Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37554998›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2023

Montessori education's impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review.

Justus J Randolph, Anaya Bryson, Lakshmi Menon, David K Henderson, Austin Kureethara Manuel, Stephen Michaels, Debra Leigh Walls Rosenstein, Warren McPherson, Rebecca O'Grady, Angeline S Lillard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. A national randomized controlled trial of the impact of public Montessori preschool at the end of kindergarten.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Active inference goes to school: the importance of active learning in the age of large language models.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Justus J RandolphGeorgia Baptist College of Nursing Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
Anaya BrysonTift College of Education Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
Lakshmi MenonTift College of Education Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
David K HendersonTift College of Education Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
Austin Kureethara ManuelGordon T. & Ellen West College of Education Midwestern State University Texas USA.
Stephen MichaelsUniversity Libraries University of North Georgia Watkinsville Georgia USA.
Debra Leigh Walls RosensteinTift College of Education Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
Warren McPhersonAthens Montessori School Athens Georgia USA.
Rebecca O'GradyGeorgia Baptist College of Nursing Mercer University Atlanta Georgia USA.
Angeline S LillardDepartment of Psychology University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Montessori education is the oldest and most widely implemented alternative education in the world, yet its effectiveness has not been clearly established. Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of Montessori education in improving academic and nonacademic outcomes compared to traditional education. The secondary objectives were to determine the degree to which grade level, Montessori setting (public Montessori vs. private Montessori), random assignment, treatment duration, and length of follow-up measurements moderate the magnitude of Montessori effects. Search Methods: We searched for relevant studies in 19 academic databases, in a variety of sources known to publish gray literature, in Montessori-related journals, and in the references of studies retrieved through these searches. Our search included studies published during or before February 2020. The initial search was performed in March 2014 with a follow-up search in February 2020. Selection Criteria: We included articles that compared Montessori education to traditional education, contributed at least one effect size to an academic or nonacademic outcome, provided sufficient data to compute an effect size and its variance, and showed sufficient evidence of baseline equivalency-through random assignment or statistical adjustment-of Montessori and traditional education groups. Data Collection and Analysis: To synthesize the data, we used a cluster-robust variance estimation procedure, which takes into account statistical dependencies in the data. Otherwise, we used standard methodological procedures as specified in the Campbell Collaboration reporting and conduct standards. Main Results: Initial searches yielded 2012 articles, of which 173 were considered in detail to determine whether they met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of these, 141 were excluded and 32 were included. These 32 studies yielded 204 effect sizes (113 academic and 91 nonacademic) across 132,249 data points. In the 32 studies that met minimum standards for inclusion, including evidence of baseline equivalence, there was evidence that Montessori education outperformed traditional education on a wide variety of academic and nonacademic outcomes. For academic outcomes, Hedges' Authors' Conclusions: Montessori education has a meaningful and positive impact on child outcomes, both academic and nonacademic, relative to outcomes seen when using traditional educational methods.

Identifiers

PMID37554998
PMCPMC10406168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.