Analysis and Comparison of Montessori and Project Approaches to Education
Literature Review .
Conclusion
References ..
Analysis and Comparison of Montessori and Project Approaches to Education
The purpose of this paper is to look at two distinct approaches to early childhood education, Montessori and Project Approach’s view. While the Montessori approach is primarily used to promote child development in a natural environment, the Project Approach is focused on individuals in their early stages of development by an in-depth introduction to reality. As the public becomes more aware of the importance of early childhood development, it is important to recognize the similarities and differences in the two methods so parents may knowledgeably select the one they feel is most appropriate for their child.
The Montessori Method
The Montessori approach to early childhood education began to be formulated in 1897 by Maria Montessori, an Italian doctor and teacher (Kramer, 1994). In 1911, it was introduced to the United States, but did not become popular until the 1960’s. Today, children are taught in over 4000 Montessori schools in America with over 400 designated as public schools, although the most common facilities are independent or private establishments (Danner & Fowler, 2015). Classrooms are separated into Infant and Toddler, Preschool and Kindergarten, Elementary, and Middle and High School; programs for middle and high school aged students are less developed than those for younger children because Maria Montessori did not address the need for their inclusion while she was alive. However, the Montessori (1989) stated:
The essential reform of our plan from this point of view may be defined as follows: during the difficult time of adolescence it is helpful to leave the accustomed environment of the family in town and to go to quiet surroundings in the country, close to nature. (p. 67)
Therefore, many classes for teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18 are held in the country.
The Montessori approach is grounded on five principles: respect for children, the concept of an absorbent mind, sensitive periods of development, and a prepared environment (Morrison, 2015). There are at least four types of precise teaching methods employed for Montessori students. Mathematics is introduced early and increases in complication for older students. Practical applications include managing finances, comparing economics, and statistical analysis of data. Research and composition also begin in the elementary grades by daily writing assignments that organize complex concepts and information into stories, reports, publications, poems, and plays. The study of global culture and history begins at three years of age and continues through middle school. World customs, diets, industries, governments, and artistic influences are promoted through student diversity. Finally, economic practicalities start with lessons in money and commerce by learning the value of a dollar. Folder students calculate meal costs, budgets, balancing checkbooks, and careful use of credit.
A study conducted by Ling Koh and Frick (2010) employed a qualitative case study in order to examine strategies used by teachers in order to support autonomy and intrinsic motivations for students in Indiana in a upper-elementary Montessori classroom. Independent and self-mastery is promoted in the children in the belief that intrinsic motivation and a self-perception of confidence is increased. Therefore, students are encouraged to learn freely in an environment prepared for their level of development. Teachers allowed the children to choose their teammates and schoolwork. When control was exerted, it was done with respect and recognition of the child’s feelings, giving reasons for specific behavior; criticism was suppressed. Surveys of the children found they considered they had the highest levels of intrinsic motivation. The authors felt the study can be replicated with similar results in any part of the United States.
The Project Approach
The Project Approach, on the other hand, is a result of the idea of helping children learn how to participate and contribute to the society they live in (Roopnarine and Johnson, 2013). According to Chard (2013), education for young children has employed project work in the 1920’s. Anna Freud first used the method in Vienna and influenced the educational system proposed by John Dewey (1897). The idea of open education was introduced to America in the 1960s and early 1970’s. The goal is to encourage children to engage their current ideas regarding morality and aesthetics toward development of their intellect (Katz and Chard, 1989). In the United States today, the use of the Project Approach is commonly employed in teaching plans from pre-school through college. This is due to a “project” being perceived as the pursuit of information about a topic by an entire class, a team, or an individual student. The student investigates the topic under the supervision of the instructor through the use and development of academics, social skills, intellect, and other areas of competence. In the course of the project, the student collects information from observation, interviews, experiments, gathering artifacts, and preparing reports fir verbal and visual presentation.
There are at least four strategies used by the Project Approach (Weimer, 2012). First, students are guided through the “messy” part of learning: asking questions, providing details to the answers, provide examples, organize the information gathered, and presenting a review of the topic. Second, students are taught the process of thinking by solving problems, analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, and creating a hypothesis. Next, students discuss the way they are learning to think when evaluating ideas such as how they study for tests, how they revise their work, and check their results. Finally, students are motivated to select their own topics for research, become involved in the creation of classroom policies, and set their own deadlines and standards of criteria.
The Project Approach method promotes the study of the environment in relation to the topic; students are also encouraged to recognize the presence of sub-topics. When working in a group, students accept responsibility for tasks they judge they have the skills to complete and therefore develop a real sense of their abilities. This type of educational approach lays the groundwork for adult career skills in critical thinking and working in a cooperative environment.
Comparison of Montessori and Project Approach Methods of Four Elements
In conducting an analysis of the two methods, there are a number of elements to take into account for comparison. This paper will briefly compare four aspects of Montessori and the Project Approach methods: accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, influence on sedentary activity, the education of disabled children, and ways to teach children who are learning English as a second language. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the American Montessori Society accredit their schools (Machado & Meyer-Botnarescue, 2001). Programs accredited by the NAEYC apply for an accreditation visit where a school profile is compiled, observations of the classroom are submitted, and ratings are submitted by parents and the staff; the report is evaluated by at least three commissioners. For example, the Montessori School of Corpus Christi is accredited by the NAEYC, while others are not (Heines & Williams, 2001). This holds true for schools using Project Approach teaching methods entirely or partially. Schools are evaluated on an individual basis after application. Although the accreditation is voluntary, the standards of the NAEYC make it one of the most implemented strategies for quality in the enhancement of child care since 1986 (Whitebook, Sakai, & Howes, 1997).
Byun, Blair, and Pate (2013) conducted a study on the promotion of sedentary activity in Montessori preschools and traditional preschools for time periods during school and after school. They used 331 children aged 4 years approximately evenly divided between 8 traditional and 9 Montessori preschools in Columbia, South Carolina; ActiGraph accelerometers were used to measure activity. Factors found to influence the amount of physical activity of the children included the type of school, whether the setting was public or private, ages, gender, and the income level of the parents were all found to predict the amount of sedentary behavior in the students. The environment of the preschool was also found to have significant influence. The researchers concluded that students in Montessori preschools were more active during their total waking hours than children in traditional preschool classes.
Educators have concerns regarding the teaching of disabled children in any setting. The founder of the Montessori method, Maria Montessori, is considered to be one of the first teachers to address special education (Odom et al., 2005). The initial uses of her teaching method were for children with several disabilities that resided in institutions in Italy to promote learning skills and ideas. Later evaluation determined higher scores for her students than those in traditional public classes (Woolfe, 2002). Despite the history with impaired children, the Montessori approach is not associated with the uses in present-day facilities. The basic premise of Montessori learning is the creation of an environment that allows children to learn and demonstrate their education in different ways. Teachers of special-needs children use an individualized method of guiding children with various sensory and hands-on materials (Kirk et al., 2011). There are, however, indications that disabled children are discouraged from inclusion in Montessori schools: in two studies by Epstein (1997; 1998), Montessori teachers expressed resistance to inclusion of special-needs children who exhibit disruptive classroom behavior. For instructors, to become Montessori-certified, it is not necessary for them to have training in special education and the required of a college degree in any field may not allow recognition of how special-education students may be included in classrooms. On the other hand, a study by Guven and Duman (2007) looked to determining how effective the use of the Project Approach may be in teaching children suffering from mild mental disabilities. Using seven children from an elementary school in a special education class, they reported significant improvement in post-testing from pre-testing in recognition and behavior in a bakery and in subtopics. Dejong (1999) states that the Project Approach is not a novel idea for special education, but it has not been developed as such. Diverse needs within early childhood programs promote individualization by instructors. In addition, the skills learned benefit disabled children into adulthood. In a study by Beneke (2000), the researcher concluded that while student showed marked improvement toward goals, instructors also changed resistant attitudes to ones that indicated the effort needed for the Project Approach was worthwhile. Therefore, it should be considered that if instructors are receptive to the Project Approach for disabled children, it would be a more beneficial educational method than that in a Montessori school.
Finally, when discussing children learning English as a second language, there are no standard Montessori materials for learning a foreign language (Winnefeld, 2012). Teaching a foreign language is only briefly included in Montessori training, although this is starting to change. It has been seen that when the Project Approach is used in the classroom where difficulties are discussed and student become involved in solutions, learners become immersed in the experience of English through connect theory and practice (Tsiplakides & Fragoulis, 2009). Therefore, while both methods of teaching have benefits for special-needs children, student learning English as a second language, and promotion of physical activity. For this reason, the Project Approach appears to be superior to Montessori schools for children learning English as a foreign language.
Literature Review
A review of several publications present academic and professional literature with a number of theoretical and empirical studies shows a universal approach to early childhood education. While each approach to learning can provide children and families with benefits and significant learning experience, the system and educational professionals should be able to adopt a mixed educational approach and incorporate a clear understanding of the theoretical grounds behind each of the approach. In this way, a curriculum may be developed that addresses diversity and the needs of specific groups within early education. For instance, Marshall (2007) analyses various technical frameworks and suggests that learning progresses through the cognitive element essential in early childhood. Natural environment and play build on significant parts of the personal development process. The author outlines six major perspectives of the latest trends behind the Montessori approach to education. The point that the author is making in his work is that while it is difficult to argue that the approach can bring benefits for the early education process, more cognitive and empirical research is needed to guide the development of the early education curriculum and any conclusions about the most appropriate framework. The argument on which this conclusion is based is that there is the clear lack of empirical validation behind the fact that “playful learning” leads to actual long-term learning benefits (Lillard et al., 2013).
Morrison (2015) gives a helicopter view of the latest trends and developments in early childhood education. The author introduces a variety of approaches to children’s education, aiming to provide a comprehensive coverage of this process through looking at the following aspects of education: professionalism and theory in practice, development of personalized and appropriate curriculum, application of technological advancements, diversity and family and community-centered practice. The author focuses on the importance of traditionalism in education along with creativity and innovation. By outlining the historical background of education and learning and specifically talking about preschool education in the United States, Morrison prepares an important theoretical basis for further research in learning and play and various approaches to early childhood education and learning. Finally, the book serves a pillar for many families and professionals, helping to recognize diversity and the role of family and community in early childhood education.
Another interesting view on learning the process of early childhood is expressed by Savery (2015). The work looks at the problem-based learning (PBL), traditionally used in the education industry for over thirty years. The author looks at the application of the methods and the history of the PBL in general and the structure and characteristics of PBL. Savery makes several important points in regards to the project approach to learning. First, the author suggests that the Project Approach should be distinguished from teaching problem-solving itself and from the curriculum design. Outlining a methodology and the philosophy behind the learning process in general, project approach is one of the only ways to provide sustainable and multifaceted educational processes for most of the disciplines. Additionally, the author introduces the benefits and the considerations that should be made in the application of scaffolding in education as part of the approach. The conclusion is that PBL and the Project Approach specifically allow teachers to create an environment that addresses several real-life challenges and other approaches in learning.
Samuelsson and Carlson (2008) compare and contrast several "learn by being active" approaches that include Froebel, Montessori, and Dialog Pedagogy. The authors suggest that the Montessori approach becomes more effective as it introduces the object and the inner drive as the question of children's activity. The point that should be raised here is that learning by play, contrary to the Project Approach, is based on the child’s experience as a departure point, recognition of the variation, and discernment and simultaneity as the sources of learning that develops the idea of meta-communication and meta-cognitive learning. The important conclusion of the article is that similarly to the PBL approach, learning takes place by playing and recognizes the fact that playing is not the same as learning. While the Project Approach sees these elements as isolated, the Montessori approach outlines that there are play dimensions in learning and learning dimensions in play. That being said, creativity as the focus of learning is the core difference between the two approaches.
Katz and Chard (1992) evaluate effectiveness of the Project Approach in early childhood education as a complimentary element to other critical elements of learning curriculum for small children. The authors argue that the approach offers children an opportunity to deal with a number of real-time situations, promoting the application of intellectual, academic, and social skills. These skills help children build their self-confidence and expand their "comfort zone". It is important to note that, in contrary to Samuelsson and Carlsson (2008), Katz and Chard (1992) defend the fact that the Project Approach incentivizes imagination and encourages creativity by teaching parents and children to reach set goals together. The authors concludes that curriculum design that incorporates the Project Approach as an element of the learning curriculum contributes to the achievement of the following goals: construction of worldwide knowledge, development of basic intellectual social and intellectual skills, and the development of positive feelings in children about themselves and their social environment
Conclusion
Following a brief review of the material, there are strengths and weaknesses in both the Montessori and Project Approach methods of teaching. The Montessori schools, while having the ability to address the individual needs of children through a supportive learning environment, have not been viewed as being the best option for special-needs students and those requiring assistance with acquire English fluency. While the Project Approach requires intensive scrutiny and guidance by instructors, it promotes skill acquisition, critical thinking, and group cooperation that build personal attributes for success in adult careers. For this reason, the author feels the Project Approach is a more desirable method of teaching children and young adults in anticipation for a competitive workplace environment in the future and will be the teaching method that will prove sustainable in the field of education.
References
Beneke, S. (2000). Implementing the project approach in part-time early childhood education
programs. Early Childhood Research and Practice. 2 (1)
Byun, W., Blair, S., & Pate, R. (2013). Objectively measured sedentary behavior in preschool
children: comparison between Montessori and traditional preschools. International
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-2
Chard, S. (2013). The Project Approach. In J. Johnson & J. Roopnarine, Approaches to Early
Childhood Education (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340518.pdf
Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogical Creed. The School Journal, 74(3), 77-80. Retrieved from
http://playpen.meraka.csir.co.za/~acdc/education/Dr_Anvind_Gupa/Learners_Library_7_
March_2007/Resources/books/readings/17.pdf
Epstein, A. (1997). How teachers accommodate for young children with special needs.
Montessori Life, 9(3), 32–34.
Epstein, A. (1998). “The behavior part is the hardest”: Montessori teachers and young children
with challenging behaviors. Montessori Life, 10(4), 24–25.
Guven, Y. & Duman, H. (2007). Project Based Learning for Children with Mild Mental
Disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 77-82. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ814472.pdf
Heines, V. & Williams, S. (2001). Insiders' Guide to Corpus Christi (p. 241). Insider's Guide.
Katz, L. & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children's minds. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Kirk, S., Gallagher, J. J., Coleman, M. R., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2011). Educating exceptional
children (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Kramer, R. (1994). Maria Montessori. Reading, Mass. <<[u.a.]>>: Addison-Wesley.
Lillard, A., Lerner, M., Hopkins, E., Dore, R., Smith, E., & Palmquist, C. (2013). The impact of
pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 139(1), 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029321
Ling Koh, J. & Frick, T. (2010). Implementing Autonomy Support: Insights from a Montessori
Classroom. IJE, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v2i2.511
Machado, J. & Meyer-Botnarescue, H. (2001). Student teaching. Albany, NY: Delmar Thomson
Learning, p. 261.
Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. Proceedings of The 1St
International Conference on Tangible And Embedded Interaction - TEI '07.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004
Montessori, M. (1989). The child, society and the world. Oxford: Clio.
Morrison, G. (2015). Early Childhood Education Today (13th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005). Research
in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional
Children (71), 137–148.
Roopnarine, J. & Johnson, J. (2013). Approaches to early childhood education. Boston: Pearson.
Samuelsson, I. & Carlsson, M. (2008). The Playing Learning Child: Towards a pedagogy of
early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623-641.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265
Savery, J. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Tsiplakides, I. & Fragoulis, I. (2009). Project-based learning in the teaching of English as a
foreign language in Greek primary schools: from theory to practice. English Language
Teaching, 2(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n3p113
Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., & Howes, C. (1997). NAEYC accreditation as a strategy for
improving child care quality. Washington, D.C.: National Center for the Early Childhood
Work Force.
Weimer, M. (2012). Five Characteristics of Learner-Centered Teaching. Faculty Focus | Higher
Ed Teaching & Learning. Retrieved 14 June 2016, from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/five-characteristics-of-
learner-centered-teaching/
Winnefeld, J. (2012). Task-based Language Learning in Bilingual Montessori Elementary
Schools: Customizing Foreign Language Learning and Promoting L2 Speaking Skills.
Linguistik Online. Retrieved 10 June 2016, from https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik- online/article/viewFile/284/402
Wolfe, J. (2002). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood education (2nd
ed.). Mayerthorpe, Alberta, Canada: Piney Branch Press
