Technology in the Montessori Classroom: Teachers’ Beliefs and Technology Use
Keywords:Montessori, technology, TPACK, Qualitative
As technology becomes ubiquitous in society, there is increasing momentum to incorporate it into education. Montessori education is not immune to this push for technology integration. This qualitative study investigates four Upper Elementary Montessori teachers’ attitudes toward technology and technology integration in a public school setting. Interviews and observations were used to understand the teachers’ thoughts and actions regarding technology in the classroom. Both the school context and teacher background played important roles in teachers’ beliefs and actions. Teachers in this study expressed positive views of technology in general, exhibiting high technology efficacy and valuing the development of technology skills in their students. However, all four teachers struggled to include instructional technology in ways that are consistent with a Montessori paradigm. Although individual student use of adaptive tutoring software was the most common use of technology, the teachers varied greatly in both the amount of student time spent on computers and the roles that technology played in their classrooms.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/examining-tpack-among-k-12-online-distance-educators-in-the-united-states/
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon report: 2015 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf
Elkind, D. (2003). Montessori and constructivism. Montessori Life, 15(1), 26–29.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The ?nal frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computers in Education Journal, 51, 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.004
Faryardi, Q. (2007). The Montessori paradigm of learning: So what? Available from
Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00559.x
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for undertaking technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57, 1953–1960.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2009). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U. S. public schools: 2009 first look. (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
Harris, J. B., Hofer, M. J., Schmidt, D. A., Blanchard, M. R., Young, C. Y., Grandgenett, N. F., & van Olphen, M. (2010). “Grounded” technology integration: Instructional planning using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18, 573–605. Available from http://www.editlib.org/p/30418
Hervey, L. G. (2011). Between the notion and the act: Veteran teachers’ TPACK and practice in 1:1 settings [Doctoral dissertation]. Available from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3463705).
Hubbell, E. R. (2006). Authenticity and technology in Montessori education. Montessori Life, 18(2), 16–20. Available from EBSCO Host http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20982979/authenticity-technology-montessori-education
Hughes, J. E., Guion, J. M., Bruce, K. A., Horton, L. R., & Prescott, A. (2011). A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative web 2.0 learning resources. Educational Technology, 51(2), 53–61.
ISTE. (2016). National educational technology standards for students (NETS-S). Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016#startstandards
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
Lillard, A. (2008). How important are the Montessori materials? Montessori Life, 20(4), 20–25.
Love, A. & Sikorski, P. (2000). Integrating technology in a Montessori classroom. Report No. ED441600. Retrieved from ERIC http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441600.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Montessori, M. (1989). To educate the human potential. Oxford, England: Clio Press.
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. New York, NY: Frederick Stokes Co.
Monson, M. (2006). Reconstructing Montessori: On being an authentic Montessori school. Montessori Life, 18(2), 36–43.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J, & Wong, Y. T. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey (Report #4). Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Retrieved from ERIC http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED445657.pdf
Read, M. F., Jones, S. J., Hughes, J. E., & Gonzales-Dholakia, G. (2011, April). An ecological case study of two middle schools’ technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103255985
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
Shulman, S. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x015002004
Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2016). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments.
Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5, 195–212. Retrieved from ERIC http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533786.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors can view article download statistics for published articles within their accounts.
Journal of Montessori Research
The following is an agreement between the Author (the “Corresponding Author”) acting on behalf of all authors of the work (“Authors”) and the Journal of Montessori Research (the “Journal”) regarding your article (the “Work”) that is being submitted for consideration.
Whereas the parties desire to promote effective scholarly communication that promotes local control of intellectual assets, the parties for valuable consideration agree as follows.
A. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S GRANT OF RIGHTS
After being accepted for publication, the Corresponding Author grants to the Journal, during the full term of copyright and any extensions or renewals of that term, the following:
1. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to reproduce, republish, transmit, sell, distribute, and otherwise use the Work in electronic and print editions of the Journal and in derivative works throughout the world, in all languages, and in all media now known or later developed.
2. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to create and store electronic archival copies of theWork, including the right to deposit the Work in open access digital repositories.
3. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit,and distribute the Work under the condition that the Authors are attributed. (Currently this is carried out by publishing the content under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 license (CC BY-NC.)
4. Copyright in the Work remains with the Authors.
B. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S DUTIES
1. When distributing or re-publishing the Work, the Corresponding Author agrees to credit the Journal as the place of first publication.
2. The Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Journal of any changes in contact information.
C. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S WARRANTY
The Corresponding Author represents and warrants that the Work is the Authors’ original work and that it does not violate or infringe the law or the rights of any third party and, specifically, that the Work contains no matter that is defamatory or that infringes literary or proprietary rights, intellectual property rights, or any rights of privacy. The Corresponding Author also warrants that he or she has the full power to make this agreement, and if the Work was prepared jointly, the Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Authors of the terms of this Agreement and to obtain their written permission to sign on their behalf. The Corresponding Author agrees to hold the Journal harmless from any breach of the aforestated representations.
D. JOURNAL’S DUTIES
In consideration of the Author’s grant of rights, the Journal agrees to publish the Work, attributing the Work to the Authors.
E. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement reflects the entire understanding of the parties. This agreement may be amended only in writing by an addendum signed by the parties. Amendments are incorporated by reference to this agreement.
ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR ON BEHALF OF ALL AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORK