Beyond executive functions, creativity skills benefit academic outcomes: Insights from Montessori education


Autoři: Solange Denervaud aff001;  Jean-François Knebel aff003;  Patric Hagmann aff004;  Edouard Gentaz aff001
Působiště autorů: The Center for Affective Sciences (CISA), Campus Biotech, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland aff001;  Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (FAPSE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland aff002;  The Laboratory for Investigative Neurophysiology (The LINE), Department of Radiology and Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne (CHUV-UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland aff003;  Connectomics Lab, Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne (CHUV-UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225319

Souhrn

Studies have shown scholastic, creative, and social benefits of Montessori education, benefits that were hypothesized to result from better executive functioning on the part of those so educated. As these previous studies have not reported consistent outcomes supporting this idea, we therefore evaluated scholastic development in a cross-sectional study of kindergarten and elementary school-age students, with an emphasis on the three core executive measures of cognitive flexibility, working memory update, and selective attention (inhibition). Two hundred and one (201) children underwent a complete assessment: half of the participants were from Montessori settings, while the other half were controls from traditional schools. The results confirmed that Montessori participants outperformed peers from traditional schools both in academic outcomes and in creativity skills across age groups and in self-reported well-being at school at kindergarten age. No differences were found in global executive functions, except working memory. Moreover, a multiple mediations model revealed a significant impact of creative skills on academic outcomes influenced by the school experience. These results shed light on the possibly overestimated contribution of executive functions as the main contributor to scholastic success of Montessori students and call for further investigation. Here, we propose that Montessori school-age children benefit instead from a more balanced development stemming from self-directed creative execution.

Klíčová slova:

Attention – Cognition – Creativity – Children – Problem solving – Schools – Working memory – Schoolchildren


Zdroje

1. Puccio GJ, State University College at Buffalo. Center for Studies in Creativity. Creativity rising: creative thinking and creative problem solving in the 21st century. Buffalo, N.Y.: ICSC Press, International Center for Studies in Creativity; 2012. 144 p. p.

2. Grisay A, de Jong JH, Gebhardt E, Berezner A, Halleux-Monseur B. Translation equivalence across PISA countries. J Appl Meas. 2007;8(3):249–66. Epub 2007/09/07. 17804893.

3. Vygotsky L. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.

4. Piaget J. The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press; 1952.

5. Condliffe B, Quint J, Visher MG, Bangser MR, Drohojowska S, Saco L, et al. Project-Based Learning; A Literature Review. New York: 2017.

6. Montessori M. The Secret of Childhood. 1981 ed. New York: Ballantine; 1936.

7. Marshall C. Montessori education: a review of the evidence base. npj Science of Learning. 2017;2(1). doi: 10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7 30631457

8. Diamond A. Activities and Programs That Improve Children's Executive Functions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(5):335–41. Epub 2012/10/01. doi: 10.1177/0963721412453722 25328287; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4200392.

9. Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 WOS:000316383600007. 23020641

10. Diamond A. Want to Optimize Executive Functions and Academic Outcomes?: Simple, Just Nourish the Human Spirit. Minn Symp Child Psychol Ser. 2014;37:205–32. Epub 2014/11/02. 25360055; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4210770.

11. Lillard AS, Else-Quest N. The early years. Evaluating Montessori education. Science. 2006;313(5795):1893–4. Epub 2006/09/30. doi: 10.1126/science.1132362 17008512.

12. Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science. 2011;333(6045):959–64. Epub 2011/08/20. doi: 10.1126/science.1204529 21852486; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3159917.

13. Lillard AS, Heise MJ, Richey EM, Tong X, Hart A, Bray PM. Montessori Preschool Elevates and Equalizes Child Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1783. Epub 2017/11/23. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783 29163248; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5670361.

14. Phillips-Silver J, Daza MT. Cognitive Control at Age 3: Evaluating Executive Functions in an Equitable Montessori Preschool. Frontiers in Education. 2018.

15. Rathunde K, Csikszentmihalyi M. Middle School Students’ Motivation and Quality of Experience: A Comparison of Montessori and Traditional School Environments. American Journal of Education. 2005;111(3).

16. Besançon M, Lubart T. Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences. 2008;18(4):381–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009

17. Mackinnon P. Studying students in Montessori schools. Science. 2007;315(5812):596–7; author reply -7. Epub 2007/02/06. 17278256.

18. Lindenfors P. Studying students in Montessori schools. Science. 2007;315(5812):596–7; author reply -7. Epub 2007/02/03. doi: 10.1126/science.315.5812.596b 17272701.

19. Lillard AS. Preschool children's development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. J Sch Psychol. 2012;50(3):379–401. Epub 2012/06/05. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001 22656079.

20. Genoud PA. Indice de position socioéconomique (IPSE): un calcul simplifié: Fribourg University; 2011 [cited 2015]. Available from: http://www3.unifr.ch/cerf/fr/indice-de-position-socioéconomique.html.

21. Raven J, Raven JC, Court JH. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 2: The Coloured Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 1998.

22. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non- search task. Perception and Psychophysics. 1974;16:143–9.

23. Wechsler D. WISC-IV Echelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants et adolescents. 4th ed: ECPA; 2005.

24. Lecocq P. L’E.Co.S.Se: une épreuve de compréhension syntaxico-sémantique. Lille1996.

25. Gentaz E, Sprenger-Charolles L, Theurel A, Cole P. Reading comprehension in a large cohort of French first graders from low socio-economic status families: a 7-month longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78608. Epub 2013/11/20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078608 24250802; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3826761.

26. von Aster M. ZAREKI-R Batterie pour l’évaluation du traitement des nombres et du calcul chez l’enfant.: ECPA; 2005.

27. Simonart G. ECHAS; échelle d’apprentissages scolaires primaires2008.

28. Buss AH, Plomin R. Temperament: Early developing personality traits. London: Psychology Press; 1984. 196 p.

29. Lubart T, Besançon M, Barbot B. EPoC: Evaluation du potentiel créatif des enfants. France: Hogrefe 2011.

30. Yuen KK. The two-sample trimmed t for unequal population variances. Biometrika. 1974;61:165–70.

31. Selker R. Simple Mediation and Moderation Analysis https://github.com/raviselker/medmod2017. Package].

32. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. Epub 2001/06/08. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 11392867.

33. Rosenman R, Tennekoon V, Hill LG. Measuring bias in self-reported data. Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011;2(4):320–32. Epub 2011/10/01. doi: 10.1504/IJBHR.2011.043414 25383095; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4224297.

34. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 WOS:000088656100002. 10945922

35. Lawson GM, Hook CJ, Farah MJ. A meta-analysis of the relationship between socioeconomic status and executive function performance among children. Dev Sci. 2018;21(2). Epub 2017/05/31. doi: 10.1111/desc.12529 28557154; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5821589.

36. Barker JE, Semenov AD, Michaelson L, Provan LS, Snyder HR, Munakata Y. Less-structured time in children's daily lives predicts self-directed executive functioning. Front Psychol. 2014;5:593. Epub 2014/07/30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00593 25071617; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4060299.

37. Thompson-Schill SL, Ramscar M, Chrysikou EG. Cognition without control: When a little frontal lobe goes a long way. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18(5):259–63. Epub 2009/01/01. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01648.x 20401341; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2855545.

38. Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA. Learning versus performance: an integrative review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):176–99. Epub 2015/04/25. doi: 10.1177/1745691615569000 25910388.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11