects of the training. Re-cently Krista Hyde (of the Montreal NeurologicalInstitute, McGill University) and her colleaguesfrom several institutions in North America, usingMRI scans, have demonstrated (2009) that struc-tural changes in the brain occur in early childhoodafter only 15 months of musical training. Thisconfirms a study by Maureen Harris, creator ofthe Montessori Mozarts programme. She com-pared two randomly selected groups of Montes-sori children aged 3-5 years and one group hadthree half-hour music sessions for six months.

She showed (2007) that even this little traininghad an effect on their development. Typically themusical 3 year olds had higher maths scores (onthe TEMA-3 test) than the 5 year olds She onlytested this one feature but presumably there was


20/24

20

a more general effect. Clearly brain plasticityhas immediate and practical implications.

This effect of musical training has not yetpercolated through to a more general awareness.A team from three Canadian universities(LeFevre, 2010) have just completed a study ofthe precursors to mathematical performance inyoung children They identified three independ-ent cognitive pathways which contribute to earlypre-school mathematical skills. These were alinguistic pathway - used for remembering nu-merical bonds, for example - a quantitative path-way - used for comparing sizes or amounts - anda spatial awareness pathway. Incidentally donote that these are all fundamental to Montessorimaths. However there is no mention of theimportance of musicality. Music does not take aprominent role in many Montessori settings, per-

haps it is time this changed?

ReferencesBach-y-Rita, P. (1967). Sensory plasticity: Appli-

cations to a vision substitution system.ActaNeurologica Scandinavica 43: 417-426).

Harris M. (2007). Differences in mathematicsscores between students who receive tradi-tional Montessori instruction and studentswho receive enriched Montessori instruc-tion. J. for Learning through the Arts 3(1)available online from the University of Cali-fornia site.

Hyde, K.L. et al (2009). The effects of musicaltraining on structural brain development: alongitudinal study.Annals of the New YorkAcad. of Sc. 1169; 182-186

LeFevre, J.-A. (2010). Pathways to mathemat-ics: Longitudinal predictors of performance.Child Development 6: 1753-1767.

Ramachandran, V.S. (2010). The tell-tale brain:A neuroscientists quest for what makes ushuman. London: Heinemann.

Ramachandran, V. S. & Rogers-Ramachan-

dran, D. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantomlimbs induced with mirrors Proc. Biol. Sci.263(1369): 377-386)

Rook, G.A.W. & Lowry, C.A. (2008). The hy-giene hypothesis and psychiatric disorders.Trends in Immunology 29: 150-158)


Who can have missed the newspapercoverage of the subject of bankers' bonusesrecently? Or have been appalled and repulsedby the obscene size of them - especially as it wasthe banking sector which brought us so near tofinancial meltdown. And still the bonuses arebeing paid! Admittedly they are smallerpercentages, but most banks have quietly

doubled basic salaries to compensate. Theeffects of such bonuses (rewards) are wellpublicised. They lead to short-term thinking(boosting immediate profits to maximise the nextbonus), sometimes actual dishonesty, insidertrading and market manipulation by spreadingfalse rumours, stifling of creativity andcollaboration with colleagues, lavish &unnecessary entertainment of clients (whosefeedback helps determine bonus size) andreckless gambling. And yet despite all this, theefficacy of rewarding executives to boostmotivation goes unquestioned.

It is 40 years since Edward Deci's ground-breaking research with undergraduates, followed

up 2 years later in 1973 by Mark Lepper's well-known study with preschoolers, whichestablished not only that rewards are ineffectivebut that they actually de-motivate. Both foundthat rewards make children less likely to choosean activity once the reward was withdrawn. Dr.Deci - a professor of Social Science at RochesterUniversity, Michigan, who has made a lifetime

study of human motivation enlightened by Self-Determination Theory - subsequently carried outa meta-analysis (a survey and combination of128 other research studies) which stronglyconfirmed the earlier findings. The message hasnot yet reached the majority of teachers though.It is often said that it takes half a century for reallynovel research results to impact on everydaypractice. So long for the old-timers to havemoved on! Incidentally, an excellent and veryreadable introduction to Deci's ideas is his 1996

Penguin book Why We Do What We Do: anintroduction to self-motivation.

The latest research on the inefficiency ofrewards comes from the field of health care.


21/24

21

There have been a series of studies into the topicat Baylor College of Medicine, Texas. In thelatest, a group of primary care clinics wereincentivised (i.e. given bonuses) to increase theuptake of immunisation and smear tests. Theydid show an increase, but then the researchers

(Gavagan, 2010) found that giving no bonus at allhad exactly the same effect. This was a followup to an earlier meta-study in 2006 by LauraPeterson. She found that the evidence was reallyquite weak (only one study found a strong effectfor bonuses) but also there were unwanted sideeffects - like the existence of bonuses makingdoctor s less willing to take on difficult cases!

These studies confirmed work based on alarge-scale survey carried out at the University ofNottingham, UK, by Brian Serumaga and hiscolleagues. They surveyed 470,000hypertension patients both before and after theintroduction of an NHS bonus scheme. Theyfound no discernible improvement in patientoutcomes whatsoever. Serumaga commented"Having spent three years looking at the evidenceof payment-for-performance, I am astonished athow weak the evidence is."

Another topic that has hit the headlinesfairly recently is the results of the latest Pisa

research study. Pisa (the Programme forInternational Student Assessment) measures thesuccess of schools in some 70 economicallyadvanced countries, based on OECD-administered 2 hour tests given to some 500,00015 year olds. Surveys were carried out in 2000,20003, 2006 and 2009 and the results of thelatest survey were published just beforeChristmas. The tabloids trumpeted the badnews that Britain's educational standards wereofficially below those of Estonia, Poland and

Liechtenstein. Scores, for example, in reading'plummeted' from 17th to 25th. Predictably,Coalition politicians seized on these results tohighlight the shortcomings of the previousadministration. The top countries, again, wereKorea and Finland (despite their overall scoresdropping) although the highest average scores ofall came from Shanghai, but these were conflatedinto the whole of China.

However, again predictably, the papersmissed out a great deal of revealing detail.

There was one table where we actually topped

the bill. Only 3% of UK students reported theirschooling being hindered by bullying - comparedwith 29% in Finland for example. One reportedconclusion was that competition was ineffectivein raising standards. The authors found thatwhilst children in competitive schools did dobetter; overall - taking all the children into account- children do better in non-competitive societies.Some people have drawn attention to the co-operative model of Shanghai schools and therehave been claims that the development of thefree schools in Sweden has contributed to theirfall in ranking. However the report suggests thefall may have more to do with Sweden's laxinspectorial system.

Needless to say, the Pisa approach has somevociferous critics. It has been hugely influentialwith the government in the UK, drawing on areport from the global management consultancy,McKinsey, highlighted the importance ofteachers. However, any ranking research mustconcentrate on selected indicators - andobviously these indicators are not Montessori.This has led to various critiques - ProfessorStephen Heppell, for example, has claimed that"Pisa has been a huge distraction - a model of

incrementalism and managerialism which hasbeen fatal." Given this background, Pisa'sfinding that competition is not beneficial tochildren overall is all the more telling.

References:Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How theworld's best performing school systems come outon top McKinsey & Co., available fromhttp://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999).A meta-analytic review of experiments examiningthe effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsicmotivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125; 627-668.Gavagan, T.F. et al. (2010). Effect of financialincentives on improvement in medical qualityindicators for primary care. Journal of theAmerican Board of Family Medicine23 (5): 622-631.Petersen, L. et al. (2006). Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care?'

Annals of Internal Medicine 145(4);265-272.


22/24

22

(2011, October). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.101; pp.33-34.

Young children often appear to know thenames of colours and numbers, and how often

have you heard a proud parent boasting that theirchild knows them, and more? Tested objectively,though, it is often the case that the childrencannot pick out the correct names without cuesfrom the environment or the context. And this isoften true of children up to the age of six (to theconsternation of many adults!) Cognitivescientist Michael Ramscar at StanfordUniversity in California has been investigatingthis (2010).

Part of the issue is that we are all

constantly surrounded by a kaleidoscope ofcolour variations. Learning names like cat ordog usually involves dealing with fairlyunambiguous concepts. Colours merge intoeach other, when does a slightly yellowy redbecome a darkish orange? Add to that is the waywe use colour adjectives. When childrenrecognise, or use, phrases like the blue balloonor the red fire engine they are associating thecolour name with the object, almost as if it is partof the name. That, incidentally, is why blind

children can often respond correctly to colourquestions. Ramscar tried introducing postnomialsentences (e.g. the balloon is red) and foundmeasurable improvement in only fifteen minutes.

Compare that with how we use the ThreePeriod Lesson. Firstly the colours are isolatedand unambiguous Secondly, you do not refer tored tablets etc., you say this is red (i.e. apostnomial construction.) Finally the childrenare encouraged to find the colours in theirenvironment, further separating the concept fromthe context. If only everyone knew the secret!

Part of the secret is that children have a fargreater innate ability than we usually give themcredit for. As an example of this, more and moreexamples of babys' understanding are coming tolight. Professor Michael Siegal and his team atSheffield University, working with colleagues inAustralia and Japan (Slaughter, 2011) tested 18month old toddlers. On

Research Watch 4 Brat is Lava

Documents

Transcript of Research Watch 4 Brat is Lava