Teacher and Director Beliefs About Their Simultaneous Implementation of the Montessori Method and Quebec’s Educational Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers and directors of early childhood education and care (ECEC) centres in Quebec have to conform to provincial guidelines when implementing their educational programme. Those in centres that identify as Montessori are simultaneously faced with the sometimes-conflicting directives of the Montessori method and Ministry guidelines. This dissertation responds to the dilemma of facing such a dual frame of reference. I report the results of an investigation which explores the beliefs and reflections on the experiences of teachers and directors in four ECEC centres that identify as Montessori in the province of Quebec. Based on a review of the literature, I designed a mixed method project with two related studies. Study 1 was a questionnaire targeted towards Ministry-recognized centres in the province of Quebec that identify as Montessori. Results from this initial study helped to paint the current landscape with data collected from 25 Montessori-inspired centres in the province, and also provided a source for recruitment of potential participants for Study 2. The second study was a deeper investigation, which used a qualitative design to explore the beliefs of teachers and directors from four individual centres that identified as Montessori. The study explored teacher and director beliefs about their implementation of the Montessori method and of Quebec’s educational programme. This was pursued through the use of questionnaires, interviews, and document reviews that provided rich descriptions of the phenomenon under study. Thematic analysis of the data led to five core themes, which emerged inductively from facing the dual frame of reference, namely: each child is unique, pedagogical approaches promoting children’s learning and development, teacher’s role in promoting children’s learning and development, parent’s role in promoting children’s learning and development, and challenges faced in promoting children’s potential. However, besides the noted similarities in beliefs, variations and contradictions also appeared. The results indicate that distinctions in beliefs - both among participants and within centres - emerged particularly around the notions of free play, pretense, creativity, and parental involvement. On this basis, further research is recommended to explore the effects of such suggested inconsistencies in Montessori programme implementation on both practical and scholarly platforms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".