The Montessori Model and Creativity

  • David J. Fleming Richard W. Riley Institute at Furman University
  • Brooke Taylor Culclasure Richard W. Riley Institute at Furman University
  • Daniel Zhang Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Keywords: Montessori, creativity, creative potential, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, school choice

Abstract

Prior research has demonstrated that the characteristics of school environments can impact the development of creativity in children. Thus, we explored the construct of creativity in the context of a Montessori environment. We used the Evaluation of Potential Creativity to measure creativity in children during one academic year. The study sample comprised 77 third-grade students at a Montessori public school in the southeastern United States and 71 demographically similar students at a traditional public school. Results show that Montessori students performed somewhat better on the Evaluation of Potential Creativity assessment than similar non-Montessori students did. Subgroup analyses indicate that male Montessori students demonstrated higher creativity than did male non- Montessori students. The findings of this study augment the body of research supporting creative development in Montessori children and suggest that researchers should continue to focus on the measurement of creativity in studies related to the efficacy of the Montessori model.

Author Biographies

David J. Fleming, Richard W. Riley Institute at Furman University

David J. Fleming is an associate professor in politics and international affairs and a senior researcher with the Richard W. Riley Institute at Furman University.

Brooke Taylor Culclasure, Richard W. Riley Institute at Furman University

Brooke Culclasure is the Riley Institute at Furman University’s research director.

Daniel Zhang, Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service

Daniel Zhang is a master’s candidate in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221–233. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.2.221

Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 209–215. doi:10.1177/0146167284102006

Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 14–23. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.50.1.14

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4, 58–66. doi:10.2174/1874920801104010058.

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative potential in educational settings: Its nature, measure, and nurture. Education 3-13, 43, 371–381. doi:10.1080/03004279.2015.1020643

Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 381–389. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009

Besançon, M., Lubart, T., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative giftedness and educational opportunities. Educational and Child Psychology, 30(2), 79–88.

Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013). National charter school study. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45, 283–292. doi:10.3102/0013189X16656615

Cossentino, J., & Brown, K. (2014–2015). Assessing creativity and critical thinking in schools: Montessori as a holistic intervention. AMI Journal, 2014–2015, 229–232. Retrieved from https://www.public-montessori.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Assessing-Creativity-and-Critical-Thinking-in-Schools-Cossentino-and-Brown.pdf

Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 258–291. doi:10.3102/0002831209351564

Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44, 237–251. doi:10.3102/0013189x15584327

Frank, K. A., Maroulis, S. J., Duong, M. Q., & Kelcey, B. M. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 437–460. doi:10.3102/0162373713493129.

Frank, K. A., Sykes, G., Anagnostopoulos, D., Cannata, M., Chard, L., Krause, A., & McCrory, R. (2008). Does NBPTS certification affect the number of colleagues a teacher helps with instructional matters? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 3–30. doi:10.3102/0162373707313781

Gutek, G. L., & Gutek, P. (2016). Bringing Montessori to America: S.S. McClure, Maria Montessori, and the campaign to publicize Montessori education. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Heise, E., Böhme, E., & Körner, S. (2010). Montessori-orientierter und traditioneller Grundschulunterricht: Ein Vergleich der Entwicklung von Rechtschreibung, Rechnen, Intelligenz und Kreativität. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 57, 273–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.2378/peu2010.art19d

Humphryes, J. (1998). The developmental appropriateness of high-quality Montessori programs. Young Children, 53(4), 4–16. http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.furman.edu/stable/42728453

Jenkins, J. M., Duncan, G. J., Auger, A., Bitler, M., Domina, T., & Burchinal, M. (2018). Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child? Economics of Education Review, 65, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310

Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2015). A gender-fair look at variability in creativity: Growth in variability over a period versus gender comparison at a time point. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 87-95. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.992685

Lau, S., Cheung, P. C., Lubart, T., Tong, T. M., & Chu, D. H. (2013). Bicultural effects on the creative potential of Chinese and French children. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 109–118. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752281

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0035519

Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 379–401. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001.

Lillard, A. S., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893–1894. doi:10.1126/science.1132362

Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783

Miller, S., & Connolly, P. (2013). A randomized controlled trial evaluation of time to read, a volunteer tutoring program for 8- to 9-year-olds. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 23–37. doi:10.3102/0162373712452628

Nijstad, B. A., & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

Rosenberg, J. M., Xu, R., & Frank, K. A. (2018). Konfound-It! Quantify the robustness of causal inferences [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://konfound-it.com

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 657–687. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550

Sayed, E. M., & Mohamed, A. H. H. (2013). Gender differences in divergent thinking: Use of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production on an Egyptian sample. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 222–227. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783760

Stephan, J. L., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2013). Can high schools reduce college enrollment gaps with a new counseling model? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 200–219. doi:10.3102/ 0162373712462624

Williams, R. (2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata Journal, 12, 308–331. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536867X1201200209

Wu-jing, H., & Wong, W. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 807–811. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.027

Published
2019-11-14