Received: 12 June 2018 

|
  Revised: 10 November 2018 
|  Accepted: 15 November 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12331

R E S E A RC H PA P E R – I N T E G R AT E D S T E M E D U C AT I O N

Integrated STEM in practice: Learning from Montessori

philosophies and practices

Illana C. Livstrom1   | Alaina H. Szostkowski2  | Gillian H. Roehrig1

1
STEM Education, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota
2
Elementary Education, Great River School,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Correspondence
Illana C. Livstrom, STEM Education,
University of Minnesota, 320 Learning and
Environmental, 1954 Buford Avenue, Saint
Paul, MN 55108.
Email: livst002@umn.edu
Abstract
In theory, STEM (interdisciplinary science, technology, engineering and mathemat-
ics) is cross‐disciplinary and situated in real‐world problem‐solving contexts. In
practice, STEM disciplines are often implemented separately using contrived con-
texts. This paper examines theoretical and empirical aspects of Montessori middle
school science in the United States, and its alignment with the conceptual framework
of integrated STEM. We selected Montessori adolescent environments because the
Montessori philosophy involves interdisciplinary application contextualized in pur-
poseful work and learning. Our research sought to investigate how Montessori mid-
dle schools have designed their science programs, and to situate these findings within
the current landscape of STEM education and reform‐based science. Based on the
results of our survey of 96 U.S. Montessori middle schools, we argue Montessori
offers an integrated educational approach that meaningfully situates academic disci-
plines to mirror local and global challenges, well supported by theory and literature
on STEM and situated learning theories. We assert that integrated STEM happens
organically in many Montessori middle schools, and takes place through authentic
work in communities of practice. Our research communicates the value of looking
outside traditional school settings to examine alternative formal education spaces,
like Montessori classrooms where integrated STEM happens organically.

KEYWORDS
adolescent education, interdisciplinary, Montessori, science education, situated learning theory, STEM
education

1  |   IN TRO D U C T ION
Contemporary science education in the United States does
not meet the holistic needs of adolescent students, particu-
larly ethnically, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse
students (e.g., Carlone, Haun‐Frank, & Webb, 2011). Many
adolescent students leave school science uninterested, disen-
gaged, and unable to identify with science (e.g., Calabrese
Barton, Tan, & Rivet, 2008). Carlone et al. (2011, p. 459)
conceptualize reform‐based science (RBS) as the “a kind of
pedagogy that represents U.S. science education’s best work-
ing definition of effective science instruction.” RBS prac-
tices encompass increased efforts for inquiry‐based science
instruction; problem and project‐based learning; interdis-
ciplinary connections; and, perhaps most prominent on na-
tional agendas, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) education initiatives (e.g., NRC, 2012). Bybee
(2010) found that science classrooms are the typical site for
implementing formal STEM education initiatives, making
STEM a prominent component of RBS.

|
190    © 2019 School Science and Mathematics Association wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm School Science and Mathematics. 2019;119:190–202.
LIVSTROM et al.
Researchers, companies, and policy makers’ increasingly
urgent calls to prepare students for STEM careers has been
coupled with declining student interest in, and pursuit of,
STEM fields (e.g., Archer et al., 2010). Scholars suggest that
the siloed instruction and contrived contexts typical of STEM
disciplines offer a potential reason for this decline (Allen,
Penuel, Michalchik, & Van Horne, 2017). The National
Research Council (2012), the NGSS (2013) and STEM edu-
cation scholars like English (2016) emphasize the integrated
and multidisciplinary nature of STEM. However, these disci-
plines most often remain isolated in education practice (e.g.,
Bybee, 2013). This is problematic, as the most pressing global
challenges we face are multidisciplinary and call for inte-
grated problem‐solving (e.g., Moore et al., 2014). Herschbach
(2011) presents that the education system’s siloed subject
areas, driven by discipline specific standards and assessments,
make it tough to implement multidisciplinary education initia-
tives, including STEM. Theoretically, students doing STEM
should be doing authentic work and solving real‐world prob-
lems (Moore et al., 2014). In practice, students often work
through contrived problems forcibly aligned to content stan-
dards, rather than knowledge relevant to issues that affect their
lives (e.g., Herschbach, 2011). Driven by the ambiguity and
disconnect in STEM education, Kelley and Knowles (2016)
propose a conceptual framework of integrated STEM ed-
ucation. They draw on situated learning theories, originally
proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) to create a framework
that grounds STEM learning in authentic and meaningful con-
texts and communities of practice. Kelley and Knowles (2016,
p. 3) state, “Instead of teaching content and skills and hop-
ing for students to see the connections to real‐life application,
an integrated approach seeks to locate connections between
STEM subjects and provide a relevant context for learning the
content.”
While many scholars have focused their research efforts on
the intentional implementation of STEM education, we pro-
pose that it is also worth examining a context in which we be-
lieve integrated STEM already occurs: adolescent Montessori
environments. In these spaces, interdisciplinary science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics learning is contextual-
ized within the real work of running a farm. Our study first
explored the theoretical alignment between integrated STEM
(Kelley & Knowles, 2016), and Montessori curricular and
pedagogical theory for the adolescent developmental stage
(seventh–ninth grade). We then examined whether this the-
oretical alignment exists in practice by conducting a national
survey of U.S. Montessori middle school adolescent science
curricula and pedagogy. In this article, we present findings
from both our theoretical and empirical investigations.
In theory, Montessori education for adolescents is multi-
disciplinary and contextualized in real‐world problem solving
and project‐based learning and inquiry. To meet the devel-
opmental needs of adolescent students, Maria Montessori
|
     191
(1948) suggested an “Erdkinder” community in which ado-
lescents learn through living on, and collaboratively caring
for, a working farm. In the ideal “Erdkinder” environment,
science is woven within farm work and purposeful busi-
ness occupations (Montessori, 1948). These occupations are
multidisciplinary, as advocated for by STEM scholars (e.g.,
English, 2016). They take place in context, driven by the
needs of the community, as called for by situated learning
theorists (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, outside of
the Montessori community, few scholars have researched
contemporary Montessori education for the adolescent
age‐group. Consequently, researchers have not considered
connections between STEM education and Montessori edu-
cation for adolescents. This presents a significant gap in the
literature. If STEM teaching and learning are already occur-
ring organically in adolescent Montessori environments, as
Montessori adolescent curricular & pedagogical theory sug-
gests (Montessori, 1948), there are important lessons to learn
as U.S. public education moves toward cross‐disciplinary
teaching and learning and STEM integration.
Three goals guided our research: (a) to identify learning
theories most compatible with Montessori adolescent science,
(b) to describe how Montessori middle schools have designed
their science programs, and (c) to situate these findings within
the current landscape of STEM education and reform‐based
science. The following research questions guided our study:
1. What curricula and pedagogies exist in contemporary
U.S. Montessori middle school science programs?
a. In what ways do they align with Montessori philosophies
and practices for the adolescent stage of development?
2. How, if at all, is integrated STEM occurring organically in
contemporary U.S. Montessori programs for adolescents?
2  |   A REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE
In this literature review, we first discuss Montessori theory
and practice for the adolescent age‐group, including the en-
visioned “Erdkinder” adolescent farm community, the devel-
opmental needs of the adolescent age‐group as outlined by
Maria Montessori, and the limitations of her vision. We relate
this literature to situated learning theories and STEM. Next,
we examine reform‐based science practices as the science
education community’s best working definition of science
curricula and pedagogy.
2.1  |  Montessori for adolescents
Maria Montessori (1948, 1972) outlined that Montessori edu-
cation seeks to structure environments and support to meet
 |
192      LIVSTROM et al.
the developmental characteristics and holistic needs of stu-
dents—intellectual, social, physical, emotional, and spiritual.
Developmentally, adolescents are intensely social, critical
thinkers, exuberantly energetic, intensely humanistic, and
maturing sexually (Montessori, 1948). Based on these unique
characteristics Maria Montessori (1948) outlined the devel-
opmental needs of the adolescent: (a) to build community,
(b) to work with their hands, (c) to be challenged, (d) to be
respected and trusted, (e) to experience travel and adventure,
and (f) to develop their voice (Lillard, 2016; Montessori,
1948, 1972).
Montessori (1948) argued that the traditional class-
room environment was not a developmentally appropriate
place for adolescents. Instead, like proponents of situated
learning theories, Lave and Wenger (1991), she believed
that learning for adolescents should be situated within
community, where young people can learn relevant skills
and knowledge and contribute meaningfully to something
larger than themselves. Montessori (1948) argued that ado-
lescents should live together in small groups with the space
and adult guidance to learn to collaborate and communicate
effectively while working together toward shared goals.
This similar to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) proposed com-
munities of practice, where learners share expertise and
collaborate toward a shared purpose, driven by the commu-
nity needs. In an intentional community, adolescents would
develop holistically. The role of the adult guide is not only
to foster academic development, but also attend to each ad-
olescent’s mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical needs.
Specifically, Montessori (1948) suggested an “Erdkinder”
farming community for adolescents to build collaborative
skills and learn content through the work demanded by the
needs of the farm. According to Montessori (1948), the
“Erdkinder” environment prepares adolescents to be con-
tributing adult citizens when they enter the real world.
Science in the “Erdkinder” environment is woven into the
farming “occupations,” work where students have authentic
recipients affected by their actions. Occupations are similar
to the apprenticeships suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991),
where newcomers (learners) build new knowledge and skills
through experiential learning from the experts in communi-
ties. For example, a Montessori science occupation of ani-
mal husbandry involves studies of anatomy, body systems,
viruses and diseases, and food chains. David Kahn (2006)
argues that adolescents in an “Erdkinder” community have
the opportunity to apply science learning in meaningful, con-
textual, and consequential ways which aligns it directly to
situated learning theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Ideally,
Erdkinder occupations are essential to the surrounding com-
munity, which demands students’ interest and commitment as
they learn scientific concepts in context.
There are notable limitations to the feasibility of
Montessori Erdkinder environments for most middle schools
today, due a number of factors, such as a lack of space, larger
class sizes, limited funding and resources, urban and sub-
urban settings, and the need to train teachers in Montessori
methodologies. Consequently, Whitescarver and Cossentino
(2008) present that there are far fewer Montessori middle
schools than preschool and elementary programs. In fact,
adolescent Montessori programs become a significant edu-
cational presence in the United States only in the past decade
(Whitescarver & Cossentino, 2008). Montessori adolescent
curricula and pedagogy remain ill‐defined outside of the
“Erdkinder” vision; furthermore, limited opportunities for
teacher training complicate efforts to grow contemporary pro-
grams (North American Montessori Teachers Association,
2017). Grazzini and Krumins (1999) have advocated for a
redesign of Montessori education for adolescents to better
suit contemporary conditions while still maintaining core
Montessori values. Many Montessori programs in the United
States have taken the leap to do this. Our research sought to
survey how the programs have taken shape, particularly with
regards to multidisciplinary STEM integration.
2.1.1  |  Reform‐based science practices
(RBS)
“Reform‐based science” refers to the suite of curricula and
pedagogical practices currently promoted in science edu-
cation reform and policy efforts. The National Research
Council (NRC, 2012) and the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS, 2013) frameworks prioritize students’
scientific knowledge, inquiry skills, and literacy. As part of
this goal, RBS strives to better serve diverse student popu-
lations entering U.S. classrooms (Carlone et al., 2011), and
to diversify representation in STEM fields (NRC, 2012).
However, like Luke, Green and Kelley (2010) assert, many
RBS practices still prioritize performance on standards‐based
science assessments over holistic student learning and iden-
tity development.
3  |   CONCEPTUAL FRAM EWOR K:
SITUATED STEM LEARNING
Despite the emphasis on increasing STEM literacy for all stu-
dents (e.g., NGSS, 2013), student interest in pursuing STEM
related studies and careers in Western countries has plateaued
and decreased (e.g., Thomas & Watters, 2015). This is exac-
erbated by the fact that STEM education is ill‐defined, mak-
ing it hard for teachers to understand and implement in their
classrooms (Bybee, 2010). Researchers agree that STEM
emphasizes cross‐disciplinary, real‐world, problem‐based in-
tegrated learning (e.g., English, 2016). As Herschbach (2011,
p. 99) explains, “integrated curriculum design attempts to
capture the interrelationships within and between subjects,
LIVSTROM et al.
and thereby ground learning in the actual way that knowledge
is used.”
3.1  |  Conceptual framework for
integrated STEM
Kelley and Knowles (2016) acknowledge the ambiguity
around STEM initiatives and existing disconnect between
STEM disciplines, but also recognize STEM’s potential to
drive meaningful and integrated learning opportunities for
students. They suggest a conceptual framework for integrated
STEM education, which rests upon notions of integration
and connections between disciplines in meaningful contexts.
Their visual depiction shows integrated STEM learning as
an integrated system with a block and tackle of four pulleys
to lift a load—the load is situated STEM learning. The four
connected pulleys are: (a) engineering design, (b) science in-
quiry, (c) technological literacy, and (d) mathematical think-
ing. Each of the STEM discipline pulleys are bound together
by a rope, which is the community of practice, all working
together to generate mechanical advantage to lift the load of
situated STEM learning. According to Kelley and Knowles
(2016), it is not necessary for each STEM discipline to ap-
pear in every context. Rather, integrated STEM and other rel-
evant discipline knowledge is brought in and applied around
big ideas and themes, driven by real issues.
Situated STEM learning intentionally combines STEM
frameworks with situated learning theories (Lave & Wenger,
1991), which emphasize how knowledge and skills can be
acquired and applied just as much as the knowledge and skills
themselves. This integrated STEM framework is intended to
transcend school walls to incorporate community experts and
STEM partners who can help apply learning in real STEM
contexts. Kelley and Knowles (2016) argue that communi-
ties of practice can be leveraged to engage students in the
social aspect of STEM learning. In communities of practice,
students learn through participation in common shared prac-
tices, on which learning goals are organized (Lave & Wenger,
1991). Knowledge is advanced through community discovery
and contribution, and social discourse (Kelley & Knowles,
2016).
In adolescent Montessori environments, teachers and
students form close‐knit, highly interactive communities of
practice, where they work together to care for their commu-
nal living spaces, each member with designated responsi-
bilities (Montessori, 1971). In these learning communities,
students take part in the investigation and formation of
knowledge (Kahn, 2006). Instead of the teacher always pro-
viding the knowledge, students self‐direct investigations of
different topics to bring back their knowledge to the learn-
ing community. In adolescent occupations, students learn
through occupations, similar to apprenticeships, where they
begin at the periphery and move toward the center of the
|
     193
learning community to become expert leaders. Theorists and
researchers of situated learning, Montessori and STEM all
agree that learning is engaging and meaningful for students
when they learn through doing cross‐disciplinary work that
is essential to their immediate lives, communities, and the
greater world.
Kelley and Knowles (2016) recognize that there are sig-
nificant barriers to implementing integrated STEM in U.S.
siloed systems of education, and put forth the need for more
research, implementation, and discussion of their integrated
framework. Therefore, we were interested in investigating the
framework in spaces where siloed subjects are not the norm.
Montessori environments are an ideal context because stu-
dents regularly cross disciplinary barriers as they drive their
own theme‐based, contextual learning (McNamara, 2016).
We utilized Kelley and Knowles’s conceptual framework for
integrated STEM learning as a guiding framework to investi-
gate science learning in Montessori middle schools.
4  |  M ETHODOLOGY
4.1  | Design
4.1.1  |  Survey study and survey
instrument design
We developed and administered a survey to provide a snap-
shot of contemporary Montessori science programs in prac-
tice. Our survey methods allowed us to capture a range of
perspectives; breadth of data and representation added valid-
ity to our results (Haldayna & Rodriguez, 2013). Our survey
was designed to elicit representations of U.S. Montessori
science curricula and pedagogy for adolescents to respond
to the paucity of representation we found in the scholarly
literature. We followed an established survey development
protocol (Haldayna & Rodriguez, 2013), with clearly estab-
lished objectives and questions to support those objectives.
Two Montessori adolescent teachers, two graduate students
in STEM education (one of whom is a Montessori elementary
teacher) and a professor of STEM education collaborated to
design the survey.
Our survey questions were organized around three areas of
interest: (a) Montessori philosophies and pedagogies for ad-
olescents, (b) reform‐based science, and (c) STEM practices.
The survey included both forced‐choice and open‐ended
questions. Sample survey items included scaled items such
as “How often do you use the following pedagogies in your
science class?” for problem‐based learning, project‐based
learning, and the engineering‐design process. Short response
items were also included, such as “Please describe your ad-
olescent science program” and “List three strengths of the
adolescent science program at your school.” We piloted the
survey with a small sample of adolescent Montessori guides
 |
194      LIVSTROM et al.
and edited it based on feedback provided before administrat-
ing to our full sample.
We acknowledge a number of limitations to our study,
some inherent to survey research. First, the data do not repre-
sent all U.S. Montessori middle schools, as we only have data
from the schools that responded. Second, each school is rep-
resented by one respondent because gathering responses was
difficult, so we asked for one response to lessen the task bur-
den. Third, there is no way to determine whether the informa-
tion provided by respondents was accurate because the paper
presents the results of self‐reports by respondents. With those
limitations in mind, we can discuss the main contributions
our study makes to science and STEM education practice and
theory, as well as Montessori education and theory.
4.1.2  |  Context and participants
We administered the survey to teachers, administrators, and
curriculum specialists engaged in Montessori middle school
science. Montessori middle schools were identified from the
American Montessori Society (2017), Association Montessori
International (2016) school, and the U.S. Montessori Census
Project databases. The first author identified a total of 371
Montessori middle schools and explored each school’s web-
page for contact information. The first author then sent four
waves of requests and reminders on a biweekly basis. We
collected survey responses from May and June, 2017. We
chose this timing because we wanted respondents to have
completed or nearly completed a full year to reflect on. The
response rate was 25.87%, with a total of 96 respondents.
Survey respondents included teachers (69%), administrators
(24%), and others, such as curriculum specialists and teach-
ing assistants (7%). Private schools represented 54.2% of
responses, while public, charter, and magnet schools repre-
sented 45.8% of responses. Regarding numbers of students
served, 35.5% of schools surveyed served 25 or fewer ado-
lescents, 27% served 25–50 students, 9.5% served 50–75
students, 7% served 75–100, and 21% served 100 + students.
In respect to the socioeconomic status of students, 64% of
schools had fewer than 25% of students qualifying for free or
reduced lunch, 20% of schools had 25%–50%, 7% of schools
had 50%–75%, and 9% of schools had 75%–100%. Average
demographics of the student bodies based on respondent
self‐reports were as follows: 65% White/Caucasian, 13.5%
Latino/a, 13% African American, 3.7% Asian or Pacific
Islander, 2.3% Native American or American Indian, and
2.5% Other.
4.2  |  Data analyses
We used survey responses as the primary data source for this
study, including forced‐choice responses and open responses.
We analyzed forced‐choice responses using descriptive
statistics. We coded open response survey items using an
iterative process of deductive coding from theory and in-
ductive coding from the data, which allowed for comprehen-
sive thematic analyses (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). We used
deductive, selective coding to focus on core categories, and
to search for smaller related codes within those categories
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). We grounded deductive coding
categories in theory and literature on the following “align-
ment factors” (a) Montessori philosophies and practices, (b)
STEM, multidisciplinarity and reform‐based science prac-
tices, and (c) situated learning theories. These deductive
codes were used to develop an initial codebook to guide data
analyses. Thirty‐four deductive codes were collapsed into 27
total codes in order to consolidate and reduce redundancy.
Example deductive codes included technology integration,
community‐driven learning, cross‐disciplinary connections,
and problem‐based learning.
We utilized inductive open coding to allow themes to
emerge from participant responses. This provided us with
a better understanding of the current scope of Montessori
science programs for adolescents and helped to validate our
deductive coding scheme. In the course of data analyses, we
added a total of 14 open codes. Example open codes included
flexibility, cycles in learning, and hybrid programs. The first
and second authors both completed the coding process to in-
crease reliability as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1986),
using Dedoose qualitative coding software. At the outset of
the coding process, the first and second authors independently
coded few responses of each open‐ended question to identify
codes within the deductive categories, as well as open codes.
We discussed emergent codes and calibrated in the way we
would use codes for the remainder of coding processes. After
compiling our findings, we used member checking (Lincoln
& Guba, 1986) with participants who had provided contact
information and expressed willingness to be further involved
in our research.
5  |  FINDINGS
In this study, we were interested in contexts in which in-
tegrated STEM can happen organically. Montessori ado-
lescent environments were chosen, because theoretically,
as explained in the literature review, learning happens in
cross‐disciplinary ways, situated in real contexts. In research
question 1, we asked the following question and sub‐ques-
tions: What curricula and pedagogies exist in contemporary
U.S. Montessori middle school science programs? Do they
align with Montessori philosophies and practices for the ado-
lescent stage of development? Do they align with STEM and
Reform Based Science (RBS) practices? In research question
2, we asked: How, if at all, is integrated STEM occurring
organically in contemporary U.S. Montessori programs for
LIVSTROM et al.
|
     195

adolescents? We present findings in four subsections. First,
we present two tables displaying scaled responses survey
items showing alignment to elements grounded in Montessori
literature and elements grounded in STEM and RBS prac-
tices. Second, we present and discuss six key findings from
thematic coding of open responses, all related to the con-
ceptual framework of integrated STEM. Finally, we discuss
findings in relation to a framework of integrated STEM.
5.1  |  Alignment tables—Scaled response
survey items
Table 1 includes responses to 10 survey items driven by lit-
erature and theory on STEM and RBS practices. Participants
were asked “How often do you use the following pedago-
gies?” for STEM and RBS practices.
Table 2 includes survey items driven by Montessori the-
ory and literature, and for each of these items participants
were asked to report how well their Montessori adolescent
program aligns. We find it particularly notable in Table 2
that alignment for Montessori Erdkinder is low, while align-
ment to all of the other Montessori practices, specific to
the adolescent age‐group, are high. This indicates that most
schools have developed adolescent programs different from
the Erdkinder farm vision, but are still meeting the develop-
mental needs of the adolescents. Four survey items particu-
larly related to integrated STEM (Kelley & Knowles, 2016)
came out very strong on the survey responses: (a) “to build

T A B L E 1   Participants reported how often they used the listed STEM and RBS practices in their classrooms

STEM & RBS practices A few times Once a Once a Once a I don’t know
(N = 96) Daily a week week Monthly semester year Never what this is
Inquiry‐based science (N = 96) 9.5 25 24 26 8.5 2 2 3
STEM (N = 96) 15.5 24 12.5 24 7.5 5 7.5 4
Engineer‐design process 2 12.5 13.5 21 12.5 13.5 5 20
(N = 96)
Technology integration 28 23 17 17 6 2 3 4
(N = 96)
Collaborative group work 54 25 11 7 2 0 0 1
(N = 96)
Interdisciplinary connections 37.5 29.5 15 10 4 1 1 2
(N = 96)
Project‐based learning (N = 96) 26 23 18 23 7 1 0 2
Problem‐based learning 21 25 20 15 5 4 4 6
(N = 96)
Hands‐on activities (N = 96) 33.5 32.5 22 9 1 0 1 1
Peer teaching (N = 96) 43 23 17 7 5 3 1 1

T A B L E 2   Participants report how well they believe their adolescent Montessori science program aligns with the following Montessori
specific elements and the developmental needs of the adolescent as outlined by Maria Montessori (1948)

Not at all Not so well Neutral Somewhat Very well (5)

Montessori alignment item (1) (%) (2) (%) (3) (%) (4) (%) (%)
Maria Montessori’s proposed Erdkinder occupations‐based 11 36.5 36.5 15 1
science (N = 74)
Overall Montessori principles and practices (N = 94) 0 10 30 25 35
To build strong community (N = 95) 0 3.2 7.3 35.8 53.7
To do real, purposeful and meaningful work (N = 95) 1.1 7.3 7.3 41.1 43.2
To work with their hands (N = 95) 0 4.2 5.3 23.2 67.3
To be challenged (N = 95) 0 2.1 6.3 29.5 62.1
To be respected and trusted (N = 95) 0 2.1 8.4 26.3 63.2
To develop their voice and agency (N = 95) 0 4.2 9.5 31.6 54.7
Opportunities for self‐expression (N = 95) 0 4.2 8.4 34.8 52.6
To develop social skills (N = 95) 0 2.1 6.3 26.3 65.3
 |
196      LIVSTROM et al.
strong community,” (b) “to do real, purposeful and meaning-
ful work,” (c) “to be challenged,” and (d) “develop their voice
and agency.”
5.2  |  Thematic findings from open‐
ended responses
We coded the four short open‐ended response prompts for
evidence of STEM and RBS practices, situated learning
practices, and Montessori philosophies and pedagogies.
The short‐response questions were as follows: “Please pro-
vide a brief description of the adolescent science program
at your school”; “List three strengths of the adolescent sci-
ence program at your school”; “What, if any, strategies do
you use to meet the needs of students who are culturally,
linguistically, and/or socioeconomically diverse?”; and
“How well does your science program align to Montessori
philosophies and practices? Please explain.” Deductive
coding of the open‐ended responses further supported
findings from the forced‐choice survey items presented
in the earlier tables. Open coding revealed six important
themes as critical components of contemporary adolescent
Montessori programs: (a) authentic and contextualized
work, (b) community and communities of practice, (c) inte-
grated STEM teaching and learning, (d) holistic education,
(e) driven by student interests and funds of knowledge, and
(f) sociocultural and sociopolitical connections. All six
themes were integrally related to the framework of inte-
grated STEM guiding our analysis, as we discuss further
below.
5.2.1  |  Authentic and contextualized work:
Situated learning
The most prominent theme we drew from the data was that
Adolescent Montessori programs are built on the foundations
of authentic, meaningful, and contextualized learning, driven
by real‐world work and problems. Although most of the
schools do not exist in a farm environment, they still make
real world, contextualized work a priority. As a Montessori
program director articulated,
Our program is firmly rooted in Dr. Montessori’s
ideas of place‐based and “real” work. Being in
an urban environment requires us to stretch to
apply the ideals presented by Dr. Montessori in
Education and Peace. Our adolescents do not
live or work on farms, and we have to be very
creative to design occupations that allow the
integral feedback associated with agricultural
exploration and animal husbandry.
Most often, respondents situated their description of real
work in community‐driven and place‐based jobs or occupa-
tions that are important to the school, students, and commu-
nity. Like the Montessori literature suggests, science is woven
within the context of the occupations, creating authentic con-
texts for science learning. An adolescent guide explained:
Science occupations are project‐based science
classes in which students study a problem or
complete a task within the community. Students
learn scientific concepts in order to understand
a problem or address the task at hand. The goals
for the class are to learn the science behind the
occupation and make an authentic and meaning-
ful contribution. Science occupations combine
manual and intellectual work, both of which are
integral to the development of the whole person.
As described by many of the survey respondents, occupa-
tions not only provide a context for academic learning but also
a space for students to develop holistically and make an im-
portant contribution. The context could can be determined by
place‐based local or a global issue. For example, a Montessori
guide explained the place‐based nature of their adolescent pro-
gram, which speaks to the situated learning foundational to
Montessori education.
Science occupations occur in four‐week cycles
according to the needs of the land, the season,
the community, and the student. The course of-
ferings incorporate several disciplines, such as
studying chemistry through soapmaking or cell
biology by caring for chickens.
The place‐based nature of occupations makes them adapt-
able to varying student, school, and community contexts.
5.2.2  |  Building community and
communities of practice
According to Montessori learning theory and our survey
respondents, the learning environment is highly influential
for development and cognition (Montessori, 1971). For ado-
lescents, the learning environment is community‐based, and
ideally forms a microeconomy that models greater society to
prepare adolescents to be active members and contributors
(Montessori, 1948). This is described by an adolescent guide,
The program builds a real community, has the
appropriate elements of the Occupations and
Micro‐Economy. Students get the opportunity
to work with both head and hands through these
LIVSTROM et al.
elemental studies that come from the farm‐
based work.
According to Montessori principles, situated learning theo-
ries, and the framework of integrated STEM guiding this study,
it is important for contextualized learning to happen in commu-
nities. Building community requires constant and intentional
effort by all members. An adolescent guide articulated this well:
We are CONSTANTLY working on building
community, respecting, and valuing each per-
son for what they have to offer. We are a fam-
ily—we bicker and enrage each other, but we
practice communicating and working through
differences. We practice “appreciations.” We do
not tolerate discrimination; students are trained
in correcting self and peers (not just top‐down
teachers telling how it should be). Students
coordinate and participate in therapy sessions,
peer mediation of conflict resolution, and re-
storative justice circles.
In this guide’s view, community building is a critical com-
ponent of a Montessori adolescent environment. The majority
of survey respondents spoke similarly about the centrality of
community building and learning communities, in which sci-
ence and academic studies are carried out. An adolescent guide
explains the foundation of learning in communities:
Our science is taught through Occupation
Projects, which consist of mini‐communities of
our students working together towards a com-
mon contribution to the greater learning com-
munity. Students choose 4 Occupations in a year
that they want to pursue. Through occupations,
they learn academics, but also about contribut-
ing and caring for their community, and later
their world.
Our survey results also speak to the community‐based learn-
ing that can bring integrated STEM to life (Kelley & Knowles,
2016), through cross‐disciplinary communities of practice.
5.2.3  |  Integrated STEM
teaching and learning
When teaching and learning are situated in real contexts,
integrated STEM and can happen organically. In their de-
scriptions of their Montessori science programs, most survey
respondents wrote about interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary,
or cross‐disciplinary connections between content and con-
cepts, as well as to the local community or to the greater
world. Some respondents stated that they could not describe
|
     197
their science program in isolation, because all disciplines
were integrated. One adolescent guide spoke to the integrated
nature of the disciplines in Montessori education, “It is an in-
tegrated approach across all disciplines, Montessori themes,
student led/project based/peer taught.” Another adolescent
guide provided a more detailed description:
Science is integrated in all subjects including
our urban farm. Math, algebra and geometry
adjacent. Covering the disciplines: physics,
biology, ecology, chemistry. Meet with col-
lege professors at local college for lab work.
Collaborative presentations and experiments in
month long blocks. Open environment. Project
based scientific inquiry. Integrated with history.
Independent study projects often science related
with socio‐political themes.
As described, science in a Montessori environment is often
integrated within themes, projects, occupations, and/or the
other subject areas. The surveyed schools did this in differ-
ent ways. Some schools reported integrating all subjects into
theme‐based units and bringing in relevant discipline‐specific
material where it best fits, as stated by this adolescent guide:
The middle school team works together to gen-
erate 9‐week themes where all content is inte-
grated and connected. They use mentor texts as
well as relevant non‐fiction literature to teach sci-
entific concepts in addition to the state provided
textbook. There is frequently a lab component
as well as collaborative research culminating in
a final project and presentation. Students also
debate relevant scientific concepts.
Other programs emphasized the cross‐disciplinary na-
ture of different sciences specifically within their programs.
This science‐based integration approach was described by an
adolescent guide, “Project based learning covering physics,
chemistry and biology with real, meaningful, practical work.”
Yet another interdisciplinary approach specifically focuses on
integrating math and science, which is sometimes referred to
as the “field studies approach” in Montessori communities. A
guide explained this approach, “Our science is taught through
student designed math projects, interdisciplinary units which
run 3–8 weeks, occupations‐type work on the land around our
school, and through travel/field trips.”
While approaches varied, survey respondents clearly
prioritized cross‐disciplinary connections in their adoles-
cent programs. Many of the connections transcended school
walls—to the community, to the land, to local colleges, and
to businesses. Because learning in the surveyed schools tran-
scended contrived discipline borders and school walls, we
 |
198      LIVSTROM et al.
argue that integrated STEM is present. Respondents reported
using reform‐based science practices, such as inquiry, project
and problem‐based learning, collaboration and peer teaching
that are woven into contextualized and integrated learning.
This is an important finding because the Montessori adoles-
cent environments were aligned with RBS and STEM prac-
tices, but also extended these practices into authentic settings
in communities of practice.
5.2.4  |  Holistic education: Intellectual,
social, emotional, physical, and spiritual
Survey respondents also spoke of the importance of holis-
tic education in Montessori learning communities. Their re-
sponse is supported by Montessori literature (Lillard, 2016)
in which students are seen as human beings who getting ready
for meaningful adult participation in society. As explained by
a Montessori school leader,
Science education falls under the heading of
“Education as the preparation for adult life” in
Montessori’s Erdkinder model. Our program
prioritizes critical thought over specific content,
the cultivation of student voice over memoriza-
tion, and the importance of stewardship of our-
selves, our community, and our world. This is
in line with Montessori’s peace education man-
date. The goal of this piece of the adolescent
curriculum is to open up the world of human
endeavor and human responsibility to these
emerging adults and give them the tools to en-
gage in problem‐solving in the real world.
While U.S. mainstream education heavily prioritizes aca-
demic growth measured by assessments (Gay, 2013), holistic
education attends also to mental, emotional, social, spiritual, in-
tellectual, and physical growth, all of which are interconnected
(Lillard, 2016). Another Montessori head of school exemplified
this value in their description of their Montessori adolescent
program:
In everything, the middle school program holds
at its core the Montessori mandate to create an
adolescent program where the “valorization of
the personality” can occur. As adolescents move
through this plane of development, it is the re-
sponsibility of the educator in a Montessori pro-
gram to not only encourage academic growth,
but to support as well the adolescents’ natural
desire to become strong and worthy members of
society through their efforts of the head, hand,
and heart. Attributes of the valorized adolescent
include: joy, selflessness, optimism, confidence,
dignity, self‐discipline, initiative, independence,
helpfulness, good judgment, and the ability to
work with others.
In theory, and present in the survey data, “soft skills” such as
respect, self‐direction and self‐efficacy set the foundation—the
community and culture—for academic knowledge and skills to
be built. We argue that these soft skills build a foundation on
which integrated STEM can be successful. Students need to be
respectful and self‐disciplined to be contributing members of a
learning community. They need to be self‐directed leaders and
learners to contribute meaningful knowledge and discourse to
communities of integrated STEM practice. They need to grasp
the interconnectedness of their own holistic development, as
well as the academic disciplines. Emphasis on holistic educa-
tion, exemplified in Montessori environments, paves the way
for integrated teaching and learning.
5.2.5  |  Follow the child: Driven by
students interests
Although many education reform efforts have fea-
tured some form of student‐centered teaching and learn-
ing, public education in the United States still remains
teacher‐directed with students passively taking in knowl-
edge (Ladson‐Billings, 1995a, 1995b, 2014). Montessori
educators value the fundamental practice—to follow the
child—allowing students to direct learning experiences
(Montessori, 1971). We found this core practice very pre-
sent in the open response survey items. One adolescent
guide expressed, “Our middle school program is based on
the Montessori view of the student as a self‐directed, ac-
tive learner, and the teacher as an engaged facilitator.” As
explained, the idea is to build student self‐direction, and
also lifelong curiosity. This sentiment is expressed by a
Montessori administrator who described their program as
“Integrated with real work inspired by student inquiry/in-
terests [which] plants the seeds for future discovery.” An
adolescent guide spoke to the nature of building a culture
of student‐led learning,
As the year progressed the class went from being
led by the teacher with all activities provided, to
the students assuming the responsibility to cre-
ate their own content to present to the class. At
the end of the year the students were running the
class with minimal direction from the teacher.
Learning led by student interest and leadership creates a
horizontal environment of distributed leadership, and allows
students to be active contributors of knowledge to the learning
environment. Students build knowledge and discourse in the
community, an important component of Kelley and Knowles
LIVSTROM et al.
(2016) framework of integrated STEM. Further, an adolescent
guide explained that “Students are encouraged to couch learn-
ing in their own experiences.” Another guide said that they
“provide students opportunities to explore science topics/cre-
ate projects based on their interests and background.” Through
self‐direction, choice and leadership, students can bring in their
experiences and knowledge, to explore their interests, and to
contribute meaningfully.
5.2.6  |  Sociocultural and sociopolitical
connections
Survey Respondents spoke specifically of bringing in culture
and diversity through curricula and pedagogy. A Montessori
guide explained, “we strive to bring diverse ideas, cultures,
and people into our classroom through the content, visits by
experts, outings, and texts.” Another guide spoke of the need
to understand students and family in order to bring in rel-
evant material, “Individual check ins with students and fami-
lies. I try to incorporate content in my classes that is relevant
to many cultures and specifically find work from scientists
of color, women scientists, queer scientists, etc., to share.”
These responses reflect efforts toward sociocultural diversity
and inclusion in the curriculum.
While Montessori education is place‐based and often
driven by community contexts, survey respondents spoke
about promoting engagement in greater sociopolitical issues,
paving the way for social action. A guide explained,
We have meetings to discuss differences and
how to solve them with respect and dignity for
all. We point out white privilege when it hap-
pens. We point out sexism when it happens.
Every instance is a teachable moment here. We
don't shy away from conflict. We use differences
as a way to teach about society’s issues. We talk
about what is happening in our neighborhood,
our city, our state, our country, and our world.
Relating back to integrated STEM, sociocultural, and so-
ciopolitical connections can provide an important context for
cross‐disciplinary, real‐world learning to occur.
5.2.7  |  Challenge: Integration within
siloed structures
The survey respondents brought up a key challenge that
parallels a concern identified in the literature on STEM
integration. The siloed nature of discipline‐based stand-
ards and assessments in conventional educational environ-
ments do not support cross‐disciplinary STEM integration
|
     199
or ideal Montessori practices which value situated learning
driven by real issues and student interests. This challenge
was brought up by public and charter school survey re-
spondents more so than private school respondents who do
not have to adhere to mandated standards and assessment
protocols. A public school adolescent guide spoke to the
challenge of integrating all science standards into mean-
ingful occupations:
We strive to approach our science program
through occupations. We have found it hard to
address certain areas (especially chemistry and
the physical sciences) and have taught those
using abundant hands‐on labs/activities, oppor-
tunities for student research and presentation,
etc.
Contemporary educational reform movements that support
teaching and learning directed by student interest do not align
well with the breath of specified content that teachers are re-
quired to cover in order to prepare their students for standard-
ized assessments. A guide commented on this when reflecting
how well their school’s program was aligned to Montessori
philosophies and practices, “The outcomes are real. The proj-
ects are real. But the content is governed by the teachers, not
the students.” While some guides felt they were able to main-
tain a Montessori environment while still adhering to mandated
standards and assessments, other guides expressed feeling
more restricted. A public school guide explained, “Classes are
not multi‐age and state testing demands take away from the
freedom to explore topics by interests.” Another public school
guide described the challenges of implementing innovative
teaching and learning within a public school district that has
set ways:
Our science program is primarily based on ma-
terials selected by the district. We have arranged
them into a two‐year multi‐age cycle, including
field studies and long term projects, but without
writing our own curriculum or finding a way to
buy other materials we are limited to what the
district says we should be using (which is an on-
line textbook with interactive online lab activi-
ties). We have done our best to include hands‐on
activities and inquiries as well as implementing
notebooking. However, it is challenging.
These challenges are not unique to Montessori schools, but
are challenges that all schools encounter when they attempt to
transition from teacher‐centered to student‐centered, from si-
loed to integrated, from predetermined content to real and con-
textualized learning.
 |
200      LIVSTROM et al.
6   |   D IS C U S S ION A N D
I M P L ICATION S FO R T HE ORY,
PR AC TIC E , A N D P O L IC Y
This research expands upon existing scholarship on STEM,
reform‐based science, and situated learning. The recent
body of STEM literature advocates for STEM subjects to be
integrated and taught in real‐world contexts (Herschbach,
2011). While STEM education remains ill‐defined in practice
(Bybee, 2010), it is important for scholars and practitioners
to be open to spaces in which STEM practices are happen-
ing outside of mainstream education and scholarship. In this
study, we investigated U.S. Montessori adolescent science
programs to better understand curricula and pedagogy, and
for evidence of integrated STEM (Kelley & Knowles, 2016).
While we originally intended our survey to address science
programs specifically, responses indicated that our frame-
work did not speak to Montessori’s view of science as insepa-
rable from the academic disciplines. Because of this, some
respondents explained their entire adolescent program rather
than science specifically. Through theoretical and empirical
evidence, we argue that Montessori education for adolescents,
in theory and practice, has important contributions to make to
the current landscape of STEM and science education policy
and reform. This is due to its strong theoretical grounding,
alignment with current STEM and RBS practices, and the
unique strengths of Montessori philosophies and practices.
The theoretical and empirical evidence presented in this paper
shows that Montessori education for adolescents is well situated
to play an important role in contemporary science and STEM
education reform. Providing theoretical and empirical evidence
for Montessori education’s alignment allows it to emerge as an
educational methodology supported by mainstream scholarship.
Not only is it aligned with STEM and RBS practices, as well
as situated learning theories, we argue that integrated STEM is
happening organically in many Montessori adolescent environ-
ments. This assertion responds to the calls of STEM scholars,
presented earlier in this paper, for STEM education to be inte-
grated and cross‐disciplinary and connected to real‐world issues
(e.g., English, 2016). Herschbach (2011, p.116) remarked,
The opportunity, however, is not fully recog-
nized to integrate programming through STEM
and to tap into the potential to organize, learn
and use knowledge in highly productive ways
that were formally limited by encasing teaching
and learning in “traditional” stand‐alone, clearly
defined subjects.
In Montessori environments, integrated teaching and learn-
ing breaks down formalized separation between disciplines,
creating space for contextualized knowledge acquisition and
application.
Kelley and Knowles (2016, p. 10) called for future research
to examine their conceptual framework of integrated STEM.
Our findings contribute empirical and theoretical insights
this framework. We took a step in this direction by survey-
ing Montessori adolescent environments in which integrated
STEM was occurring organically based upon the theory and
literature. We found and presented evidence for this frame-
work in practice in Montessori adolescent environments. We
deepened the situated learning component of the framework
through analyses of contextualized Montessori occupations,
which bring authentic work and study to life.
This research also addressed an important gap in schol-
arly research and literature—Montessori science educa-
tion for adolescents. Findings from our survey contribute
new empirical understandings and theoretical perspectives.
Empirically, this research provides new understandings
into the science curricula and pedagogy used in adolescent
Montessori programs, alternative to the “Erdkinder” model.
The “Erdkinder” environment for Montessori adolescents,
envisioned by Maria Montessori, is not feasible for most
contemporary U.S. middle schools. Our survey results sug-
gest that adolescent Montessori education is place‐based
and context dependent. Pedagogy and curriculum can be
designed according to the needs of a school’s students and
community, as well as the ecological, environmental, busi-
ness and industry connections available in the school back-
yard. Montessori middle schools in our survey have adapted
their programs for contemporary conditions, while maintain-
ing core Montessori philosophies and practices for the ado-
lescent developmental plane.
Future research should include case study investigation
of Montessori adolescent programs in practice, includ-
ing observational data, interviews with students, teachers,
and administrators, and document analyses of curricula
and assessments. Public Montessori programs should re-
ceive particular attention, as curricula and pedagogy will
be more transferrable to mainstream education. Kelley and
Knowles’s (2016) conceptual framework for integrated
STEM should be investigated in different contexts, espe-
cially where integrated STEM could be happening naturally.
Settings could include environmental schools, youth conser-
vation programs, and urban agriculture and horticulture pro-
grams. Student impact should also be investigated through
performance indicators such as STEM attitudes and identity
development.
In conclusion, we assert that Montessori philosophies
and pedagogies for adolescents contribute to mainstream
U.S. STEM and science education policy in important
ways. First, it offers an integrated approach that organi-
cally integrates all academic subjects in meaningful ways
that mirror life (Montessori, 1948). Second, learning is sit-
uated within real and purposeful work that is done in con-
text, driven by community needs (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
LIVSTROM et al.
Third, Montessori education seeks to nourish students
holistically—intellectually, emotionally, socially, phys-
ically, and spiritually, something that has been neglected
in mainstream education due to a predominant focus on
high‐stakes test achievement, and “college and career read-
iness.” Fourth, communities of practice in Montessori en-
vironments provide opportunities for distributed expertise
and leadership, and for students to collaboratively create
knowledge and discourse. Fifth, student interests and funds
of knowledge drive teaching and learning in Montessori en-
vironments, which guides them to be self‐directed learners
and leaders. Together, these components bring integrated
STEM to life organically.
ORCID
Illana C. Livstrom  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8698-3479
R E F E R E NC E S
Allen, C., Penuel, W., Michalchik, V., & Van Horne, K. (2017,
April). Scientists, researchers, and learners: The role of science
museums in shaping youth’s STEM‐linked identities. Paper pre-
sented at the annual international conference of NARST, San
Antonio, TX.
American Montessori Society. (2017). MPPI ‐ Montessori
Public Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://amshq.
o r g / A b o u t -A M S / W h a t -We -A r e - D o i n g / P u b l i c - P o l i c y /
Montessori-Public-Policy-Initiative
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B.
(2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining
10/11‐year‐old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through
the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.20399
Association Montessori International. (2016). Montessori around the
Globe. Retrieved from http://ami-global.org/
Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision.
Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid
spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school
girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 68–103. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308641
Carlone, H., Haun‐Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity
beyond knowledge‐and skills‐based outcomes: A comparative eth-
nography of two fourth‐grade reform‐based science classrooms.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 459–485. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.20413
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analy-
sis. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory, 3.
English, L. (2016). STEM education K‐12: Perspectives on integra-
tion. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 3. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum
Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002
|
     201
Grazzini, C., & Krumins, B. (1999). A Montessori community for ado-
lescents. NAMTA Journal, 24(1), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/
curi.12002
Haldayna, T., & Rodriguez, M. (2013). Developing and validating test
items. New York, NY: Routledge.
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and chal-
lenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122. https://
doi.org/10.30707/JSTE48.1Herschbach
Kahn, D. (2006). Montessori Erdkinder: The social evolution of the lit-
tle community. NAMTA Journal, 31(1), 381.
Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated
STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case
for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3),
159–165.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally rele-
vant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3),
465–491.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.ka. the
remix. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 74–84.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lillard, A. S. (2016). Montessori: The science behind the genius.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness
and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
Luke, A., Green, J., & Kelly, G. (2010). What counts as evidence and
equity? Review of Research in Education, 34, vii–xvi. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0091732X09359038
McNamara, J. (2016). How the Montessori upper elementary and
adolescent environment naturally integrates science, mathemat-
­
ics, technology, and the environment. NAMTA Journal, 41(2),
83–97.
Montessori, M. (1948). From childhood to adolescence; includ-
ing Erdkinder and the function of the university. New York, NY:
Schocken Books.
Montessori, M. (1971). The Montessori method. New York, NY:
Schocken Books.
Montessori, M. (1972). Education and peace. Chicago, IL: Regnery.
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A.
W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of en-
gineering in K‐12 STEM education. In Engineering in Pre‐College
Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60).
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K‐12 sci-
ence education: Practices, cross‐cutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For
states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
North American Montessori Teachers Association. (2017). Adolescent
project. Retrieved from http://www.montessori-namta.org/
Adolescent-Project
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and
Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal
of Educational Development, 45, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2015.08.002
 |
202      LIVSTROM et al.

Whitescarver, K., & Cossentino, J. (2008). Montessori and the main-

stream: A century of reform on the margins. Teachers College
Record, 110(12), 2571–2600.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in
the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. 
How to cite this article: Livstrom IC, Szostkowski
AH, Roehrig GH. Integrated STEM in practice:
Learning from Montessori philosophies and practices.
School Science and Mathematics. 2019;119:190–202.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12331
Copyright of School Science & Mathematics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.