1. Montessori and Normalization in Private Schooled Kindergarteners
By Katie Schutze

2. Who is Maria Montessori?
Lived from
Born in Ancona, Italy
Italy’s first ever female physician
Interested particularly in mentally handicapped children when first beginning her career
Inspired by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Edouard Séguin, and Friedrich Froebel, who all in turn had very Rousseauian views
In 1907, she established a school for poor children, and during her time there her theories truly started to develop
Source: Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (pp )

3. Important Ideas
Sensitive Periods: Specific time periods in a child’s development during which the child is more inclined toward and better able to perform certain tasks.
There are 5 sensitive periods: the sensitive period for order, the sensitive period for details, the sensitive period for the use of hands, the sensitive period for walking, and the sensitive period for language.
Montessori’s curriculum was built around the idea of sensitive periods, orienting the child’s school experience around the tasks of their current sensitive periods.
Source: Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (pp )

4. Important Ideas
Montessori’s curriculum was based around the child’s capacity for mastery. However, it placed a much stronger emphasis on the child’s independence than a standard public school curriculum would: teachers did not strictly instruct the child in pre-determined subjects, instead giving children the means to pursue the tasks of their current sensitive periods while making sure that the child didn’t veer too far off-track from their learning. Teachers did this by providing tools for the children to practice tasks with that the children could freely choose between to use.
This gave children a large amount of freedom in how they learned. Children would be given choices of what tools to use that day based on their current sensitive periods, would pick a tool, and would use it until they were satisfied.
Source: Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (pp )

5. Normalization
Normalization is the process by which a child comes to master a task, moves on to a different, harder task, and continues to practice that task until they’ve mastered it, after which they proceed to another, harder task, and so on.
Montessori thought that children were naturally inclined toward pursuing their next developmental stage when given the choice to keep using tools appropriate for the current level or to use tools for the next level.
One of Montessori’s own examples of normalization came from one of her students, a young girl who was playing with a toy that required putting different sized wooden cylinders in different holes. Montessori noticed how focused the girl was, concentrating so hard on the toy that she wasn’t even fazed after Montessori picked up the girl’s chair, with her still sitting in it, and placed it on a table. After using the tool 42 times, the girl finally stopped, with Montessori noting that she looked very satisfied after she was done.
The girl had entered a state of deep concentration as she worked to master the tool, and only stopped using it when she had finally mastered it.
Source: Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius (pp ), Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (pp )

6. My Research Questions:
When given a series of progressively more difficult tasks, will a child, once having mastered the first task, progress to the second task or stay with the first, familiar task?
When struggling with a task, will students ask each other for help or try to get through it on their own?
In order to answer these questions, I had the children do puzzles of progressively harder difficulty.

7. Study Materials
8 24-piece puzzles with differing pictures (there was a pair of puzzles for every different picture, but there was a great variety of pictures overall)
Depicted the TV shows “Shimmer and Shine,” “Blaze and the Monster Machines,” and two different “Paw Patrol” puzzles, one aimed at girls and the other at boys
4 48-piece puzzles with differing pictures (there was a pair of puzzles for every different picture, but there was a great variety of pictures overall)
Depicted the TV shows “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and ”Spongebob Squarepants”
4 100-piece puzzles (two of the puzzles had the same picture)
Simply depicted dog photos

8. Participants
6 children total participated in this study, all from a kindergarten class at a local private Catholic school.
2 boys and 4 girls
On the first day, only 4 participated – 2 boys and 2 girls
On the second and third day, 2 more girls joined the project
All of the students participated in the project at the same time and were allowed to converse with each other
In order to maintain anonymity, the students’ names were omitted, only being given labels based on their gender such as B1, G2, etc.

9. Study Procedure This experiment took place over 3 consecutive days.
On the first day, I gave each of the 4 participants a 24-piece puzzle to begin with. I then observed how quickly they completed their puzzles, and once their puzzles were completed, I allowed them to choose between doing another puzzle of the same difficulty or a slightly harder puzzle with 48 pieces. Once a child completed a 48 piece puzzle, I gave them the option to do another 48 piece puzzle or to do a 100 piece puzzle. I kept this setup across all three days, though it was only the first day during which all the children started with the same number of pieces.
The goal here was to see if these children, who attended a private school instead of a Montessori school, would follow Montessori’s theory of normalization.

10. Study Procedure Continued
There was one session held per day, with each session being both at a different time of day and being a different length of time: Session 1 was 10 minutes long and took place in the afternoon, Session 2 was 41 minutes long and took place in the morning, and Session 3 was 30 minutes long and took place in the afternoon.
The children were allowed to take breaks for water and to go to the bathroom, though the entire session had to be paused when these breaks occurred – some students still continued their puzzles during these breaks despite being told not to, however.
Students were allowed to converse with each other, though I did attempt to get them back on track a few times.
In order to more properly simulate a Montessorian classroom environment, I mostly left the children to themselves and simply observed their behavior while occasionally attempting to keep them on track.
The children were not allowed to ask me for help on the puzzles
The children were allowed to ask each other for help
Children were allowed to go back to an easier puzzle if they found the one they were currently working on too difficult

11. Day 1 Data Student Number Gender Age Number of Puzzles by End
Piece order
Behavior Notes
Observer's Interpretation
Additional Information/Comments B1 M 5
On 2nd
24, 24
Said the puzzle was easy after saying it was hard
 As he got further into the puzzle, B1 felt a stronger sense of mastery, prompting him to say the puzzle was easy despite earlier saying it was hard B2 6
On 1st 24
Distracted by time concerns; given an incentive in a snack once he's done
 Behavior that you would most likely not find in a Montessori student, being very concerned that rules fall into a pre-established “set” as opposed to independently deciding how to go about his actions G1 F G2
Fastest worker - finished her first puzzle in less than 5 minutes; not as talkative as the other participants
Because she wasn’t talking, that allowed her to concentrate more intently on mastering the puzzle, which is a component of normalization
Mostly completed on second

12. Day 1 Data Continued Notes About Day 1 Conditions:
10-minute time limit
Afternoon
Some of the puzzles were of shows outside a subject's gender demographic; for example, B2 was given a "Shimmer and Shine" puzzle to start with, so being given a "girl's" puzzle may have made him less interested 
B1 and G2 were the only ones to complete a puzzle within the time limit
The kids were aware of the time limit
I came near the end of the day, and the kids were missing snack time, so they may have been distracted because they were looking forward to going home and were worried about missing snack time

13. Day 2 Data
(Note: At 34:26, I paused the project and asked everyone if they wanted different puzzles, which is what the “restart” is)
Student Number
Gender
Age
Number of Puzzles by End
Piece Order
Behavior Notes
Observer's Interpretation
Additional Information/Comments B1 M 5
On third when restarted, after which he was given a harder puzzle, so he finished two but had four total
24, 24, 24, 48
Finished on a puzzle with a higher difficulty than he finished with the day before
Chose the harder puzzle not because of the difficulty, but because it was of Spongebob Squarepants B2 6
Finished two by the restart point, after which he was given a third
24, 24, 24
Very talkative, easily distracted; finished on a puzzle with the same difficulty as he finished with the day before G1 F
Completed one puzzle, was on the second at restart, and was put on a third one post-restart
24, 48, 24
Talks to G4 often; finished on a puzzle with the same difficulty as she finished with the day before G2
Completed three total; was on her third when the restart happened, so she didn't finish her third, but she finished her first puzzle, technically her fourth, after the restart
24, 48, 100, 24
Didn't talk as much to the other participants; finished on a puzzle with the same difficulty as she finished with the day before
Quiet, but quick G3
Completed one total; was on her second at restart though she didn't finish it, and after he restart she went back to an easier one but didn't finish it, so she worked on three puzzles but only finished one
Didn't talk as much to the other participants
Quiet, but slow worker
New participant G4
Completed two total; was on her third by restart, after which she gave up and asked for an easier (though still mid-level) puzzle, so she worked on four puzzles but only finished two
24, 48, 100, 48
Talked a lot, but also worked quickly
Perhaps best example of normalization in the group, as she went through a steady difficulty progression and when she realized she wasn’t ready for 100 pieces she went back to finish mastering the 48 piece puzzle

14. Day 2 Data Continued Notes About Day 2 Conditions:
41-minute long session
Morning
Restarted at 34:26 after B1, B2, G1, G2 and G4 asked for different puzzles, all of them easier puzzles except for B1, who went for a harder puzzle because it had Spongebob Squarepants, a show he liked, on it
Kids were often particular about the shows on the puzzles they wanted, though they were fine when they didn't get the show they wanted
Time limit wasn't set when I sat down, so the kids didn't initially have a specific time limit they were pressured to meet
The puzzle pieces got mixed up at several points, hindering the process

15. Day 3 Data Student Number Gender Age Number of Puzzles by End
Piece Order
Behavior Notes
Observer's Interpretation
Additional Information/Comments B1 M 5
On 2nd at the end; finished 1
48, 48
Finished on a puzzle with the same difficulty as he finished with the day before
Had to do the same puzzle twice in a row due to lack of materials B2 6
On the 2nd at the end; didn't finish first one, and went to an easier one at 10 minutes
48, 24
Talkative, inquisitive G1 F
On the third at the end, though she didn't finish any of them
100, 48, 24
Managed to put together a few pieces of the 100 piece puzzle before giving up
Finished on a puzzle with the same difficulty as she finished with the day before G2
On 2nd by the end, though she finished her first
 Quiet, though talked a little more this time to the other kids
Finished on a harder puzzle than she finished with the day before G3
Gave up on her first, finished her second (though I gave her one piece of advice for her to finish)
Near the end, I gave her a small piece of advice without realizing it; though minor, it technically made a small impact on her overall performance G4
Worked on 3, finished her second, but the only one she finished was the second
100, 48, 48

16. Day 3 Data Continued Notes About Day 3 Conditions:
Each child was given a puzzle one level above where they ended at the last session
The kids were allowed to go to an easier puzzle if they found their current puzzle too hard, but they had to try on their given puzzles first; at the end of ten minutes, I asked them if they wanted to change
Kids kept saying how hard the puzzles were
At 10 minutes, some of the kids switched to easier puzzles
The kids were often distracted because they kept talking to each other
30-minute time limit, though the kids weren't told how much time they had initially
Afternoon
B1 was, by mistake, not given a puzzle higher than where he left off on Day 2
Children had more room to do the puzzles than they had on Days 1 and 2

17. So What Does the Data Mean?
G2 and G4 showed the most progression, though G4 showed slightly more than G2
Allowing the children to talk to each other more often resulted in distraction than it did in assistance
Kids tended to either stay on their current level or progress to a harder level, creating a fairly consistent progression or stagnancy in their behaviors
The consistency of the kids’ either staying on their own level or advancing reflects Montessori’s normalization, as the kids who rarely progressed stayed on the same difficulty puzzles in order to master them, and the kids who did progress had mastered their earlier puzzles
No one ever finished a 100 piece puzzle

18. Observer’s Overall Interpretation
The students overall seemed to follow a fair pattern of normalization, though the shows the puzzles depicted possibly had some influence on their progression choices over the piece amount; however, this would have been very minimal, as most of the time their choices were restricted to the piece count they initially requested
Talking with each other proved to be more of a hindrance than a help, as it distracted the students very much. This is possibly due to their age, and therefore the consequences of allowing peer assistance may not be as severe for older students

19. Issues With My Study:
Distractions abounded, whether it be the students talking with each other, other students coming out into the hall and interrupting, or even my own conversation distracting the students
On Day 2 especially, there were moments where the pieces of the puzzles got mixed up, thus taking up time as I put them back in order for the kids to use
Though I mostly abstained from offering assistance, I did give G3 advice at one point
A sample of only 6 students was not nearly enough
I should have used more puzzles so that there wouldn’t be a situation where a child would have to do the same puzzle twice or wait for a puzzle to become free to use
By mistake, B1 was given the same level puzzle as he had ended Day 2 with at the beginning of Day 3, when he should have been given a harder puzzle instead
Some children continued their puzzles when the timer was paused even though I specifically told them not to
Sometimes I based distributed puzzles on gender demographic and other times I didn’t; I should have been more consistent
Sometimes I asked the children what puzzles they wanted among the level they chose, while other times I just gave them a specific puzzle in the level they chose without letting them choose a specific one; I should have been more consistent

20. Conclusion
Even though the puzzles were much simpler than the tools Montessori would have used, the children did show some signs of normalization, though they were hindered by the distractions around them.
When allowed the opportunity to talk to each other during the experiment, the children used it more for conversation than they did for assistance.

21. Works Cited
Crain, William C. “Chapter 4: Montessori’s Educational Philosophy.”
Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, Print.
Lillard, Angeline S. “Chapter 3: Choice and Perceived Control.” Montessori:
The Science Behind the Genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Print.