The Montessori Model and Creativity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v5i2.7695Keywords:
Montessori, creativity, creative potential, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, school choiceAbstract
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.
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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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
Author Agreement
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
