Contents

Personalized Learning Children's Needs Guides and Pilgrims The Self-construction of the Brain The Brains Story Mode Research issues European Montessori Research Studies The Environment Action Research Aspects of Child Development Sensorial Education Executive functions Sensitive periods Brains, Bugs and Bach Rewards Language and Reality p. 2 p. 3 p. 4 p. 5 p. 6 p. 7 p. 8 p. 9 p.10 p.12 p.14 p.15 p.17 p.19 p.20 p.22

(2008, January). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.86; p.31. A little while ago there was a good deal of publicity surrounding the Science article on Angelina Stoll Lillards research (2006) on the effectiveness of Montessori schooling - and quite rightly so. However there is actually a steady drizzle of reports, which support one or other aspect of the Montessori approach, and which it is very easy to overlook. There have been a number of interesting research findings coming out of the University of Durham recently. At the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association in September, Professor Peter Tymms reported the results of a study into the effects of good early childhood experience. It had concluded that good experience in the early years was more important than later schooling, and therefore the better teachers would give more value if placed with the younger children. This is hardly new, but what was striking, in the Times Educational Supplement report (Ward, 2007), was that some headteachers, faced with this report, dismissed it saying that they could not take the better teachers away from the older children in case their SATs scores suffered! Equally mixed has been the response to the report on personalised learning by Christine Gilbert earlier this year (Gilbert, 2007), before her appointment to the higher echelons of Ofsted. Probably for most of us, personalised learning means following the childs needs (which has been a central plank of the Montessori approach for 100 years). Indeed, Gilbert defined it as focusing in a more structured way on each childs learning in order to enhance progress, achievement and participation. The DfES (as it then was) accepted this definition, but then went on to further define personalised learning as having five components, including assessment for learning, curriculum entitlement and choice, workforce remodelling etc. This has sadly led to no little confusion. Recent research (Sebba, 2007) confirms this; showing, for example, that some schools actually see personalised learning as a way of endorsing current activities! Another school believed it had personalised its curriculum by putting up bilingual signs. These are just two recent examples of important research insights being re-interpreted by mainstream practitioners. I believe that the
2

Montessori approach has vital understandings, based on years of tried and tested practice, and this is being ignored or subverted. We need to have faith that the method is effective, and not be seduced into the latest mainstream fashion. We also need influential spokespeople who can relay these insights to those in power - and that is something that is sadly lacking in the UK. There are other straws in the wind blowing in our direction. The Basic Skills Agency commissioned a report by Elizabeth Jarman on the effects of early years environments. A summary, entitled Communication Friendly Spaces, is available or the full report and a toolkit to assist with implementation can be ordered for 20 from www.elizabethjarmantraining.co.uk. Current orthodoxy is that nurseries and playgroups should be vivid, vibrant places festooned with childrens work. Jarman found that this type of display often acted as a visual overload, making it difficult for children to concentrate. There are too many people (some Ofsted inspectors included) who cannot see that to have everything but the proverbial kitchen sink hanging off the ceiling is just not a good idea. A peaceful and calm environment will help the children to become peaceful and calm in themselves.

References: Gilbert, C. (2007). 2020 vision: report of the teaching and learning in 2020 review group. Retrieved from http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/ learning technologies/files/links/2020_vision.pdf Jarman, E. (n.d.). The communication friendly spacesTM approach. Accessed from http://www.elizabethjarmantraining.co.uk Lillard, A.S. & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori Education. Science 313(5795), 1893-4 Sebba, J. et al. (2007). An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools. Sussex University Research Report 843 retrieved from www.dfes.gov.uk Ward, H. (2007, September 7). Give the youngest your best teachers. Retrieved from the Times Educational Supplement website http://www.tes.co.uk/article.asp?Storycode =2433058.

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

How often have you heard people say that children need competition to prepare them for the rigours of the real world. This attitude conflicts with the fundamental concepts of Montessori peace education, and research is increasingly showing just how much more effective co-operation is compared with competition. Professor Robin Alexander is currently conducting a review of primary education in the UK and has commissioned a series of 32 reports on aspects of current practice. The ones which are complete are available online (together with a very useful summary, or briefing) at www.primaryreview.org.uk and report 2/1b (Chlidrens Social Development, Peer Interaction and Classroom Learning by Christine Howe & Neil Mercer) marshalls a great deal of evidence that supports the importance of collaborative learning. There is a great deal of valuable information which is being clearly summarised in these reports and briefings. Another of the reports (Harlen, 2007) documents the lack of dependability in the current testing regime, and the stress it places on both teachers and pupils. Children just dont need the sort of pressure they are sometimes being put under. Many of us are also concerned about the pressure from Ofsted and elsewhere to have computers in the nursery (a pressure which will increase with the even more prescriptive EYFS). There is a very real question as to just how effective they are. (How can moving coloured dots on a screen ever compete with genuine hands-on experience?) An interesting study a couple of years ago (Donnelly, 2005), looking at software to support reading, found that the use of the software actually reduced both recall and understanding, even though the children preferred it. This study reinforces the research done by Dr Aric Sigman, whose article in The Biologist journal, highlighting the damage TVs and computers can do to the very young, caused controversy some two years ago. His book Remotely Controlled has just been updated and re-published by Random House. Someone (whose young child is very electronically orientated)

asked me the other day what I thought children should be doing. My answer? They need to be outdoors getting really heathily dirty. This is an aspect of the Secret of Childhood that children reveal their strength when they come into contact with Nature. Another aspect of that secret is that children have far more ability and potential than adults normally realise. This is also being picked up in various research studies. One such (Hamlin et al, 2007), at Yale University, showed that babies as young as 6 months can recognise helpful characters in a simple puppet show, and demonstrate a preference for them, even when the events do not directly affect them. The researchers suggest that this ability may be innate and may be the basis of moral and social development. This is quite a controversial point of view - for background information interested readers could try Professor Blooms fascinating (and very readable) account of child development; Descartes Baby. References: Bloom, P. (1994). Descartes baby. London; Heinemann Donnelly,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). Nature 450, 557-559; summarised at www.nature.com/news/2007/071121/full/n ews.2007.278.htm Harlen, W. (2007). The quality of learning: Assessment alternatives for primary education. Cambridge; University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Howe, C. & Mercer, N. (2007). Childrens social development, peer interaction and classroom learning. Primary Review Research Briefing 2/1b avaiable from www.primaryreview.org.uk Sigman, A. (2005). Visual voodoo: The biological impact of watching TV. Biologist 54(1); 12-17 Sigman, A. (2007). Remotely controlled. 2nd ed. London; Radon House

(2008, July). Research watch. Montessori International I p.33. Children like to be allowed to complete their work in their own time, to find answers for themselves, to be active in their learning and to be taught by well-organised and fair teachers. This could come from a Montessori teachers manual, but it is the conclusion of some research at Bishop Grosseteste University College in Lincoln, U.K. Hopkins (2008) also found that children appreciate being recognised for their achievements. False or incessant praise is recognised by children for what it is, and Montessori teachers do not use praise as a means of rewarding children - but it is important not to lose sight of genuine appreciation. Now and again the press trumpets that scientists have found the gene for, say, intelligence or musicality or something else. Usually, when you look into it, they have found a gene that is present in many (but not all) people who share a particular characteristic. However, gradually more and more of these are turning up and there is an increasing impression being given that human nature is largely a matter of genetics. Similarly, analyses of brain function have sometimes been used to support the same view. It has been known for some time, for example, that musicians brains actually react physically to music in a way which is different from the rest of us. The conclusion has usually been drawn that they are somehow born differently. However recent scan analyses, by Elizabeth Marguliss team at Arkansas University, have shown (see www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/537352) that the difference is enhanced when musicians hear their 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 the musicians own early environment. It may perhaps be the case that a small genetic difference has been greatly influenced by the musicians environment and training. However, we should never forget that whilst our children may come with varying genetic endowments, this can be vastly enhanced by a good, prepared, environment. Sometimes a piece of research, whilst having nothing ostensibly to do with Montessori, unwittingly reveals the poverty of mainstream education. One such piece ( Press) explores aspects of why children often find school boring. They suggest it may be either under- or over4

stimulation. But they see boredom as valuable, as, they suggest, it gives space for creative thinking! Part of their final conclusion is worth quoting though; It is one of the most oppressive demands of adults that the child should be interested, rather than take time to find what interests him. The American Montessori Society organises annual prizes for the best Montessori research doctoral thesis, and masterate dissertation, each year. They have just put up a number of these onto their website. This years winner is entitled Guides & Pilgrims by Linda Gatewood Massey This thesis does not read like academic philosophy. The opening paragraph commences There were two Montessori classrooms at Oak Hill Middle School, tucked away in the furthest corner of a rambling public school building. Our classroom windows looked out onto a field enclosed by tree-blanketed hills, at the fields edge an underground spring surfaced, creating an oasis in the midst of suburban streets for brown-backed geese, soft-eyed deer and lone eagles. The classroom, too, created a kind of oasis... and it continues in a similar vein. To be sure there are some arcane passages, but one does not need to know what hermeneutic phenomenology is to understand and be moved by the account of the authors own pilgrimage, as she moved to an older age-group, finding herself out of her comfort-zone and dogged by the demands of tests and state curricula. Eventually she found her way back and much of her thesis is based on conversations with other Montessorians, who tell of their own personal transformations and the goodness of work that calls children to concentrate their energies and grow into active, caring and responsible people. If only there were more research of this ilk! References Belton T. & Priyadharshini (2008) Boredom and Schooling: a cross-disciplinary exploration E. Anglia University Press Hopkins, E. (2008). Classroom conditions to ensure enjoyment and achievement. Education 3-13. Massey, .G. (2006). Guides and Pilgrims. from www.amshq.org/research/dissertations.htm

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

Paula Polk Lillard, in a presentation to NAMTAs Fourth Adolescent Colloquium (2008), drew attention to three major pieces of research which supported and illuminated Montessoris discovery that the major task of childhood was to build the adult, in other words self-construction The first was many years ago, when Merzenich (later a professor at California University) did some post-doctoral research using microsurgery to insert electrodes into individual neurons (nerve cells). He could then determine exactly which part of the body they were linked to. The neuron was then cut. Seven months later the brains were re-checked and, instead of the confused signals he had expected, Merzenich found that the brain had re-wired itself. This was amongst the very first evidence that the brain could re-organize itself. This is a fundamental pre-condition for the process of self-construction: what we are is not fixed in the brain. The second, some ten years ago, by Pascual-Leone of Harvard Medical School, involved taking brain scans of people learning Braille (chosen because it involves motor activity in the fingers as well as mental work). Between Mondays and Fridays, when intensive practice was being undertaken, the scans showed significant changes, but by the following Monday (after the weekend rest) the scans were back where they started! It was six months before the Monday scans showed any sign of consolidating the Friday gains. At the same time the gains from Monday to Friday decreased. Permanent learning had now taken place, but this research shows that permanent learning is slow and requires consistent work over a period of time. That is why swotting is ineffectual in the long term and testing regimes (with their inevitable teaching to the test) actually inhibit true learning and self-construction. The third piece of research, for which Kandel received a Nobel Prize in 2000, showed that not only are neuronal connections affected by learning, but so are the neurons genes. They may be switched on or off, depending on experience (i.e. learning and memory). In other words people construct their own brains, in co-operation with their environment, just as Montessori realised. Kandel has recently brought out a historical and autobiographical account of this work, entitled In Search of Memory. A very recent addition to this work, of particular interest to those working with children on the
5

autistic spectrum, is the discovery (Morrow et al., 2008) that autism is related to this genetic switching, in this case to a failure to switch on one of up to 6 genes. This raises the possibility of finding a means of switching the genes back on, or compensating for them chemically, but also confirms the crucial importance of the very early years, as this is when the critical switching fails to take place. It is striking that such a simple process, as switching one or two genes on, can have such devastating effects. It may be because the switch affects what are called executive functions - that is the mental activities which centre around our ability to control our thoughts and activities, thus making a measured response to ever-changing environments possible. This phrase executive function is not part of the Montessori jargon, but it deserves to be. Full development of executive functions in early childhood is an almost invariable pointer to later maturation and success. And what is the key factor? It is the childs ability to concentrate. Concentration is strongly linked to self-control. Self-control or self-regulation is a key component of classroom adjustment and also a key indicator (in its absence) of later problems in adolescent life. Adele Diamond of the University of British Columbia recently devised an executivefunction 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 research remains to be done. However it is significant that two of the key qualities of the normalised child, the ability to concentrate and self-discipline, have been shown to be so central to executive functioning. The Times Educational Supplement recently ran a series of introductory articles (the series was called Brain Power) between July 18th and August 29th, and these form an excellent introduction to recent work which can be accessed online at www.tes.co.uk/search. References: Diamond A. et al. (2007) Preschool Program Improves Cognitive Control Science 318 pp. 1387-88 & supplementary online data Lillard P.P. (2008) Montessori, the Brain, and the Young Adult The NAMTA Bulletin May 2008 1-8 Morrow E.M. et al. (2008) Identifying Autism Loci and Genes by Tracing Recent Shared Ancestry Science 321( 5886) pp.218-223

(2009, January). Research watch. Montessori International Ip.31. It is not always widely appreciated just how different the Montessori Method becomes for children over the age of 6. When children move into the next plane of development, their needs change and the teaching approach must change too. Not a few schools in the UK are beginning to keep children on after the usual (and too early) school starting age of 4. Initially there is plenty of work for them, particularly ion the later maths and language schemes; but, as they develop themselves and enter into a new phase of growth, the directress must develop herself too. Primary Montessori education is most emphatically not just more of the same. One surprising aspect of this new phase is the role of story telling. Montessori believed that children now needed myths and legends to enable them to absorb some of the deeper (and more abstract) truths of philosophy and religion. This is a theme which is particularly developed in the early part of her book To Develop the Human Potential. The stories which underlie the Great Lessons (which provide the fundamental structure for the primary curriculum) are an excellent example. Harry Brighouse, professor of philosophy at Wisconsin, has recently recommended (in a chapter in Hands book) using books such as Where the Wild Things Are to introduce primary aged children to philosophical ideas - in this case ideas such as the nature of monstrosity and the ambivalence of love (the monsters loved Max so much they wanted to eat him up.) In a similar vein Eileen Jones has recently published a study discussing how novels can often help children in need of therapy. This is perhaps not what we usually think of when we think of Montessori, and much of this is not appropriate to the younger child, though Montessori herself was less strict about avoiding fantasy than some of her followers. She wrote (in the chapter on art in The Montessori Elementary Material) of her children spending hours doing artwork whilst she read to them, and the first book on her list? Hans Christian Anderson. Stories have great power and Montessori realised that. Several strands of recent research into story telling were reviewed by Jeremy Hsu (in Scientific American Mind 19(4) August 2008). Distinct areas of the brain are involved in sharing
6

stories and gossiping and there is evidence from brain scans that there is a distinctive story mode that the brain can adopt. Recent research (particularly into advertising) suggests that people accept ideas more readily when their minds are in story-mode as opposed to a more analytical mind-set. Further research is needed to explicate that this also holds true for abstract ideas, but it does seem likely - confirming Montessoris original insight. It is also at this age that the development, or lack of development, of executive functions (those mental activities which involve the control of thought and action - discussed in Research Watch in the last issue) begin to become very apparent. Research is showing that executive functions are enhanced by vigorous physical activity (Carlson, 2008) appropriate parental behaviours (Kochanska, 2008), the use of the hands (Sigman, 2008) and many other factors. Physical activity, not just getting up out of their seats, was commended by Montessori; they did not have climbing frames but her children improvised with railings which they climbed on, with her blessing. She was also at the forefront of involving parents in her schools. Her stress on the significance of the hands hardly needs mentioning. This is all totally in accordance with an authentic Montessori approach and the research should give us all confidence to persevere with our work and not be pressurised into watering down the approach with mainstream fashions. References: Carlson, S.A. et al (2008) Education and academic achievement in elementary school Am. J. Public Health 98:4, 721-727. Hand, M. & Winstanley, C. (eds.) (2008) Philosophy in Childrens Literature London & New York, Continuum. Jones, E. (2008, June). Bookwork. Counselling Children & Young People. Kochanska, G. et al (2008) A developmental model of maternal and child contributions to disruptive conduct http://www.ncbi.nih.g ov/pubmed/18684154) Sigman, A. (2008) Practically Minded: the benefits and mechanisms associated with a craft-based curriculum Ruskin-Mill Educational Trust

(2009, April). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.91; p.33.

Sometimes a single piece of research provides a dramatic new insight into a long-standing issue. More commonly there is a steady drip-feed of results until the evidence becomes overwhelming. The latter is perhaps the case with the effects of TV on children. This research area was mentioned in the April-June Montessori International Research Watch and the latest piece to add to the puzzle has come from Dr Louise Hardys team at the University of Sydney, published in the February 2009 issue of American Journal of Preventative Medicine. They were specifically looking at the effect of TV watching on cardio-vascular health and they found a range of effects. One of the statistics that they discovered was that, for 13-15 year old girls, watching over 4 hours a day was linked to no less than a 50% reduction in fitness! This is truly alarming. Hardys overall conclusion was that more than 2 hours a day would damage childrens health. What did Montessori say so long ago about hands-on activities and nature? And what would she think nowadays? Two other recent reports also reinforce earlier studies. An Ofsted report on maths teaching, Mathematics: Understanding the Score, available to download from the Thematic Reports section of Ofsteds website, notes that, despite some examples of very good teaching, in general children cannot apply their mathematical learning to everyday life. This, they feel, is due to teaching to the test rather than teaching for understanding. In Montessori classes, children can use a mathematical activity until they themselves feel they are happy with it, and can move on with confidence - not just because the other children are being moved on. The other (interim) report was by PricewaterhouseCoopers (the accountants!) at http://www.dcsf. gov.uk/research/ data/uploadfiles/dcsf-rr065.pdf on the new government initiative to enhance personalized learning by having single-level tests (taken on readiness) and individual tuition available as needed. These are laudable aims, but PwC found major problems both with the tests (appallingly low pass rates) and with the logistics of providing enough one-to-one tutors. In Montessori classes it is the prepared environment that is the central teacher and there is no external testing (just as there are no external rewards). When will they ever learn? Many, many years ago Montessori famously proclaimed that her New Children would build a New World. It has not quite happened like that, of
7

course, and it is worth asking the question why. Is there any relevant research which might help to provide an answer? If Montessori does not make a difference, why are we doing it? The first point to make is that research does not provide simple answers, ever. John ChattinMcNicholls, author of The Montessori Controversy and professor of education at Seattle, observed (in a paper included in Loeffler M. (ed.) (1992) Montessori in Contemporary American Culture Portsmouth NH, Ginn Custom Press) that early childhood research is bedevilled by problems such as small sample sizes, short-term sampling and confounding the effects of the teacher and the educational model by using single representatives of a model. In addition Montessori research has problems in that there is such a wide variation in Montessori practice and there are few standard measures to assess Montessori goals (such as normalization,etc.) Secondly, Montessori is still a minority approach. How many Montessori schools are there world-wide? How does that compare with the totality of schools? Of the children in Montessori schools, how many have the benefit of Montessori right up to the age of 18? No-one knows the correct answers to these questions but they are obviously going to be small numbers relatively. So how do we measure the effectiveness of Montessori education. One way might be to look at high achievers, at least two Nobel prize winners (one for literature, one for Physics) were Montessori children. Is that a significant proportion? Again we do not really know because we do not know the numbers. There is the meat there for a major research project. However, general educational research has shown, fairly conclusively, that quality nurseries have a positive effect on children (and, contrariwise, that poor ones have a negative effect, and also that prolonged hours before the age of two can increase anti-social behaviour.) These were some of the conclusions of the EPPE (Effective Preschool and Primary Education) projects latest report (see http://www.ioe.ac.uk/ecpe/eppe311/eppe3-11pubs.htm). This is possibly one of the most significant reports on early years and primary education in the UK and its findings underlie Sure Start and the EYFS. There is much in the reports to support Montessori practice, and much that we can learn from, but the critical conclusion is the importance of high quality provision.

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

At the 2007 Swedish Montessori Centenary Conference, organized by the Teachers College in Stockholm with support from the Universities of Gteborg, Lund, Malm and Kristianstad, a network of Montessori researchers was set up. MORE (MOntessori Research Europe) has as its primary aim, the improvement of communication between universities and other academic institutions in Europe which are involved in research in the field of Montessori Pedagogy. At the moment this is being carried out by informal networking, an electronic newsletter and annual meetings in concert with the Montessori Europe conference - which this 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 Suffenplan of Cologne University which was based on comparative test of pupils in primary fourth grade classes across seven states. The study included 663 Montessori pupils from 12 different schools. The schools were classified into four context groups, based on data on the social conditions of the pupils. In most cases the Montessori pupils showed higher scores, except for two cases, essay writing skills and spelling, where the pupils from good areas did better. However Montessori children from poorer areas were clearly advantaged in these areas. There have been numerous research studies at the Montessori centre at the University of Muenster, under the direction of Professor Harald Ludwig. Examples include the 2007 research by Esther Grindel based on case studies of gifted children in Montessori settings. She found that gifted children were generally helped in Montessori settings, and the problem of under-challenging which is widespread in traditional classes was mitigated. However that was critically dependent on there being good organisation of free activity time, with enhanced learning possibilities. Nicole Hanewinkel carried out a study into the processes of learning fractions using the Montessori materials. She looked particularly into the way children may arrive at an autonomous construction of mathematical rules. Sung-Hui Kim carried out a study into whether Montessori education furthers early childhood creativity. She considered the differing concepts of creativity amongst Montessorians and their critics and, using the TSD-Z test scores (a German test of creative thinking using a geometrical drawing procedure) she concluded that creativity is enhanced, but only if children are able to work independently and they are supported in carrying through their own ideas. Professor Hildegard Holtstiege, formerly at Muenster and now in her 80s, has been researching early education within the context of Montessori education since 1971. Among other areas she has produced verification studies on Montessoris insights into sensitive periods, the absorbent mind, observation, and the hand and eye - the tools of intelligence. One of the major results from this enormous corpus of research is the critical importance of the maternal drive and the repercussions of its repression in contemporary society. There are also briefer notes in the newsletters on a range of research studies, including work at the Centre for Montessori Studies at Roma Tre University (which, directed by professor Clara Tornar, focuses on three areas - historical studies, quantitative and qualitative studies of applications of Montessori pedagogy and offering a range of service activities i.e. CPD, a masters degree programme and the publication of scientific abstracts.) Two projects which are currently being piloted are a 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 State University of Belgorod in Russia. Her focus is particularly on the cosmic education aspect of Montessori and they have organised a number of international conferences. At the Maria CurieSklodowska University in Lublin, Poland, professor Ryszard Kucha has just started a major international project which will result in a massive study in two volumes; the first focusing on studies in Montessoris own life and her educational concepts, and the second looking at the implementation of Montessori across six continents. The MORE network currently has 45 members involved in Montessori research (2 of whom are from the UK) and of them 11 hold university professorial chairs or are emeritus professors. Germany heads the list with 13 members and no less than 6 professors, with Poland, Russia and Sweden having a relatively large representation. It is perhaps rather too easy for us in the UK to loose sight of the international standing and status of the Montessori movement - to be honest we have a long way to go to catch up. However, with the commencement of a Montessori degree programme last year at the Kent & Sussex Montessori Centre, and the completion of two major research projects at the Institute of Education, London, perhaps events are beginning to move.

(2009, October). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.93; p.33. One of the main tenets of the Montessori philosophy is the importance of the environment in child development and learning. When we use the word environment we usually mean either the prepared environment of the classroom or the natural environment, but equally the built environment of the street is important. The way buildings and their structures affect our minds has recently been reviewed by Emily Anthes and she has collected some interesting findings. These include research by Meyers-Levy showing that the higher the ceiling feels the more abstract the thinking tends to be. This linked to her earlier work that lower ceilings made people feel physically constrained as well. The feeling of freedom is obviously important as well as the actuality. However there is a place for a lower ceiling, where concentration on detail is important to someones work (e.g. a surgeon or an accountant). Another study (by Wells, and recently confirmed by Tanner) showed that having open views to natural settings (gardens or forests) actually increases concentration in children, rather than acting as a distraction. Even the effect of a green decor can be positive. Sullivan studied a group of children with ADHD and found parents reported amelioration of symptoms when the children had been out in a natural environment, but also even when in a green room. Stephen Kaplin of Michigan University has linked this to what is called the biophilia hypothesis - that is the idea that as we evolved in a natural environment we are genetically predisposed to it and modern life, with its crowds and speed and generally increased stimulation, reduces our ability to concentrate on the task in hand. This over-stimulation is an increasing cause of concern. Dimitri Christakis of Washington University has recently (2004) shown that having the TV on in the background inhibits language development in young children. This enhances his teams earlier work showing that TV and video viewing slows down speech development and also results in reduces ability to concentrate. A parallel study in 2009 by Professor Michael Abramson of Monash University, Melbourne, showed that children who used predictive texting were faster but significantly less accurate at other tasks. Baroness Greenfield,
9

director of the Royal Institute, writing in the Daily Mail suggested that these speedy exchanges were contributing to a decline in attention span in society at large. However Abramson himself in an email (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc accessed 14.8.09) expressed himself reassured by the results as they showed no effect on thinking and learning, only behaviour. Abramson is now extending his studies to younger children (where one would expect a greater effect due to the greater plasticity of the young brain) but it has to be admitted that research is ambiguous. There are 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 for directresses to know whether to resist the pressure from the mainstream to include computers and electronic toys in the nursery. The environment is important in other ways too. The chemical environment has all sorts of effects, and so do the chemicals we take into our bodies - our food. In a ground-breaking study in Tennessee, Kerri Tobin of Vanderbilt University found that a diet with more fast-food resulted in a reduction in up to 19 points in numeracy and reading scores, with an average reduction of over 12 points. Obviously test scores are not everything and behavioural effects were not tested. Also the research was on children of 10 to 11 years (adjusted for social factors) but it would be quite reasonable to expect similar, if not greater, effects on younger children. Healthy eating has always been an integral part of the Montessori approach, and now it is supported by the EYFS as well. This research points up how important this aspect of our work is. Of course we should never forget the importance of the classroom environment. The way we present the materials is a critical factor in the childrens responses. Many years ago Nancy McCormack Rambusch, who re-established the Montessori approach in the USA, called attention to the importance of learning to learn. This is something which has been promoted for many years by Professor Reuven Feuerstein of Jerusalem, who studied with Piaget. He feels that children innately lack the emotional. social and problem-solving skills necessary to deal with school, so they pick them up by imita-

tion. But if the skills are not demonstrated (i.e. in an impoverished environment) they need to have them taught. Billy ONeil, head of the Scottish Feuerstein Training Centre, has recently completed a pilot study in the Borders region, developing the approach and this is an ongoing project. Whether or not it would be useful to introduce the specific techniques of Feuersteins, there is an important point to be learnt. Childrens abilities are 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 Mind 20(2) pp. 52-57. Christiakis D.A. et al (2004) Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems Archives of Paediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 113(4); 708-713.

(2010, January). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.94; p.43.

What is Montessori Research? There is a great deal of educational research out there, with all sorts of different methods being used to find things out, but I want to pose a question arising from it all. Is there a specifically Montessori approach to research? In other words, is any one method particularly suited to Montessori? This question was identified as a central concern by Professor Clara Tornar (of the University of Roma Tre, Centre for Montessori Studies) in a lecture to the doctoral course in innovation and evaluation of educational stems (see www.egora.uni-muenster.de/ew/mz). Montessori herself specifically recognised this issue, noting (in The Montessori Method Stokes edition 1912 pp. 28/30) that every branch of experimental science has grown out of the application of a method peculiar to itself... [so] our problem then, is this: to establish the method peculiar to experimental pedagogy. Montessori saw herself as establishing a scientifically valid method of education and, in many ways, she saw the Casa dei Bambini as laboratories. Particularly at the Via dei Marsi casa, she conducted her observational experiments. These consisted of three phases: (a) the creation of an environment fostering the free expression of the childs needs and abilities - if a new and scientific pedagogy is to arise... such study must occupy itself with the observation of free children. (Ibid p.28), (b) extensive, careful and objective observation without preconceptions of any sort (Ibid p.29) and (c) progressive adaptation of the environment and the materials to better fit the child.

This methodology is very very close to what is now termed action research, which is a methodology usually credited to Kurt Lewin (first published in his 1946 paper Action Research & Minority problems in J. Soc. Issues). Action research differs from traditional academic research. Academic research usually involves an expert (often from a university) investigating a particular feature of a process or situation. Typically they would make measurements before the process, and then again after it. So, for example, if an academic researcher wanted to find how effective dressing frames were, they would measure the childrens dressing abilities before and after using the frames. For validity they would also measure the progress of a matched group who did not have the frames to use. The researchers would not, themselves, get involved. Their stance is that of a fly on the wall and ideally their presence has no effect on the childrens learning and development. Action research is the complete opposite. Action researchers are right in the thick of it all. They are involved and committed. If they see something that is not working well then they assess the situation and (in collaboration with everyone else, and based on the research observations and results) they change the situation. This change is evaluated and further improvements are made if possible. Changes like this, as you go along, would make academic research quite impossible. However, continuous improvement, based on sound on-going research, is the very heart of action research. It is still research, so the findings must be valid and reliable but action research is essentially transformational.

10

How does that relate to Montessoris approach? Her first stage was to establish a setting where children could freely express their inner needs (within the social bounds of respecting other childrens freedom and of courtesy.) In contemporary terms this corresponds to the requirement to provide conditions which enable the data to be valid. The concept of validity is contentious but is often taken to involve peer scrutiny, triangulation of data collection and clarity of methodology, for example. In a Montessori context, validity is enabled by freeing the children from adult preconceptions. Her second stage was to observe. From the start she stressed the need for gathering data precisely and objectively (see Anthropological Pedagogy, 1912 p.19), which corresponds to the need for reliability. There are various ways of enhancing reliability (i.e. accuracy and repeatability) which have been developed since her days, but the principle is identical. The third stage was the progressive re-structuring of the environment and/or materials. Towards the end of her career she re-stressed this transformational aspect of research. In the Discovery of the Child (Clio 1988 ed. p.34) she wrote that a scientific education based on objective research should be able to transform normal children. Action research is thus effectively the fundamental Montessori approach to making education scientific. Action research is also at the heart of the new Montessori foundation degree course. The first cohort of graduates at the Kent & Sussex Montessori Centre researched topics such as:

How best to convert a car-park in an inner-city Montessori school into an outside area/garden for the children; Reactions to a questionnaire for prospective parents; Mark-making in relation to the Montessori approach to early literacy; Developing a partnership with the local authority in setting up free-flow between the inside and outside environments; Establishing a forum for parents to develop ideas on how to make a greater contribution to the running of a pre-school; Writing and evaluating a picture book for children about the nursery, to inform them before starting and reinforce their attendance after (for example) the long summer break. The value of this research is not only the actual facts which are discovered, but also the development of an attitude of enquiry and reflection which is implicit in the process of being an action researcher. The action researcher asks her/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 process can be very revealing and lead to a much greater degree of professionalism. But, of course, most importantly it focuses the attention of the researcher on meeting the needs of the children. The EYFS requirement to always have regard to the interests of the child is of enormous significance in this context. And in systematically following the childs interests we will find ourselves transforming both the childs environment and ourselves. This is the authentic Montessori approach to research.

11

(2010, April). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.95; p.37. Sometimes research just confirms what we, 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 hard data to back up a point of view. A case in hand is the value of children undertaking real tasks (possibly via the Practical Life Exercises) rather then just role-playing. Markella Rutherford, an associate professor of Sociology in Massachusetts, has just completed a study of parenting magazines entitled Childrens Autonomy and Responsibility: an analysis of child rearing advice. On the basis of her study she commented that in earlier generations, children... were given meaningful opportunities to be responsible... This helps them develop a caring attitude and keeps them grounded. Another case is some recent research into the effects of smacking children. Lisa Berlin and her colleagues at Duke University, North Carolina, studied 2,573 toddlers of ages 1, 2 and 3 years. They found that spanking at age 1 predicted more aggressive behaviour at age 2 and lower mental developmental scores at age 3, although this was moderated by social factors and verbal punishment was not found to have the same effect. Another study at Duke (Lansford, 2009) looked at the effects of physical punishments from age 5 upwards She found a clear link between ongoing physical discipline and teenage aggression. The whole question of discipline is a difficult one. On the one hand, no-one wants to return to the bad old days when some sociallyaccepted childrens punishments were clearly abusive by contemporary standeards. On the other hand, the relaxation of parental discipline has not usually been replaced with any conception of self-discipline and so we have a spoilt generation to borrow the title of Dr Aric Sigmans new book. He sees authority (not the same as punishment) as fundamental. His solution is to curtail childrens rights because he feels that contemporary empowerment of children has not been accompanied by preparation for 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 thus pave the way for self-discipline. Dr. Sigman (who has contributed frequently to Montessori International magazine) has also been prominent in calling attention to the dangers of electronic media exposure to the very young. Research is gradually amassing that, at the very least, the brain is affected and altered in its functioning by the extensive use of electronic devices. Two recent studies have highlighted specific instances of this. Dr Heather Kirkorian and her colleagues at Massachusetts University studied the effects of having the TV on in the background in the home, the effect was to decrease both the quality and quantity of parent-child interactions. This, she stated, shows that background TV has negative consequences for child development. Professor David Nicholas recently presented details of his research on how children are accessing information. (BBC2 The Virtual Revolution 20th February 2010) He found they were flitting over the virtual landscape and not concentrating on a single source, e.g. reading a book. This is not automatically a bad thing, but it is very different way of learning. Baroness Greenfield, director of the Institute for the Future of the Mind, at Oxford, is one of many who are alarmed at these changes. She recently announced a new research initiative, entitled A Brain for Life, to gather hard data on these changes. She commented that her hypothesis is that young people may be at risk of losing the ability to gain real understanding. (see www.telegraph.co.uk/ education/7220021/Computers-in-schoolscould-be-doing-more-harm-than-good.html) Sometimes research does indeed confirm our existing understandings. However, to be balanced, does have to be admitted that some studies do (at least at first blush) appear to go against our approach. Dr Sebastion Suggate, during his Ph.D. research at Otago University, New Zealand, studied the effects of starting reading early and late (i.e. after 7 as in the Steiner schools). One international (using the PISA data), and two New Zealand studies showed clearly that there was no difference whatsoever in later achievement. Dr Sugate confessed he was surprised by his results, but suggested that later starters were better prepared through play and linguistic interactions with adults.

12

Perhaps a critical point here is one of readiness. Many children are not really ready to read until later and it is unfortunate that there is often parental pressure on the nurseries to provide that tuition. The point of reading is not just mechanical conveyance of information, it should also involve an induction into the joys and delights of books. Reading is, of course, the flip side of writing and Montessori saw that writing, the creative process, should preceded reading and prepare the ground for an explosion into reading at a point when the child was prepared and ready. It is thus, essentially, a creative process. Creativity itself is very much on the agenda. Ofsted have recently published a report on developing creativity. It is certainly needed. As Sir Michael Bichard, a former senior civil servant at the DfES and author of the report on the Soham child murders, commented at the North of England Education Conference in early January 2010 Sadly, too often our education system does educate people out of their creativity. Whether the Ofsted report will help is another question. Some national newspapers (and not the tabloids) reported that Ofsted had concluded that teachers should not allow children to follow their own interests. If you read the report that is not quite what is said, but it does lay a considerable emphasis on planning for creative activities. The question is whether creativity can be

planned for in that way. If you see creativity as purely free expression, then obviously not. However Montessoris own view was more subtle than that. She believed that you should first train the hand and eye, and only then give the children their freedom to express themselves creatively. She famously wrote that to confer the gift of drawing we must create an eye that sees, a hand that obeys, a soul that feels; and in this task the whole life must co-operate. In this sense, life itself is the only preparation for drawing. Once we have lived, the inner spark of vision does the rest. It is a shame that this understanding is not more widely disseminated, even in Montessori settings! References: Berlin, L. et al (2009, September). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African American and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development. Kirkorian, H. (2009). The impact of background television on parent-child interaction Child Development 80(5); 1350-9. Lansford, J.E. (2009). Trajectories of physical discipline: early childhood antecedents and developmental outcomes Child Development 80(5). Montessori M. (1965) The Montessori Elementary Material Cambridge MA, Robert Bentley

13

(2010, July). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.96; p.37. For Montessori, sensorial education was a central strand of her method. She noted that all information reaches us via one or other of the senses and thus reasoned that training the senses would refine the intelligence generally. This was one of the points which was attacked by the leading Froebelian, Professor Kilpatrick in his influential 1914 critique of Montessori which was a major factor in the demise of Montessori in the U.S.A. in the early years of this century. The evidence for what is called transfer of learning (i.e. the idea that training in one area can lead to improvement in a different area - an assumption of methods like Brain Gym) is generally agreed to be very weak (with the possible exception of music). As a direct result of this, the value of the Montessori sensorial didactic materials is nowadays generally phrased in terms of, firstly, preparation for early maths (sequencing, shape, etc.) and, secondly, pre-skills for early literacy (pincer grip, left to right directionality, etc.) The case may also be made for the materials promoting concentration and thus leading to normalization. However, recent research suggests this may not be the whole story. Professor Burkhart Fischer, director of the Optomotor Laboratory of the University of Freiburg, has been researching dyslexia (and more latterly dyscalculia) for the past 15 years. It appears that the many of the problems are not with the senses themselves, ears & eyes often function just like other childrens, but rather with the way the brain processes the information. His team has developed a series of targeted exercises to develop these mental skills - effectively a programme of sensorial education. They have concentrated on some very specific skills. Saccading is the way the eye rapidly makes tiny movements to scan complex sources (like a page of print) in order to build up a detailed picture, as usually only a very small part of the field of view is seen in detail. We are not aware of this going on, but dyslexics often have reduced saccading. The remedial tasks involve using a computerised system to project moving images and also to track the eye movements and adjust the task. Subtizing is the knack of recognizing quantities without actually counting, a sort of sensorial awareness of number. Dyscalculic children often show a reduced ability here, and the team has also developed computerised skill development programs. The results have now been published and show positive effects after a 3 week training course, and also that the positive effect appears to persist long-term . The team have also shown that phonological training has a positive effect. This work is focused on children with particular problems, but it may be that the ideas are also of value to all children. After all, Montessori developed her sensorial programme from Seguins work, which was specifically designed for deaf children. Co-incidentally, whilst this article was being written, the Times Educational Supplement published a story (Rogers, 2010) about a school where one class will enjoy a peppermint aroma while they work and another will have a constant background noise of running water and rustling leaves. It is difficult not to conclude that they have totally misread the script, but watch this space to see what happened. Research into special needs is providing other insights into the senses. People on the autistic spectrum are often assumed to have deficits in their cognitive processing and social skills. However, recent work at UCL (Remington, 2009), also using computerised tasks, measured how distractibility varied with task-complexity the results suggest that autistic spectrum subjects are actually much more able to process large amounts of sensory information. Such enhanced skill is not exactly an advantage in our society, being able to make small talk is seen as a more valuable attribute than being able to remember an entire train timetable. However, this new understanding (that autism is at least in part a social construct) may lead to the development of sensorial training exercises. At the very least it confirms just how important the senses are to learning. At the MSA conference in London in 2007, Claire Healy spoke about a new attitude to error and how making and self-correcting errors is central 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 learning the material (and thus making many mistakes) was more beneficial to learning than taking the test after the learning had taken place. They

14

suggest that pre-testing challenges the learner who is then more active in directing their attention to problem-solving. Getting the wrong answer is much more useful than just studying, provided (and this is a vital caveat) the correct answer is available shortly afterwards. Does this not tie in with the Montessorian concept of control of error and the idea of auto-education in general? On a totally different topic, everyone must now be aware of the benefits of the natural environment, not just Montessorians. However, a meta-analysis (a study of studies, i.e. putting the findings of several researches together to get more reliable results,) by Jo Barton and Jules Pretty (2010) at Essex University has shown that as little as five minutes of green exercise has positive effects. They studied various age-groups, for young children the positive was mainly in self-esteem. For the middle-aged, the effect was more marked in mood. The researchers found no great difference between urban open spaces and woodland, but waterside habitats showed a greater change. The biggest change of all was with mentally-ill patients, but they showed benefits with all subjects, and, unless it was a whole-day outing, short

and not over-vigorous activity was best. This is a dose we could all take. References: Barton, J. and Pretty, J. (2010). What is the best bose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 3947-3955. Fischer, B. et al (2008). Effects of daily practice on subtizing: visual counting and basic arithmetic skills. Optometry and Vision Development 39(1) 30-34. Kilpatrick K.H. (1914) The Montessori system examined New York, Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, D. (2010, April 23). Primary pumps sounds and smells into year 6 classes to bid to improve results. Times Educational Supplement. Remington, A. et al (2009). Selective attention and perceptual load in autistic spectrum disorders Psychological Science 20(11) 13881393. Richland, L.E. et al (2009). The pre-testing effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? J. Experimental Psychology Applied 15(23) 989-998.

(2010, October). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.97; p.35.

There are a number of hot topics in psychology at the moment, and one of these is Executive Functions (EF). Typically there is no agreed definition of these, and even the name is contentious; some psychologists preferring the term Executive System, or Supervisory Attentional System (SAS). However there is general agreement on what EFs are, and their crucial importance especially in child development. EFs are, basically, the brain processes which underlie the conscious control of action and thought. That is rather vague, and almost every book on the subject has its own definition. Adele Diamond, professor of developmental cognitive neuroscience at the University of British Colombia who spoke at the Montessori Europe conference in Amsterdam, suggests that there are three main components to EF. The first is inhibitory control, otherwise known as self-control, which enables a child to resist an impulse and deliberately do something different and more appropriate to the situation. The second is working memory, the ability to hold something in mind whilst considering the 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 priorities. Obviously these are of critical importance for children with special needs (ADHD children lack inhibitory control, autistic spectrum children have reduced cognitive flexibility, etc.) and a great deal of research 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 acquisition for example. A.R. Luria, a Russian psychologist and disciple of Vygotsky who pioneered much of the research into EFs, was adamant (1966) that higher mental functions are complex, organized functional systems that are social in origin. This is now generally agreed. Diamond has even suggested that some of the recent explosion in ADHD diagnoses may be due to children not acquiring EF skills whilst very young. The implication one might draw is that what many (?all) of these children need then is not Ritalin but a differently structured environment. Some recent research has particularly highlighted the importance of the parents in the development of EFs. Annie Bernier of Montreal University

15

and her colleagues investigated (2010) whether EFs like impulse control, working memory & set shifting could be predicted from the quality of parent-infant interactions. They found that maternal sensitivity (or the quality of attachment), mind-mindedness (or the degree of awareness the mothers showed of their infants thought processes) and autonomy-support all correlated with the development of EFs. But by far the strongest factor was the extent to which the mothers supported the childrens own goals, choices and sense of volition (their will). Another study, by Claire Hughes & Rosie Ensor (2010 studied a socially diverse sample of 125 British children at ages 2 and 4. Their study confirmed a number of established points, like the importance of early individual differences in social understanding and the negative effects of harsh parenting. They also found that while EFs were not particularly related to positive parenting, they were very clearly linked to deliberate maternal scaffolding (in the sense of careful provision of experiences), childrens opportunities for natural observational learning and consistent parenting. This whole area of EFs is a fast-moving one. Much recent work has shown that childrens EF skills and what is called their theory of mind (the ability to appreciate that other people have individual minds and can make mistakes akin to Piagets idea of decentring) are very closely linked and may even be identical. This remains to be clarified, as does the question of exactly how many distinct EFs we have. However there are also some crucial lessons which can be learnt, and which correspond very closely with Montessori ideas. The first is, obviously, the crucial

importance of the early years. Then there are the positive effects of self-direction, autonomy or independence, learning through observation and consistency of direction. Does that ring any bells? We have known for some time that Montessori has profound social effects in adulthood (though the research evidence is not yet conclusive) but this latest research is beginning to show that Montessori-style approaches to young children have neurological effects too. Admittedly the research is mostly on families, but it is a reasonable assumption that schools & pre-schools would have similar effects. Brains, and mental abilities, are not fixed and what we do, research is now showing, makes a very considerable difference to the way that childrens brains work References: Bernie,r A. et al. (2010.) From external regulation to self-regulation: Early parenting precursors of young childrens executive functioning Child Development 81(1) 326339, available on http://psychology.uchicago.edu /academics/doctoral/developmental/Bernier%20C arlson%20Whipple%20IN%20PRESS.pdf Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. (2010) Do early social cognition and executive function predict individual differences in preschoolers' prosocial and antisocial behavior? in Sokol B.W. et al. (eds.) Self- and social-regulation: Exploring the relations between social interaction, social understanding, and the development of executive functions. Oxford: Oxford University Press Luria, A.R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.

16

(2011, January). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.98; p.37. There is no evidence for the Montessori concept of sensitive periods in humans, only in animals. claimed an eminent professor of psychology at a recent conference (not a Montessori one!) in Eastern Europe. Now it is true that a great deal of experimental work on sensitive periods has been carried out on rats, owls, monkeys and kittens - some of it (like a major series of experiments which involved blinding kittens) very dubious ethically. It is also true that there has been considerable confusion over the use of the terms sensitive period which is when development is exquisitely suited for a process (although it can be learnt with more difficulty later) and critical period which, when passed, cannot be remedied. However it is not true that there is no evidence from human development. Eric Knudson (professor of neurobiology at Stanford University, who has led a lot of the work on owls) reviewed the research on sensitive periods, from the perspective of economics and the need for early childhood intervention. Many specific neural processes have been shown to depend on sensitive periods, e.g. infant facial recognition (Pascalis, 2005) showed, by presenting infants with pictures of macaque monkey faces, that there is a sensitive period for face recognition between 6 and 9 months. One piece of research, (Schorr, 2005) with which Professor Knudson was associated personally, studied the ability to fuse sound and lip movements to interpret speech, which was shown to have a sensitive period up to 2 years by studying children of various ages who had cochlear implants to cure congenital deafness. He has also considered how gene switching is time-dependant (another way of saying there are sensitive periods for epigenetics) and discussed how the properties of many brain circuits have been shown to be particularly sensitive to the shaping influences of experience during early life He commented Although some capacity for plasticity persists in virtually all neural circuits throughout our lifetimes, many circuits are particularly susceptible to the influence of experience during sensitive periods as they are maturing (Knudsen, 2004) Work on early intervention has been carried out in Australia (Mifsud, 2005), using evidence that there is a sensitive period for susceptibility to anxiety and depression There is also much evidence of the effects of deprivation e.g. in Eastern European orphanages (Nelson, 2007) and, of course, there is a large amount of evidence for sensitive periods from studies of language acquisition and (easy, accent-free) second language acquisition. James Heckman (2007), professor of economics at Chicago University and a co-writer of Knudsons paper quoted above, noted (amongst many other things) that a child born with a cataract on the eye will be blind if the cataract is not removed within the first year of life and drew the conclusion that in both animal and human species there is compelling evidence of critical and sensitive periods in development. On another tack, I have sometimes noticed that research, which at first blush has no relation to Montessori education, or even any education, can be distinctly significant. One such example, from the Medical Research Council epidemiology unit in Cambridge, was a study of over 20,000 people who were given a genetic susceptibility obesity score. There was a correlation between the presence of genetic markers linked to weight gain and obesity, but the link was dramatically more pronounced in inactive individuals. In other words, no-one is born to be fat, it is a lifestyle choice. Similarly, there are undoubtedly genes which predispose people to anti-social or non-productive activities, but like the obesity genes it is not a life sentence. These genes are profoundly susceptible to the environment, and is the importance of the environment (particularly the early one) not an essential part of our understanding? Coming back to the educational sphere, there is a great deal in the Early Years Foundation Stage documentation which we all welcome and acknowledge as progressive and positively beneficial for all children. However, it is important not to make over-enthusiastic claims, like claiming there is no difference between Montessori and the EYFS. There are some profound differences, like (to take one example) the repeated claim in the EYFS that all childrens learning takes place through play. Nina Chien (2010) and her colleagues observed 2,751 children enrolled in state kindergartens in the U.S.A. They identified four main profiles of engagement in

17

children (free play, individual & group instruction, and scaffolded learning) and their findings are interesting. Poorer children flourished with individual instruction (as one might, perhaps, expect) and the Montessori approach was not included. However one result stood out, children all fared worst with free play. This is a warning to us all not to critically accept mainstream ideas on play and learning. There is another aspect of current mainstream thinking which also needs to be challenged. That is the assumption that effective learning requires targets to be set (and achievement measured). This is particularly explicated in the DfE guide Personalized Learning - A practical Guide where target setting is the second characteristic and the document states that The targets for 2011 will ensure that expected progress is maintained for all children... However, the evidence is that target-setting may itself be counter-productive. Professor Ibrahim Senay and his colleagues at Illinois University recently used an analysis of self-talk to study subjects ability to complete simple tasks. He found that if the volunteers were told to set themselves a target they performed significantly less well than if the subjects were told to set themselves a target than if they were just asked to think openendedly about the task. In other words, those who were asserting their will power (by determining to meet their targets) were effectively closing their minds to any creative possibilities in the task, and thus cutting themselves off from being intrinsically motivated. Looked at like that, it is obvious that targets will reduce success. The common theme from these disparate pieces of research? Dont accept received wisdom or expert opinion without question.

Think, explore, challenge. Keep your mind open to all sorts of possibilities! References: Chien, N. et al. (2010). How do different kinds of classroom engagement affect childrens school readiness gains in Pre-Kindergarten? Child Development 81(5); 1534-1549. Nelson III C.A., et al (2007). Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Science 318(5858); 937-1940. Heckman, J.J. (2007). The economics, technology and neuroscience of human capability formation. 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, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building Americas future workforce Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 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 face processing in infancy. PNAS 102(14); 5297-5300. Schorr, E.A. et al (2005). Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants PNAS 102(51):18748-18750. Senay, I. (2010). Motivating goal-directed behaviour through introspective self-talk: the role of the interrogative form of future tense. Psychological Science 21(4) 499504.

18

(2011, April). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.99; p.39. Sometimes research throws up some truly unexpected results. A case in point was when researchers from a pharmaceutical firm, Immodulon Therapeutics based in London, tried injecting terminally-ill lung cancer patients with a live culture of Mycobacterium Vaccea. It was already known that M. vaccae primed the immune system, but the double-blind trial revealed that the treated group experienced a remarkable boost in attitude and mood. Infections can have devastating effects on mental functions, especially in the very young and the old, as I was made aware a few years ago when an elderly relative developed a UTI and rapidly became apparently psychotic. However, this is the first time that a positive effect of infection has been demonstrated. Graham Rook, of the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London, has hypothesized that one reason why depression is becoming an epidemic is that people are no longer routinely exposed to M. vaccae in our increasingly anti-septic environment. So will we have a happiness injection soon? Really I hope not, but this research emphasizes the importance of exposure to nature, and to happy people. Have you ever noticed that the calmness of the Montessori classroom sometimes appears to be catching? Perhaps this is more than just imitation. Another area of research which proved surprising (but which probably should not have done) is the whole area of brain plasticity. Brain plasticity (or neuroplasticity or cortical re-mapping) refers to the brains ability to change its neurons (nerve cells) and their organizational networks. Until fairly recently it was a general assumption in brain science that the adult brain was relatively fixed. This was based in part on research into critical periods (such as Hubel & Weisels classic experiments on kittens) which seemed to show that once brain function had been fixed that was pretty well immutable, except perhaps in very young children. Paul Bachy-Rita began to question this when his elderly father, who had a serious stroke years before, was nursed and trained back to competence by Pauls brother and then, at the post-mortem, he discovered that the original damage was absolutely massive. Initially Bach-y-Ritas 1967 work was rejected but eventually it was published abroad. He had by then re-discovered Shepherd Ivory Franks 1920s work on late recovery from stroke, and also Fleurens experiments in the 1840s when he showed that removing large parts of birds brains totally incapacitated them, but the functions could be recovered after a lapse of time (a year or more). This area of brain plasticity is now a live field of research, with considerable implications for education - implications which have yet to be realis One of the great names in the filed is Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran, who is the former director of the Center for the Brain at the University of California and is wellknown for his work on phantom limbs and brain mapping, among other topics. The phenomenon of phantom limbs is when amputees can still feel pain, sometimes excruciating, from the removed limb. Professor Ramachandran and his wife showed (1966) that the pain could be relieved by an arrangement of mirrors whereby the brain could see the amputated limb - actually an illusion based on a reflection of the other limb - and by moving the phantom limb around the pain disappeared. This work showed that the mental map of the body, discovered by Penfield, can be easily modified. The brain is not fixed, it shows considerable plasticity. More remarkable cases can be found in the professors latest book entitles The Tell-Tale Brain. Another area is that of musics effect on the brain. It has been known for some time that long-term instrumental training has a structural effect on the brain, due perhaps to the intensity and multi-sensory aspects of the training. Recently Krista Hyde (of the Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University) and her colleagues from several institutions in North America, using MRI scans, have demonstrated (2009) that structural changes in the brain occur in early childhood after only 15 months of musical training. This confirms a study by Maureen Harris, creator of the Montessori Mozarts programme. She compared two randomly selected groups of Montessori children aged 3-5 years and one group had three half-hour music sessions for six months. She showed (2007) that even this little training had an effect on their development. Typically the musical 3 year olds had higher maths scores (on the TEMA-3 test) than the 5 year olds She only tested this one feature but presumably there was

19

a more general effect. Clearly brain plasticity has immediate and practical implications. This effect of musical training has not yet percolated through to a more general awareness. A team from three Canadian universities (LeFevre, 2010) have just completed a study of the precursors to mathematical performance in young children They identified three independent cognitive pathways which contribute to early pre-school mathematical skills. These were a linguistic pathway - used for remembering numerical bonds, for example - a quantitative pathway - used for comparing sizes or amounts - and a spatial awareness pathway. Incidentally do note that these are all fundamental to Montessori maths. However there is no mention of the importance of musicality. Music does not take a prominent role in many Montessori settings, perhaps it is time this changed?

Harris M. (2007). Differences in mathematics scores between students who receive traditional Montessori instruction and students who receive enriched Montessori instruction. J. for Learning through the Arts 3(1) available online from the University of California site. Hyde, K.L. et al (2009). The effects of musical training on structural brain development: a longitudinal study. Annals of the New York Acad. of Sc. 1169; 182-186 LeFevre, J.-A. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development 6: 1753-1767. Ramachandran, V.S. (2010). The tell-tale brain: A neuroscientists quest for what makes us human. London: Heinemann. Ramachandran, V. S. & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors Proc. Biol. Sci. References 263(1369): 377-386) Bach-y-Rita, P. (1967). Sensory plasticity: Appli- Rook, G.A.W. & Lowry, C.A. (2008). The hycations to a vision substitution system. Acta giene hypothesis and psychiatric disorders. Neurologica Scandinavica 43: 417-426). Trends in Immunology 29: 150-158)

(2011, July). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.100; p.395. Who can have missed the newspaper coverage of the subject of bankers' bonuses recently? Or have been appalled and repulsed by the obscene size of them - especially as it was the banking sector which brought us so near to financial meltdown. And still the bonuses are being paid! Admittedly they are smaller percentages, but most banks have quietly doubled basic salaries to compensate. The effects of such bonuses (rewards) are well publicised. They lead to short-term thinking (boosting immediate profits to maximise the next bonus), sometimes actual dishonesty, insider trading and market manipulation by spreading false rumours, stifling of creativity and collaboration with colleagues, lavish & unnecessary entertainment of clients (whose feedback helps determine bonus size) and reckless gambling. And yet despite all this, the efficacy of rewarding executives to boost motivation goes unquestioned. It is 40 years since Edward Deci's groundbreaking research with undergraduates, followed up 2 years later in 1973 by Mark Lepper's wellknown study with preschoolers, which established not only that rewards are ineffective but that they actually de-motivate. Both found that rewards make children less likely to choose an activity once the reward was withdrawn. Dr. Deci - a professor of Social Science at Rochester University, Michigan, who has made a lifetime study of human motivation enlightened by SelfDetermination Theory - subsequently carried out a meta-analysis (a survey and combination of 128 other research studies) which strongly confirmed the earlier findings. The message has not yet reached the majority of teachers though. It is often said that it takes half a century for really novel research results to impact on everyday practice. So long for the old-timers to have moved on! Incidentally, an excellent and very readable introduction to Deci's ideas is his 1996 Penguin book Why We Do What We Do: an introduction to self-motivation. The latest research on the inefficiency of rewards comes from the field of health care.

20

There have been a series of studies into the topic at Baylor College of Medicine, Texas. In the latest, a group of primary care clinics were incentivised (i.e. given bonuses) to increase the uptake of immunisation and smear tests. They did show an increase, but then the researchers (Gavagan, 2010) found that giving no bonus at all had exactly the same effect. This was a follow up to an earlier meta-study in 2006 by Laura Peterson. She found that the evidence was really quite weak (only one study found a strong effect for bonuses) but also there were unwanted side effects - like the existence of bonuses making doctor s less willing to take on difficult cases! These studies confirmed work based on a large-scale survey carried out at the University of Nottingham, UK, by Brian Serumaga and his colleagues. They surveyed 470,000 hypertension patients both before and after the introduction of an NHS bonus scheme. They found no discernible improvement in patient outcomes whatsoever. Serumaga commented "Having spent three years looking at the evidence of payment-for-performance, I am astonished at how weak the evidence is." Another topic that has hit the headlines fairly recently is the results of the latest Pisa research study. Pisa (the Programme for International Student Assessment) measures the success of schools in some 70 economically advanced countries, based on OECDadministered 2 hour tests given to some 500,000 15 year olds. Surveys were carried out in 2000, 20003, 2006 and 2009 and the results of the latest survey were published just before Christmas. The tabloids trumpeted the bad news that Britain's educational standards were officially below those of Estonia, Poland and Liechtenstein. Scores, for example, in reading 'plummeted' from 17th to 25th. Predictably, Coalition politicians seized on these results to highlight the shortcomings of the previous administration. The top countries, again, were Korea and Finland (despite their overall scores dropping) although the highest average scores of all came from Shanghai, but these were conflated into the whole of China. However, again predictably, the papers missed out a great deal of revealing detail. There was one table where we actually topped

the bill. Only 3% of UK students reported their schooling being hindered by bullying - compared with 29% in Finland for example. One reported conclusion was that competition was ineffective in raising standards. The authors found that whilst children in competitive schools did do better; overall - taking all the children into account - children do better in non-competitive societies. Some people have drawn attention to the cooperative model of Shanghai schools and there have been claims that the development of the free schools in Sweden has contributed to their fall in ranking. However the report suggests the fall may have more to do with Sweden's lax inspectorial system. Needless to say, the Pisa approach has some vociferous critics. It has been hugely influential with the government in the UK, drawing on a report from the global management consultancy, McKinsey, highlighted the importance of teachers. However, any ranking research must concentrate on selected indicators - and obviously these indicators are not Montessori. This has led to various critiques - Professor Stephen Heppell, for example, has claimed that "Pisa has been a huge distraction - a model of incrementalism and managerialism which has been fatal." Given this background, Pisa's finding that competition is not beneficial to children overall is all the more telling. References: Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best performing school systems come out on top McKinsey & Co., available from http://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/reports/SS O/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125; 627-668. Gavagan, T.F. et al. (2010). Effect of financial incentives on improvement in medical quality indicators for primary care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 23 (5): 622631. Petersen, L. et al. (2006). Does pay-forperformance improve the quality of health care?' Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (4); 265-272.

21

(2011, October). Research watch. Montessori International Vol.101; pp.33-34. Young children often appear to know the names of colours and numbers, and how often have you heard a proud parent boasting that their child knows them, and more? Tested objectively, though, it is often the case that the children cannot pick out the correct names without cues from the environment or the context. And this is often true of children up to the age of six (to the consternation of many adults!) Cognitive scientist Michael Ramscar at Stanford University in California has been investigating this (2010). Part of the issue is that we are all constantly surrounded by a kaleidoscope of colour variations. Learning names like cat or dog usually involves dealing with fairly unambiguous concepts. Colours merge into each other, when does a slightly yellowy red become a darkish orange? Add to that is the way we use colour adjectives. When children recognise, or use, phrases like the blue balloon or the red fire engine they are associating the colour name with the object, almost as if it is part of the name. That, incidentally, is why blind children can often respond correctly to colour questions. Ramscar tried introducing postnomial sentences (e.g. the balloon is red) and found measurable improvement in only fifteen minutes. Compare that with how we use the Three Period Lesson. Firstly the colours are isolated and unambiguous Secondly, you do not refer to red tablets etc., you say this is red (i.e. a postnomial construction.) Finally the children are encouraged to find the colours in their environment, further separating the concept from the context. If only everyone knew the secret! Part of the secret is that children have a far greater innate ability than we usually give them credit for. As an example of this, more and more examples of babys' understanding are coming to light. Professor Michael Siegal and his team at Sheffield University, working with colleagues in Australia and Japan (Slaughter, 2011) tested 18 month old toddlers. One group saw adults counting up to 6 fish out loud and pointing to them in turn, the other group saw adults similarly counting but pointing to and fro between only two of the fish. From the infants attention span (which was far greater for correct counting) Siegal inferred that they understood the idea of counting long before they could express it in language. This is not only a further example of the young childs native ability but it also casts some question on the common assertion that thought requires language. Another common claim about language is that that children learn languages better than adults, and this is often taken as evidence of their absorbent minds. Some research at Haifa University, Israel, has now called that into question. Researchers Sara Ferman and Avi Karni devised an experiment (2010) using a novel grammatical structure, where verbs operated differently if the subject was animate or inanimate. Adults performed consistently better than children. Pre-schoolers performed particularly badly. Subjects were not told the rule but left to find out for themselves. Children tend to use implicit learning, whereas adults, practised in explicit learning, soon spotted the rule. However there are questions as to whether social attitudes to adults (like not correcting their errors out of politeness) may have an important rule also. However, the study does raise interesting questions about a very widespread assumption about language acquisition. Another all-too-frequently asserted claim is that pre-schoolers need to be initiated into ICT as it is now such a pervasive part of society. Dr. Richard House of Roehampton University, who is perhaps best known as a leading light in the Open EYE campaign, recently (2011) fired off a broadside against the unthinking promotion of IT for pre-schoolers. It would be too easy to dismiss this as partisan, but his concerns have recently been echoed by no less an authority than Baroness Susan Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Oxford University and the former director of the Royal Institution, speaking at the Hay festival. She was not arguing for a complete ban, but an informed debate on an issue of real concern. She cited Daphne Baveliers 2010 review where they showed that the pervasion of technology is linked to changes in violence, distraction and addiction in children - though they do also review surprisingly positive evidence about enhanced learning as well. These changes are caused by physical alterations in the actual brain structure, for example Yuans work (2011) at Xidian

22

Universtiy in China. Montessoris oftenmisunderstood views on fantasy were triggered by her observation of some children who were trapped in a fantasy-induced fugue. What would she have made of the effects of todays ICT-exposure? What children really need is reality. Professor Greenfield commented that they should be provided with a 3D environment, not a 2D one. One of the features of Montessori cosmic education (and the cultural materials in general) is how they start with the larger picture and then fill in the details: rather than the usual mainstream approach of working outwards from the familiar. So, in Montessori, we would start with the globes and the Earth in space, in mainstream you would start with the local environment. There is an attraction about the idea of working from the known (e.g. the local area) to the unknown, however there are two major issues. One is that that does not give the scope for wonder and imagination that Montessori so valued. The other is that children are constantly learning, whether taught or not, and wrong ideas, once implanted, are extraordinarily hard to shift. Ullrich Ecker, a psychologist at the University of Western Australia, studied (2011) how students, told about an accident and then told that the information was untrue, were still influenced by the original version - even though the consciously knew the correct version. In a subsequent trial they were even warned about the persistence of error and yet it still influenced them! If adults cannot reject misinformation that they consciously know to be wrong, how will children - who have unwittingly picked up false ideas - be able to correct their schemas? That is why realism and an appropriate conception of the great schemes of things are so important. An appreciation of the larger themes is equally important for adults, especially those in charge of young children. One such theme is discipline or control. For us as Montessorians, the highest level of discipline for children to achieve is self-control. This emerges in childhood and naturally grows through life, but the differences between individuals self-control is considerable, as every directress will know. A team of researchers at Duke University, North Carolina, looked at the results of a variety of

measures of self-control in a group of 1037 New Zealand children taken in 1975 (when they were 2 or 3) and then every two years until 1982. Now the group are thirty-somethings, Terrie Moffitt revisited them to assess their health, financial stability and court records. There was a very clear link between poor self-control in the children and adult features like poor health generally, drug-dependency, single-parenthood, a criminal record and money problems. She surveyed the groups intelligences and socioeconomic status, showing there was no link there and she also surveyed results from a group of 509 Scottish twins to check if upbringing was a factor. Again the results showed that self-control was the major factor. This is another example of the critical importance of developing executive functions in childhood (described in the October 2010 issue of Montessori International) and it is something which Montessori does so well. We are not just following a formula, we are dramatically improving the life chances of our children when we aid them in the development of self-discipline. References: Bavelier, D. et al (2010). Children wired: for better or worse Neuron 67(5); 692-701. Ecker, U.K.H. et al (2011). Correcting false information: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bull. & Rev. 18(3); 570-578. Ferman, S. & Karni, A. (2010). No childhood advantage in the acquisition of skills in using an artificial language rule PLoS One 5(10); e13548. House, R. (2011). Techno-wars in the early years Nursery Management Today 10(4); 26. Moffitt, T.E. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth and public safety Proc. Nat. Acad Sc. 108(7); 2693-2698. Ramscar, M. et al (2010). The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science 34(6); 909957. Slaughter, V. et al (2011). Learning to count begins in Iinfancy; Evidence from 18 month olds visual preferences Proc. R. Soc. B 10.1098. Yuan, K. et al (2011). Microstructure abnormalities in adolescents with internet addiction disorder PloS One 6(6); e20708.

23

Index
Ability, childrens Action research Anxiety Art Autism Babies Bonuses Boredom Ceiling Colours Competition Computers Concentration Co-operation Cosmic education Creativity Curriculum, state Development, moral Development, planes of Diet Discipline Dyslexia Electronic media Environment, early years Environment, natural Error Executive function Experience, early years Fantasy Gene / genetics Gifted children Hand ICT Language Learning Mapping the brain Maternal drive 3 10 17 6 14 3 21 4 9 22 3, 21 3 5, 9 3 8 8, 13 4 3 6 9 12, 23 14 12 2, 9, 11 15 14, 23 5, 6, 15, 23 2 6 4, 17 8 6 22 22 5, 14, 15, 22 19 8 Mathematics Memory Music/ /musicians Myths Neurons / neural paths Numbers Obesity Observation Parents / parenting Personalized learning Physical activity PISA Plasticity, brain Play Potential Quality, of nurseries Readiness Reading Reality Research, issues Responsibility Rewards Scientific Self-construction Self-control Sensitive periods Stimulation, overStory telling Targets Television Tests/testing Theory of mind Three Period Lesson Time, childrens own Transfer,of learning Views, open 7, 20 15 4, 19 6 5, 17 22 9, 17 10, 11 15, 16 2 6 21 19 17 3 7 13 12, 21 22 7 12 20 10 5 5, 15, 23 17 9 6 18 7, 9, 12 3, 4, 7 16 22 4 14 9

24