Literature Reviews

Assessment

Download PDF
  1. Zoll, S., Saylor, L., & Ansari, A. (2023). Assessment in Montessori education. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Montessori Education, 219-229.
  2. Culclasure, B. T., Daoust, C. J., Cote, S. M., & Zoll, S. (2019). Designing a logic model to inform Montessori research. Journal of Montessori Research, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v5i1.9788
  3. American Montessori Society (2023). American Montessori Society 2023 School Accreditation Standards. https://amshq.org/-/media/Files/AMSHQ/Educators/Montessori-Schools/Accreditation/2023-AMS-School-Accreditation-Standards.ashx?la=en
  4. National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector (2023). NCMPS essential elements implementation rubric. http://bit.ly/2lYhPnS
  5. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
  6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). “Kappan classic”: Inside the black box—Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90.
  7. Randy Elliot Bennett rbennett@ets.org (2011) Formative assessment: a critical review, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18:1, 5-25, DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
  8. Dumont, H., Istance, D., Benavides, F., OECD, & Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Eds.) (2010). The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. OECD Publications.
  9. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2019). Implementing ESSA [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://principalsmonth.org/igx_temp/essa/ESSA_FactSheets.pdf
  10. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
  11. Matheny, K. T., Thompson, M. E., Townley-Flores, C., & Reardon, S. F. (2023). Uneven progress: Recent trends in academic performance among U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 60(3), 447–485. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221134769
  12. Ferguson, M. (2020). Washington View: What the NAEP reveals. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(5), 62-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720903832
  13. De Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701366207
  1. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091
  2. Hess, G. A. (2007). Accountability and Support in Chicago: Consequences for Students. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2002(1), 339–387. https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2002.0008
  3. Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2015). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n20.2012
  4. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act working? Policy Analysis for California Education.
  5. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high-stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302.
  6. Suchman, S. P. (2008). Montessori and No Child Left Behind: Strategic responses of public Montessori schools to the standards and testing requirements of NCLB. [Unpublished Qualifying Paper]. Cambridge, MA.
  7. Block, C. R. (2015). Examining a public Montessori school’s response to the pressures of high-stakes accountability. Journal of Montessori Research, 1(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v1i1.4913
  8. Gerker, H. E. (2023). Making Sense of Montessori Teacher Identity, Montessori Pedagogy, and Educational Policies in Public Schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 9(1), 1-15.
  9. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality. Teachers College Record (Vol. 106). Evanston, IL. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00375.
  10. National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, “Early Childhood Mathematics: Promoting Good Beginnings” (Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2010). Originally adopted in 2002.
  11. Debs, M. (2021). Diverse families, desirable schools: Public Montessori in the era of school choice. Harvard Education Press.

Adult-Child Ratios & Class Sizes

Download PDF
  1. Association Montessori International (2024). Standards for Montessori AMI classrooms. AMI USA. Retrieved March 29, 2024, from https://amiusa.org/schools/standards-for-ami-montessori-classrooms/
  2. Culclasure, B. T., Daoust, C. J., Cote, S. M., Zoll, S., & Ansari, A. (2019). Designing a logic model to Montessori research. In Journal of Montessori Research (Vol. 5, Issue 1).
  3. Lillard, A.S. (2017). Montessori: The science behind the genius (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  4. Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 1-30.
  5. Finn, J.D., & Achilles, C.M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557-577.
  6. Vermeer, H. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Cárcamo, R. A., & Harrison, L. J. (2016). Quality of child care using the environment rating scales: A meta-analysis of international studies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-015-0154-9
  7. Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 165–177.
  8. Mueller, D. J., Chase, C. I., & Walden, J. D. (1988). Effects of reduced class size in primary classes. Educational Leadership, 45, 48–50.
  9. Bowne, J. B., Magnuson, K. A., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socio-emotional outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489
  10. Perlman, M., Fletcher, B., Falenchuk, O., Brunsek, A., McMullen, E., & Shah, P. S. (2017). Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170256
  1. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Are resources important? (Testimony of Eric Alan Hanushek, March 11, 1996). The Journal of Negro Education, 66(3), 289. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967166
  2. Slavin, R. (1989). Class size and student achievement: Small effects of small classes. Educational Psychologist, 24(1), 99-110.
  3. Englehart, J. M. (2007). The centrality of context in learning from further class size research. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9039-7
  4. Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980600645396
  5. Lillard, A.S., Faria, A., LeBouef, L., & Borgman, C. (2024, June 24-26) When bigger looks better: CLASS results in public Montessori classrooms [Poster Presentation]. NRCEC 2024 Arlington, VA.
  6. Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.
  7. Krueger, A. & Whitmore, D. (2001). The effect of attending a small class in the early grades on college-test taking and middle school test results: Evidence from Project STAR. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper W7656. The Economic Journal, 111, 1–28.
  8. Hanushek, E. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 143–163.
  9. Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239–1285. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586924
  10. Stecher, B.M. & Bohrnstedt, G.W. (2000). Class size reductions in California: The 1998–99 evaluation findings. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Mixed-Age Classrooms

Download PDF
  1. Lillard, A. S. (2017). Montessori: The science behind the genius. Oxford University Press.
  2. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  3. Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A., Purtell, K., Bleses, D., & Højen, A. (2018). Does mixing age groups in early childhood education settings support children’s language development? Applied Developmental Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/ 10888691.2017.1386100
  4. Guo, Y., Tompkins, V., Justice, L., & Petscher, Y. (2014). Classroom Age Composition and Vocabulary Development among At-Risk Preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 25(7), 1016–1034.
  5. Winsler, A., Caverly, S. L., Willson-Quayle, A., Carlton, M. P., Howell, C., & Long, G. N. (2002). The social and behavioral ecology of mixed-age and same-age preschool classrooms: A natural experiment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(02)00111-9
  6. Yang, Q., Bartholomew, C. P., Ansari, A., & Purtell, K. M. (2022). Classroom age composition and preschoolers’ language and literacy gains: The role of classroom engagement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.01.001
  7. Wu, J., Lin, W., & Ni, L. (2022). Peer Interaction Patterns in Mixed-Age and Same-Age Chinese Kindergarten Classrooms: An Observation-based Analysis. Early Education and Development, 33(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1909262
  8. McClellan, D. E. (1997). Children’s social behavior in relationship to participation in mixed-age or same-age classrooms. [Paper presentation]. Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, 2017, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED418771
  9. Hojnoski, R. L., Margulies, A. S., Barry, A., Bose-Deakins, J., Sumara, K. M., & Harman, J. L. (2008). Analysis of two early childhood education settings: Classroom variables and peer verbal interaction. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 193–209.
  10. Randolph, J. J., Bryson, A., Menon, L., Henderson, D. K., Kureethara Manuel, A., Michaels, S., Rosenstein, D. L. W., McPherson, W., O’Grady, R., & Lillard, A. S. (2023). Montessori education’s impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3), e1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1330
  11. Lillard, A.S., & Eisen, S. (2017). Why Montessori is a facilitative environment for theory of mind: Three speculations. In Slaughter, V., & De Rosnay, M. (Eds.), Theory of mind development in context. (pp. 57-70). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  12. Ansari, A., & Pianta, R. (2019). Classroom age composition and the early learning of preschoolers. Journal of Educational Research, 112(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1514356
  13. Bell, E. R., Greenfield, D. B., & Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J. (2013). Classroom age composition and rates of change in school readiness for children enrolled in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.06.002
  14. Foster, T. J., Burchinal, M., & Yazejian, N. (2020). The Relation Between Classroom Age Composition and Children’s Language and Behavioral Outcomes: Examining Peer Effects. Child Development, 91(6), 2103–2122. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13410
  15. Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and Noncognitive Effects of Multigrade and Multi-Age Classes: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319-381. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065004319
  16. Ansari, A., & Purtell, K. M. (2018). Continuity and changes in classroom age composition and achievement in Head Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 58, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.07.002
  17. Moller, A. C., Forbes-Jones, E., & Hightower, A. D. (2008). Classroom age composition and developmental change in 70 urban preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013099
  18. Yang, Q., Zimmermann, K., Bartholomew, C. P., Purtell, K. M., & Ansari, A. (2023). Preschool Classroom Age Composition and Physical Literacy Environment: Influence on Children’s Emergent Literacy Outcomes. Early Education and Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2247953
  1. Preschlack, P. (2023). The Montessori potential: How to foster independence, respect, and joy in every child. Chicago Review Press.
  2. Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(OCT), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783
  3. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5
  4. Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic Benefits of Peer Tutoring: A Meta-Analytic Review of Single-Case Research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087490
  5. Leung, K. C. (2015). Preliminary empirical model of crucial determinants of best practice for peer tutoring on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 558–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037698
  6. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., Miller, T. R. (2003) Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240– 257 2003.
  7. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006) A meta-analytical review of social, self-concept and behavioural outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 4 937– 947 2006.
  8. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
  9. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001
  10. Cistone, P., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 5(1), 47–61.
  11. Franz, D. P., Thompson, N. L., Fuller, B., Hare, R. D., Miller, N. C., & Walker, J. (2010). Evaluating mathematics achievement of middle school students in a looping environment. School Science & Mathematics, 110(6), 298–308.
  12. Hill, A. J., & Jones, D. B. (2018). A teacher who knows me: The academic benefits of repeat student-teacher matches. Economics of Education Review, 64, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.004
  13. Judge, S., & Phillips, M. (2006). Does looping make a difference? The impact of preschool looping on child outcomes. NHSA Dialog, 9(1), 12–21.
  14. Wedenoja, Leigh, John Papay, and Matthew A. Kraft. (2022). Second time’s the charm? How sustained relationships from repeat student-teacher matches build academic and behavioral skills. (EdWorkingPaper: 22-590). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/sddw-ag22
  15. Baran, M. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perception of looping during the middle school years. International Journal of Learning, 17(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i08/47182
  16. Kraft, A. G., Matthew A. (2023, November 13). Teacher looping and the fine balance of pitching education reforms. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/teacher-looping-and-the-fine-balance-of-pitching-education-refforms/
  17. Purtell, K. M., & Ansari, A. (2018). Classroom age composition and preschoolers’ school readiness: The implications of classroom quality and teacher qualifications. AERA Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418758300
  18. Foster, T. J., Burchinal, M., & Yazejian, N. (2020). The relation between classroom age composition and children’s language and behavioral outcomes: Examining peer effects. Child Development, 91(6), 2103–2122. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13410
  19. Winsler, A. (1993). The social interactions and task activities of young children in mixed-age and same-age classrooms: An observational study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED356074.)

Teacher Preparation

Download PDF
  1. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005
  2. Sawchuk, S. (2011). EWA research brief: What studies say about teacher effectiveness. Washington DC: Education Writers Association. 1–6. Retrieved from: https://ewa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/teachereffectiveness.final.pdf
  3. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237
  4. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
  5. Wilson S. M., Floden R. E. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard questions. An addendum to the report “Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.” Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
  6. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes (pp. v–vii). Economic Policy Institute.
  1. Goe, L. (2007). The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes: A Research Synthesis. Washington DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
  2. Boyd, D., Goldhaber, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0000
  3. Jepsen, C. (2005). Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from teacher surveys. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(2), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2004.11.001
  4. Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615–631.
  5. Constantine, J., Player, D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., & Deke, J. (2009). An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification Final Report. Washington, DC: The Institute for Educational Sciences. www.edpubs.org.

Student Autonomy & Choice

Download PDF
  1. Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood (M.J. Costello, Trans.). New York: Ballantine.
  2. Lillard, A. S. (2017). Montessori: The science behind the genius. Oxford University Press.
  3. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. Deci, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 183-203). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
  4. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. doi:10.1023/B:MOEM. 0000032312.95499.6f
  5. Farran, D. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2015). Expectations of sustained effects from scaled up pre-K: Challenges from the Tennessee study. Evidence Speaks Reports, 1(3). Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/expectations-of-sustained-effects-from-scaled-up-pre-k-challenges-from-the-tennessee-study/ on March 28, 2018.
  6. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
  7. Espinosa, L.M. (2002) High-quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like, NIEER Preschool Policy Matters, Issue 1, November 2002. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/1.pdf
  8. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
  9. Borgman, C. M. (2021). Enacting accountability in innovative schools: The sensemaking strategies of public Montessori principals [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia]. LIBRAETD. https://doi.org/10.18130/v3-v7x1-a966
  10. Brown, K. (2015). Montessori programs in urban public schools: Policy and possibilities. (EDCI Policy Brief, February 2015) Urban Education Collaborative. University of North Carolina at Charlotte: Charlotte, NC.
  11. Suchman, S. P. (2008). Montessori and No Child Left Behind: Strategic responses of public Montessori schools to the standards and testing requirements of NCLB. [Unpublished Qualifying Paper]. Cambridge, MA.
  12. Basargekar, A., & Lillard, A. S. (2023). Motivation and self-determination in Montessori education. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Montessori Education, 261-270.
  13. Casquejo Johnston, L. M. (2016). Examining a Montessori Adolescent Program through a Self-Determination Theory Lens: A Study of the Lived Experiences of Adolescents. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(1), 27-42.
  14. Lillard, A. S. (2019). Shunned and admired: Montessori, self-determination, and a case for radical school reform. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 939–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09483-3
  15. Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2016). Learning environments and motivation. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation at School (2nd Ed., pp. 251-274). New York: Routlege.
  16. Patall, E. A., & Hooper, S. Y. (2017). The role of choice in understanding adolescent autonomy and academic functioning. In B. Soenens, S. Van Petegem, & M. Vansteenkiste (Eds.), Autonomy in adolescent development: Towards conceptual clarity (pp. 145–167). New York: Routledge.
  17. Katz, I., and Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429–442.
  18. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
  19. Cadima, J., Barros, S., Ferreira, T., Serra-Lemos, M., Leal, T., & Verschueren, K. (2019). Bidirectional associations between vocabulary and self-regulation in preschool and their interplay with teacher–child closeness and autonomy support. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.004
  20. Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 145–154. doi:10.1177/1477878509104319
  21. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychology, 39, 97110.
  22. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270
  23. Katz, I., and Assor, A. (2003). Is autonomy important for non-Western students? Examining autonomy as a universal human propensity. Paper presented at 84th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  24. Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries: Cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.007
  25. Lerkkanen, M. K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, et al. (2016). Child-centered versus teacher-directed teaching practices: Associations with the development of academic skills in the first grade at school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 145–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.023
  1. Reynolds, P. L., & Symons, S. (2001). Motivational variables and children’s text search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.14
  2. Kulakow, S. (2020). How autonomy support mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and approaches to learning. Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), 13–25.
  3. Gutman, L. M.; Sulzby, E. (2000). The role of autonomy-support versus control in the emergent writing behaviors of African-American kindergarten children. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(2), p. 170–184.
  4. Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in earl adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.
  5. Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of experimentally induced choice on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of indecisiveness and teacher–student relatedness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 188, 104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104692
  6. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804
  7. Meuwissen, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2019). An experimental study of the effects of autonomy support on preschoolers’ self-regulation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 60, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.10.001
  8. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57–68. doi:10.1348/ 000709908X304398
  9. Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 634–645.
  10. Mouratidis, A. A., Vansteenkiste, M., Sideridis, G., & Lens, W. (2011). Vitality and interest–enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and pupils’ autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022773
  11. Debs, M.C., & Brown, K.E. (2017). Students of color and public Montessori schools: A review of the literature. Journal of Montessori Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v3i1.5859
  12. Fleming, D. J., & Culclasure, B. (2023). Exploring public Montessori education: Equity and achievement in South Carolina. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2023.2283202
  13. Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
  14. Lillard, A. S., & Heise, M. J. (2016). Removing supplementary materials from Montessori classrooms changed child outcomes. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(1).
  15. Gerker, H. E. (2023). Making Sense of Montessori Teacher Identity, Montessori Pedagogy, and Educational Policies in Public Schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 9(1), 1-15.
  16. Brown, K., & Lewis, C. W. (2017). A comparison of reading and math achievement for African American third grade students in Montessori and other magnet schools. Journal of Negro Education, 86(4), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.4.0439
  17. Lillard, A. S., Taggart, J., Yonas, D., & Seale, M. N. (in press). An alternative to “No Excuses”: Considering Montessori as culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Negro Education.
  18. L. Snyder, A., Tong, X., & Lillard, A. S. (2022). Standardized test proficiency in public Montessori schools. Journal of School Choice, 16(1), 105–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2021.1958058
  19. Randolph, J. J., Bryson, A., Menon, L., Henderson, D. K., Kureethara Manuel, A., Michaels, S., Rosenstein, D. L. W., McPherson, W., O’Grady, R., & Lillard, A. S. (2023). Montessori education’s impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19, e1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1330