benefits of education research paper

Editorial: Educational Research and Why It’s Important

Published: 23 October 2017
Volume 52 , pages 207–210, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

Roseanna Bourke 1 &
Judith Loveridge 2

17k Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The New Zealand Journal of Educational Research (NZJES) is aptly named, because the distinction between ‘education’ research and ‘educational’ research is critical. As Lingard ( 2013 ) has argued, “When we use the descriptor ‘educational’ attached to research, we are arguing that such research has educational or educative purposes, that is, such research is progressive in the sense of seeking and desiring to improve both education policy and professional practice in education” (p. 115). For contributors and readers of this journal, the importance of demonstrating the potential to impact on policy and practice is important. Researchers working in education typically are also interested in addressing equity issues as political and social agendas, and seeking to explore positive change for others through educational research .

Educational research can challenge and change educational policy and practice, as evidenced in the articles within this issue. Equity and justice of educational experience are important to these researchers. This is consistent with previous NZJES issues, where authors have sought to enable the voice of participants to be heard, to foreground culture, and question the status quo. In other words, for these authors, being educational through research is a critical part of having impact.

Of the eight articles in this issue, five present evidence about educational experiences, issues and outcomes for Māori, Pacific Island and Indigenous students. The approaches taken to address these questions are diverse, ranging from examining the very way that ethnicity is defined and used in statistical analysis to exploring ‘the spiritual footsteps of teaching and learning’.

In the first article, Boereboom critiques the way that ethnicity is defined and then used for the purposes of analysing and reporting national educational outcomes and assessment data. Although New Zealand has moved to a view of ethnicity as a fluid social construct which allows for self-identification and the claiming of multiple ethnic identities, the rapid increase in ethnic diversity and the need for narrow and precise definitions of variables for the purposes of statistical analysis are creating a range of issues that to date have been largely ignored. Boereboom explores these issues by comparing an analysis of NCEA Level 1 results using (1) the status quo of rank ordering to assign a single ethnic identity, and (2) a weighted ethnicity proportional representation approach. Boereboom’s analysis and arguments show that there is the potential for current practices to mask and under report trends and thereby to strengthen a deficit approach to educational planning. He compellingly argues that there are strong ethical grounds and concerns related to validity to support a call to ‘re-examine the practice of ethnic priority ranking and explore alternative more culturally valid and inclusive approaches’.

Although positive outcomes have been achieved in Māori medium education over the past 40 years there are still very real concerns about the revitalisation of te reo Māori. Research is needed to support the revitalisation process. Hill’s research focuses on level 2 Māori medium programmes, that is programmes with 51–80% Maori language instruction. He explores the perceptions of students and their parents about the contribution these programmes make to the education of students. In Maged, Rosales-Anderson and Manuel’s article, they explore teaching and learning relationships that students attending a Wānanga (a Māori indigenous tertiary education organisation) identified as having had a positive impact on their learning and engagement in the past or currently. In particular Maged et al. are interested in exploring the spiritual element of the connection between the kaiako (teachers) and the tauira (students). They identify a range of ways in which tauira had felt a deep sense of connection through the wairua (spirit) within the classroom to the people, place and space around them and which had impacted positively on their learning and their well-being, both within and beyond the classroom.

Olsen and Andreassen explore how indigenous issues are articulated and instantiated in the Early Childhood Education Curricula (the official written documents) of Norway and Aotearoa/New Zealand. They argue that the purpose of comparing how indigenous issues are conceptualised within the respective curricula is ‘to bring something new to the analysis of one case by putting it next to another’. Their analysis focuses on the main tendencies of the indigenous issues in each country. While they conclude, ‘the curricula are expressions of indigenous knowledge and status being privileged’ they caution that if the curricular claims and statements are not enacted, then it would not be a surprise to find the indigenous silenced.

Towner, Taumoepeau, Lal and Pranish focus on the situation of Pasifika learners in the tertiary context. They conducted a case study, which evaluated the outcomes of current practices and support for Pasifika students at a New Zealand private tertiary education (PTE) provider in order to assess what practices and support systems are beneficial for Pasifika learners. Their findings emphasise the importance of a variety of support systems, many of which increased a sense of community connectedness for students, and a culturally sensitive environment for students’ academic success.

Van Rij explores how the New Zealand’s School Journal has reflected both shifting perceptions of childhood as well as acting as a mirror on the educational ideologies of the times, from the time it started (1907) through to 1918. Later, she introduces another period (1919–1938) where she identifies how the journal ‘led to the liberal spirited, revised syllabus of instruction in 1935. This in turn paved the way for the curriculum reforms from 1939 into the 1950s’. In this article van Rij traverses the complex terrain of the journal by presenting the historical and cultural analysis of the type of prose, subject content and inherent political messages within the journal.

In McPhail and Laurie’s article, they argue that social science research methods teaching needs to include the idea of realism. Given that interpretivism is commonly used in educational social science research, the authors were both faced with a dilemma when conducting their respective PhDs, looking for a methodological approach that could enable them ‘to explain the social meaning of events and provide a means of exploring causes and processes obscured within the phenomenon being investigated’. Using the case study of the second author who completed her PhD using realism, this article explores what this methodological approach has to offer, and how a realist rather than an interpretivist orientation can offer a different analysis of data.

Oldham’s article foregrounds the increase of non-state policy actors in public education systems. He explores the phenomenon of ‘enterprise education’ by using governance theory and methods to argue that this is replacing curriculum governance.

Finally Gerrard’s commentary, explores the impact of the Productivity Commission’s Report on New Models of Tertiary Education (2017) and how this may impact on the changing nature of the purpose and value of tertiary education.

This issue of the New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies is also our last one as Editors. Our tenure has included transitioning the journal from a print-based journal to its first online issue with Springer (Volume 50), and marking its 50th anniversary celebrations. The journal continues to be foundational to the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) learned society, and the principal vehicle for researchers and educators to share and disseminate their published research.

Since 2014, we have edited 8 issues, which have included 65 published articles and 5 commentaries written by 112 authors (76% female; 24% male). We extend our thanks to the 138 reviewers who gave their time, expertise and collegial support to blind peer review the work. In addition, we have published 39 book reviews and we thank our Book Editor, Dr. Stephanie Doyle, Victoria University of Wellington, who liaised so successfully with the book reviewers that we were never without a well-articulated review of the latest work coming out. During this period there have been two special issues: Student Voice 49(2), and Equity and Diversity 51(2). Both these special issues included national and international contributions, with one collection arguing the importance of including student voice in learning, policy and practice, and acting on these views; and the other on ensuring equity through education enables, celebrates and includes all learners.

Across this period the contributing authors have collectively demonstrated a broad interest in educational research, policy and practice, which fully justifies the journal’s claim to be concerned with ‘educational studies’. The many contributors to this journal have documented change and progress, issues and tensions, and promises and visions. Given this depth and breadth of educational research, and the diversity of researcher-authors, it is not surprising that their own values and ideologies are embedded in the work. As Lingard ( 2013 ) reminds us, evidence-based policy is not all about research evidence. It includes in the mix values, ideology and professional knowledge of the researchers who conduct the research, and the practitioners and policy makers who read and interpret that research.

The areas of scholarship covered over this period (Volumes 49–52) are diverse, inclusive and representative of multi-voiced, cultural and social imperatives. These include Kura Kaupapa Māori research, cross-cultural practice, the achievement gap, tertiary education supervision and partnership practices, all education sectors, the history of education in New Zealand, student voice, education policy, equity in education, curriculum design, teacher initial education and professional development and the nature of education in the twenty-first century.

This research labour has originated from within 29 institutions, including 21 universities, 1 wānanga, 2 polytechnics, independent researchers (2), and other tertiary, research or independent providers such as the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), Kelston Deaf Education Centre, and SPELD. The research published within NZJES has demonstrated it is confidently located within the Aotearoa/New Zealand context. Locally, we have had contributors from University of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), University of Waikato, Waikato Institute of Technology (Win Tec), Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, Massey University, Victoria University of Wellington, Whitireia Polytechnic, University of Canterbury, and University of Otago. There has also been an international presence connected closely to the New Zealand research community, including contributions from researchers based in higher education organisations from the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, USA, UAE, and Australia. The institutions represented include University of Dublin, University of Manchester, University of Uppsala, University of Tromsø, University of Melbourne, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Australian Catholic University, University of New England, University of Denver, Bryn Mawr College, North Carolina State University, University of Florida, Southern Cross University and Zayed University.

As co-editors, we are proud to have been part of this continuing educational research journey. We wish the incoming editors the rich experience we have been privileged to have. We thank the Editorial Board for the stimulating collegial discussions at our meetings and the NZARE Council for their ongoing support. A warm thank you to all contributors, reviewers, NZARE members, and staff at Springer for enabling this journal to take the next step in its trajectory of contributing to the betterment of education in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Lingard, B. (2013). The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (2), 113–131.

Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Roseanna Bourke

Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

Judith Loveridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roseanna Bourke .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bourke, R., Loveridge, J. Editorial: Educational Research and Why It’s Important. NZ J Educ Stud 52 , 207–210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0093-0

Download citation

Published : 23 October 2017

Issue Date : November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0093-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Find My Rep

Cultivating a research-based approach to developing your practice provides evidence to effect change in your teaching, your classroom, your school, and beyond. Rebecca Austin, author of Researching Primary Education and Senior Lecturer at the School of Teacher Education and Development at Canterbury Christchurch University, highlights what the benefits are of research to your practice…

In the context of the debate about what works and why, there is a wide range of benefits to researching your own practice, whether directly feeding into improvement through action research or, more broadly, gaining understanding and knowledge on themes of interest and relevance. This is why research is embedded into initial teacher education. As research becomes embedded in your practice you can gain a range of benefits. Research can:

clarify purposes, processes and priorities when introducing change – for example, to curriculum, pedagogy or assessment
develop your agency, influence, self-efficacy and voice within your own school and more widely within the profession.

Each of these can involve investigation using evidence from your own setting, along with wider research evidence.

Site search

CBT Supervision

The ABC of CBT

CBT for Beginners

CBT Values and Ethics

Reflection in CBT

CBT for Older People

Overcoming Obstacles in CBT

The CBT Handbook

CBT for Personality Disorders

CBMCS Multicultural Training Program

CBMCS Multicultural Reader

An Introduction to CBT Research

CBT for Common Trauma Responses

Person-centred Therapy and CBT

Low-intensity CBT Skills and Interventions

CBT for Depression: An Integrated Approach

CBT with Children, Young People and Families

CBT for Worry and Generalised Anxiety Disorder

Action Research

Product Type plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Textbook (32) Apply Textbook filter
Journal (13) Apply Journal filter
Academic Book (5) Apply Academic Book filter
Professional Book (4) Apply Professional Book filter
Reference Book (4) Apply Reference Book filter

Disciplines plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Education (31) Apply Education filter
Counselling and Psychotherapy (General) (18) Apply Counselling and Psychotherapy (General) filter
Research Methods & Evaluation (General) (18) Apply Research Methods & Evaluation (General) filter
Nursing (6) Apply Nursing filter
Public Health (4) Apply Public Health filter
Psychology (General) (3) Apply Psychology (General) filter
Social Work & Social Policy (General) (3) Apply Social Work & Social Policy (General) filter
Clinical Medicine (3) Apply Clinical Medicine filter
Anthropology & Archaeology (General) (1) Apply Anthropology & Archaeology (General) filter
Arts & Humanities (General) (1) Apply Arts & Humanities (General) filter
History (General) (1) Apply History (General) filter
Business & Management (General) (1) Apply Business & Management (General) filter
Communication and Media Studies (General) (1) Apply Communication and Media Studies (General) filter
Cultural Studies (General) (1) Apply Cultural Studies (General) filter
Economics & Development Studies (General) (1) Apply Economics & Development Studies (General) filter
Life & Biomedical Sciences (1) Apply Life & Biomedical Sciences filter
Politics & International Relations (1) Apply Politics & International Relations filter
Study Skills (General) (1) Apply Study Skills (General) filter
Other Health Specialties (1) Apply Other Health Specialties filter

Status plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Published (44) Apply Published filter
Forthcoming (1) Apply Forthcoming filter

Technical Support
Find My Rep

Product Type plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Textbook (31) Apply Textbook filter
Journal (13) Apply Journal filter
Academic Book (5) Apply Academic Book filter
Professional Book (5) Apply Professional Book filter
Reference Book (4) Apply Reference Book filter

Courses plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Curriculum & Instruction (Elementary) Apply Curriculum & Instruction (Elementary) filter
Curriculum & Instruction - Secondary (7-12) Apply Curriculum & Instruction - Secondary (7-12) filter
Educational Administration & Leadership Apply Educational Administration & Leadership filter
Research Methods in Education Apply Research Methods in Education filter
Technology in Education Apply Technology in Education filter

Disciplines plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Education (31) Apply Education filter
Counseling & Psychotherapy (18) Apply Counseling & Psychotherapy filter
Research Methods & Evaluation (17) Apply Research Methods & Evaluation filter
Nursing (6) Apply Nursing filter
Public Health (4) Apply Public Health filter
Psychology (3) Apply Psychology filter
Social Work & Social Policy (3) Apply Social Work & Social Policy filter
Clinical Medicine (3) Apply Clinical Medicine filter
Anthropology & Archaeology (1) Apply Anthropology & Archaeology filter
Arts & Humanities (1) Apply Arts & Humanities filter
History (1) Apply History filter
Business & Management (1) Apply Business & Management filter
Communication & Media Studies (1) Apply Communication & Media Studies filter
Cultural Studies (1) Apply Cultural Studies filter
Economics & Development Studies (1) Apply Economics & Development Studies filter
Life & Biomedical Sciences (1) Apply Life & Biomedical Sciences filter
Political Science & International Relations (1) Apply Political Science & International Relations filter
Study Skills (1) Apply Study Skills filter
Other Health Specialties (1) Apply Other Health Specialties filter

Status plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Published (44) Apply Published filter
Forthcoming (1) Apply Forthcoming filter

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Review Article
Open access
Published: 27 October 2017

Montessori education: a review of the evidence base

Chloë Marshall 1

npj Science of Learning volume 2 , Article number: 11 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

341k Accesses

61 Citations

248 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human behaviour

The Montessori educational method has existed for over 100 years, but evaluations of its effectiveness are scarce. This review paper has three aims, namely to (1) identify some key elements of the method, (2) review existing evaluations of Montessori education, and (3) review studies that do not explicitly evaluate Montessori education but which evaluate the key elements identified in (1). The goal of the paper is therefore to provide a review of the evidence base for Montessori education, with the dual aspirations of stimulating future research and helping teachers to better understand whether and why Montessori education might be effective.

Learning to teach through noticing: a bibliometric review of teacher noticing research in mathematics education during 2006–2021

Yicheng Wei, Qiaoping Zhang, … Min Chen

Exploration of implementation practices of Montessori education in mainland China

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Malavika E. Santhosh, Jolly Bhadra, … Noora Al-Thani

Introduction

Maria Montessori (1870–1952) was by any measure an extraordinary individual. She initially resisted going into teaching—one of the few professions available to women in the late 19th century—and instead became one of the very first women to qualify as a medical doctor in Italy. As a doctor she specialised in psychiatry and paediatrics. While working with children with intellectual disabilities she gained the important insight that in order to learn, they required not medical treatment but rather an appropriate pedagogy. In 1900, she was given the opportunity to begin developing her pedagogy when she was appointed director of an Orthophrenic school for developmentally disabled children in Rome. When her pupils did as well in their exams as typically developing pupils and praise was lavished upon her for this achievement, she did not lap up that praise; rather, she wondered what it was about the education system in Italy that was failing children without disabilities. What was holding them back and preventing them from reaching their potential? In 1907 she had the opportunity to start working with non-disabled children in a housing project located in a slum district of Rome. There, she set up her first 'Casa dei Bambini' ('children’s house') for 3–7-year olds. She continued to develop her distinctive pedagogy based on a scientific approach of experimentation and observation. On the basis of this work, she argued that children pass through sensitive periods for learning and several stages of development, and that children’s self-construction can be fostered through engaging with self-directed activities in a specially prepared environment. There was international interest in this new way of teaching, and there are now thousands of Montessori schools (predominantly for children aged 3–6 and 6–12) throughout the world. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Central to Montessori’s method of education is the dynamic triad of child, teacher and environment. One of the teacher’s roles is to guide the child through what Montessori termed the 'prepared environment, i.e., a classroom and a way of learning that are designed to support the child’s intellectual, physical, emotional and social development through active exploration, choice and independent learning. One way of making sense of the Montessori method for the purposes of this review is to consider two of its important aspects: the learning materials, and the way in which the teacher and the design of the prepared environment promote children’s self-directed engagement with those materials. With respect to the learning materials, Montessori developed a set of manipulable objects designed to support children’s learning of sensorial concepts such as dimension, colour, shape and texture, and academic concepts of mathematics, literacy, science, geography and history. With respect to engagement, children learn by engaging hands-on with the materials most often individually, but also in pairs or small groups, during a 3-h 'work cycle' in which they are guided by the teacher to choose their own activities. They are given the freedom to choose what they work on, where they work, with whom they work, and for how long they work on any particular activity, all within the limits of the class rules. No competition is set up between children, and there is no system of extrinsic rewards or punishments. These two aspects—the learning materials themselves, and the nature of the learning—make Montessori classrooms look strikingly different to conventional classrooms.

It should be noted that for Montessori the goal of education is to allow the child’s optimal development (intellectual, physical, emotional and social) to unfold. 2 This is a very different goal to that of most education systems today, where the focus is on attainment in academic subjects such as literacy and mathematics. Thus when we ask the question, as this review paper does, whether children benefit more from a Montessori education than from a non-Montessori education, we need to bear in mind that the outcome measures used to capture effectiveness do not necessarily measure the things that Montessori deemed most important in education. Teachers and parents who choose the Montessori method may choose it for reasons that are not so amenable to evaluation.

Despite its existence for over 100 years, peer-reviewed evaluations of Montessori education are few and they suffer from a number of methodological limitations, as will be discussed in Section 3. This review has three aims, namely to (1) identify some key elements of the Montessori educational method, (2) review existing evaluations of Montessori education, and (3) review studies that do not explicitly evaluate Montessori education but which evaluate the key elements identified in (1). My goal is to provide a review of the scientific evidence base for Montessori education, with the dual aspirations of stimulating future research and helping teachers to better understand whether and why Montessori education might be effective.

Some key elements of the Montessori educational method

The goal of this section is to isolate some key elements of the Montessori method, in order to better understand why, if Montessori education is effective, this might be, and what elements of it might usefully be evaluated by researchers. These are important considerations because there is considerable variability in how the Montessori method is implemented in different schools, and the name, which is not copyrighted, is frequently used without full adherence. 5 , 6 Nevertheless, some elements of the method might still be beneficial, or could be successfully incorporated (or, indeed, are already incorporated) into schools that do not want to carry the name 'Montessori' or to adhere fully to its principles. Pinpointing more precisely what—if anything—about the Montessori method is effective will enable a better understanding of why it works. Furthermore, it has been argued that there might be dangers in adopting wholesale and uncritically an educational method that originated over 100 years ago, in a world that was different in many ways to today’s. 7 If the method is to be adopted piecemeal, which pieces should be adopted? As outlined previously, two important aspects of Montessori’s educational method are the learning materials, and the self-directed nature of children’s engagement with those materials. Some key elements of each of these aspects will now be considered in turn.

The learning materials

The first learning materials that the child is likely to encounter in the Montessori classroom are those that make up the practical life curriculum. These are activities that involve pouring different materials, using utensils such as scissors, tongs and tweezers, cleaning and polishing, preparing snacks, laying the table and washing dishes, arranging flowers, gardening, doing up and undoing clothes fastenings, and so on. Their aims, in addition to developing the child’s skills for independent living, are to build up the child’s gross and fine motor control and eye-hand co-ordination, to introduce them to the cycle of selecting, initiating, completing and tidying up an activity (of which more in the next section), and to introduce the rules for functioning in the social setting of the classroom.

As the child settles into the cycle of work and shows the ability to focus on self-selected activities, the teacher will introduce the sensorial materials. The key feature of the sensorial materials is that each isolates just one concept for the child to focus on. The pink tower, for example, consists of ten cubes which differ only in their dimensions, the smallest being 1 cm 3 , the largest 10 cm 3 . In building the tower the child’s attention is being focused solely on the regular decrease in volume of successive cubes. There are no additional cues—different colours for example, or numbers written onto the faces of the cube—which might help the child to sequence the cubes accurately. Another piece of sensorial material, the sound boxes, contains six pairs of closed cylinders that vary in sound from soft to loud when shaken, and the task for the child is to find the matching pairs. Again, there is only one cue that the child can use to do this task: sound. The aim of the sensorial materials is not to bombard the child’s senses with stimuli; on the contrary, they are tools designed for enabling the child to classify and put names to the stimuli that he will encounter on an everyday basis.

The sensorial materials, are, furthermore, designed as preparation for academic subjects. The long rods, which comprise ten red rods varying solely in length in 10 cm increments from 10 cm to 1 m, have an equivalent in the mathematics materials: the number rods, where the rods are divided into alternating 10 cm sections of red and blue so that they take on the numerical values 1–10. The touchboards, which consist of alternate strips of sandpaper and smooth paper for the child to feel, are preparation for the sandpaper globe in geography—a globe where the land masses are made of rough sandpaper but the oceans and seas are smooth. The touchboards are also preparation for the sandpaper letters in literacy and sandpaper numerals in mathematics, which the child learns to trace with his index and middle fingers.

Key elements of the literacy curriculum include the introduction of writing before reading, the breaking down of the constituent skills of writing (pencil control, letter formation, spelling) before the child actually writes words on paper, and the use of phonics for teaching sound-letter correspondences. Grammar—parts of speech, morphology, sentence structure—are taught systematically through teacher and child-made materials.

In the mathematics curriculum, quantities 0–10 and their symbols are introduced separately before being combined, and large quantities and symbols (tens, hundreds and thousands) and fractions are introduced soon after, all through concrete materials. Operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, the calculation of square roots) are again introduced using concrete materials, which the child can choose to stop using when he is able to succeed without that concrete support.

Principles running throughout the design of these learning materials are that the child learns through movement and gains a concrete foundation with the aim of preparing him for learning more abstract concepts. A further design principle is that each piece of learning material has a 'control of error' which alerts the child to any mistakes, thereby allowing self-correction with minimal teacher support.

Self-directed engagement with the materials

Important though the learning materials are, 8 they do not, in isolation, constitute the Montessori method because they need to be engaged with in a particular way. Montessori observed that the young child is capable of concentrating for long periods of time on activities that capture his spontaneous interest. 2 , 3 , 4 There are two features of the way that children engage with the learning materials that Montessori claimed promoted this concentration. The first is that there is a cycle of activity surrounding the use of each piece of material (termed the 'internal work cycle ' 9 ). If a child wishes to use the pink tower, for example, he will have to find a space on the floor large enough to unroll the mat that will delineate his work area, carry the ten cubes of the pink tower individually to the mat from where they are stored, then build the tower. Once he has built the tower he is free to repeat this activity as many times as he likes. Other children may come and watch, and if he wishes they can join in with him, but he will be able to continue on his own if he prefers and for as long as he likes. When he has had enough, he will dismantle the pink tower and reassemble it in its original location, ready for another child to use. This repeated and self-chosen engagement with the material, the lack of interruption, and the requirement to set up the material and put it away afterwards, are key elements aimed at developing the child’s concentration. 10

The second feature which aims to promote concentration is that these cycles of activity take place during a 3-h period of time (termed the 'external work cycle' 9 ). During those 3 h children are mostly free to select activities on their own and with others, and to find their own rhythm of activity, moving freely around the classroom as they do so. One might wonder what the role of the teacher is during this period. Although the children have a great deal of freedom in what they do, their freedom is not unlimited. The teacher’s role is to guide children who are finding it hard to select materials or who are disturbing others, to introduce new materials to children who are ready for a new challenge, and to conduct small-group lessons. Her decisions about what to teach are made on the basis of careful observations of the children. Although she might start the day with plans of what she will do during the work cycle, she will be led by her students and their needs, and there is no formal timetable. Hence the Montessori classroom is very different to the teacher-led conventional classroom with its highly structured day where short timeslots are devoted to each activity, the whole class is engaged in the same activities at the same time, and the teacher instructs at the front of the class.

In summary, there are two aspects of Montessori classrooms that are very different to conventional classrooms: the learning materials themselves, and the individual, self-directed nature of the learning under the teacher’s expert guidance. All the elements described here—the features of the learning materials themselves (e.g., each piece of material isolates just one concept, each contains a control of error that allows for self-correction, learning proceeds from concrete to abstract concepts) and the child-led manner of engagement with those materials (e.g., self-selection, repeated and active engagement, tidying up afterwards, freedom from interruption, lack of grades and extrinsic rewards) might potentially benefit development and learning over the teaching of the conventional classroom. We will return to many of the elements discussed here in the following two sections. (This has necessarily been only a brief survey of some of the most important elements of the Montessori method. Readers wanting to find out more are again directed to refs. 2 , 3 , 4 ).

Evaluations of Montessori education

There are few peer-reviewed evaluations of Montessori education, and the majority have been carried out in the USA. Some have evaluated children’s outcomes while those children were in Montessori settings, and others have evaluated Montessori-educated children after a period of subsequent conventional schooling. As a whole this body of research suffers from several methodological limitations. Firstly, few studies are longitudinal in design. Secondly, there are no good quality randomised control trials; most researchers have instead tried to match participants in Montessori and comparison groups on as many likely confounding variables as possible. Thirdly, if children in the Montessori group do score higher than those in the non-Montessori group on a particular outcome measure, then assuming that that effect can be attributed to being in a Montessori classroom, what exactly is it about Montessori education that has caused the effect? Montessori education is a complex package—how can the specific elements which might be causing the effect be isolated? At a very basic level—and drawing on two of the main aspects of Montessori education outlined above—is the effect due to the learning materials or to the self-directed way in which children engage with them (and can the two be separated)? Fourthly, there are presumably differences between Montessori schools (including the way in which the method is implemented) that might influence children’s outcomes, but studies rarely include more than one Montessori school, and sometimes not more than one Montessori class. Fifthly, and relatedly, there is the issue of 'treatment fidelity'—what counts as a Montessori classroom? Not all schools that call themselves 'Montessori' adhere strictly to Montessori principles, have trained Montessori teachers, or are accredited by a professional organisation. A sixth, and again related, point is that children’s experiences in Montessori education will vary in terms of the length of time they spend in Montessori education, and the age at which they attend. Finally, the numbers of children participating in studies are usually small and quite narrow in terms of their demographics, making generalisation of any results problematic. These methodological issues are not limited to evaluations of Montessori education, of course—they are relevant to much of educational research.

Of these, the lack of randomised control trials is particularly notable given the recognition of their importance in education. 11 , 12 Parents choose their child’s school for a host of different reasons, 13 and randomisation is important in the context of Montessori education because parents who choose a non-conventional school for their child might be different in relevant ways from parents who do not, for example in their views on child-rearing and aspirations for their child’s future. This means that if a study finds a benefit for Montessori education over conventional education this might reflect a parent effect rather than a school effect. Furthermore, randomisation also controls for socio-economic status (SES). Montessori schools are often fee-paying, which means that pupils are likely to come from higher SES families; children from higher SES families are likely to do better in a variety of educational contexts. 14 , 15 , 16 A recent report found that even public (i.e., non-fee-paying) Montessori schools in the USA are not representative of the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the neighbourhoods they serve. 17 However, random assignment of children to Montessori versus non-Montessori schools for the purposes of a randomised control trial would be very difficult to achieve because it would take away parental choice.

Arguably the most robust evaluation of the Montessori method to date is that by Lillard and Else-Quest. 18 They compared children in Montessori and non-Montessori education and from two age groups—5 and 12-year olds—on a range of cognitive, academic, social and behavioural measures. Careful thought was given to how to overcome the lack of random assignment to the Montessori and non-Montessori groups. The authors’ solution was to design their study around the school lottery that was already in place in that particular school district. All children had entered the Montessori school lottery; those who were accepted were assigned to the Montessori group, and those who were not accepted were assigned to the comparison (other education systems) group. Post-hoc comparisons showed similar income levels in both sets of families. Although group differences were not found for all outcome measures, where they were found they favoured the Montessori group. For 5-year olds, significant group differences were found for certain academic skills (namely letter-word identification, phonological decoding ability, and math skills), a measure of executive function (the card sort task), social skills (as measured by social reasoning and positive shared play) and theory of mind (as measured by a false-belief task). For 12-year olds, significant group differences were found on measures of story writing and social skills. Furthermore, in a questionnaire that asked about how they felt about school, responses of children in the Montessori group indicated that they felt a greater sense of community. The authors concluded that 'at least when strictly implemented, Montessori education fosters social and academic skills that are equal or superior to those fostered by a pool of other types of schools'. 18

Their study has been criticised for using just one Montessori school, 19 but Lillard and Else-Quest’s response is that the school was faithful to Montessori principles, which suggests that the results might be generalisable to other such schools. 20 That fidelity might impact outcomes has long been of concern, 21 and was demonstrated empirically in a further, longitudinal, study, 6 that compared high fidelity Montessori classes (again, from just one school), 'supplemented' Montessori classes (which provided the Montessori materials plus conventional activities such as puzzles, games and worksheets), and conventional classrooms. Children in these classes were 3–6 years old, and they were tested at two time-points: towards the beginning and towards the end of the school year. Although the study lacked random assignment of children to groups, the groups were matched with respect to key parent variables such as parental education. As in Lillard and Else-Quest’s earlier study, 18 outcome measures tapped a range of social and academic skills related to school readiness (i.e., children’s preparedness to succeed in academic settings). There were two research questions: firstly, do preschool children’s school readiness skills change during the academic year as a function of school type, and secondly, within Montessori schools, does the percentage of children using Montessori materials in a classroom predict children’s school readiness skills at the end of the academic year? Overall, the answer to both questions was “yes”. Children in the high-fidelity Montessori school, as compared with children in the other two types of school, showed significantly greater gains on measures of executive function, reading, math, vocabulary, and social problem-solving. Furthermore, the degree to which children were engaged with Montessori materials significantly predicted gains in executive function, reading and vocabulary. In other words, treatment fidelity mattered: children gained fewer benefits from being in a Montessori school when they were engaged in non-Montessori activities.

This study does not demonstrate definitively that the Montessori materials drove the effect: there might have been other differences between the high and lower fidelity classrooms—such as the teachers’ interactions with their pupils—that were responsible for the difference in child outcomes. 6 In a move to explore the role of the Montessori materials further, a more recent experimental study 22 removed supplementary materials, to leave just the Montessori materials, from two of the three classrooms in a Montessori school that served 3–6-year olds. Over a period of 4 months children in the classrooms from which supplementary materials were removed made significantly greater gains than children from the unchanged classroom on tests of letter-word identification and executive function, although not on measures of vocabulary, theory of mind, maths, or social problem-solving. The authors acknowledge weaknesses in the study design, including the small number of participants (just 52 across the three classrooms) and the short duration. Nevertheless, the study does provide a template for how future experimental manipulations of fidelity to the Montessori method could be carried out.

Fidelity is important because variation in how faithful Montessori schools are to the 'ideal' is likely to be an important factor in explaining why such mixed findings have been found in evaluations of the Montessori method. 6 For example, two early randomised control trials to evaluate Head Start in the USA did not find any immediate benefit of Montessori preschool programmes over other types of preschool programmes. 23 , 24 In both programmes, only 4-year olds were included, whereas the ideal in Montessori preschool programmes is for 3–6 year olds to be taught in the same class in order to foster child-to-child tutoring. 6 Furthermore, in one of the programmes 23 the ideal 3-h work cycle was reduced to just 30 min. 6 A more recent study of older children compared 8th grade Montessori and non-Montessori students matched for gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. 25 The study found lower scores for Montessori students for English/Language Arts and no difference for maths scores, but the participating Montessori school altered the “ideal” by issuing evaluative grades to pupils and introducing non-Montessori activities. 6

These same limitations then make it difficult to interpret studies that have found 'later' benefits for children who have been followed up after a subsequent period of conventional education. In one of the studies discussed earlier, 23 social and cognitive benefits did emerge for children who had previously attended Montessori preschools and then moved to conventional schools, but these benefits did not emerge until adolescence, while a follow-up study 26 found cognitive benefits in Montessori males only, again in adolescence. Although such 'sleeper effects' have been widely reported in evaluations of early years interventions, they may be artefacts of simple measurement error and random fluctuations. 27 Importantly, if the argument is that lack of fidelity to the Montessori method is responsible for studies not finding significant benefits of Montessori education at younger ages, it is not logical to then credit the Montessori method with any benefits that emerge in follow-up studies.

Some studies report positive outcomes for certain curricular areas but not others. One, for example, investigated scores on maths, science, English and social studies tests in the final years of compulsory education, several years after children had left their Montessori classrooms. 28 Compared to the non-Montessori group (who were matched for gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and high school attended), the Montessori group scored significantly higher on maths and science, but no differences were found for English and social studies. What might explain this differential effect? The authors suggested that the advantages for maths might be driven by the materials themselves, compared to how maths is taught in conventional classes. 28 Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, children in Montessori classrooms might spend more time engaged in maths and science activities compared to children in conventional classes, with the amount of time spent on English and social studies not differing. However, the authors were unable, within the design of their study, to provide details of exactly how much time children in the Montessori school had spent doing maths, science, English and social studies, in comparison to the time that children in conventional classes were spending on those subjects.

Just as knowing what is going on in the Montessori classroom is vital to being able to interpret the findings of evaluations, so is knowing what is going on in the comparison classrooms. One of the earliest evaluations of Montessori education in the USA 29 speculated that Montessori would have found much to appreciate in one of the non-Montessori comparison classes, including its 'freedom for the children (moving about; working alone); its planned environment (innovative methods with tape recorder playback of children’s conversations; live animals, etc.); its non-punitive character (an “incorrect” answer deserves help, not anger; original answers are reinforced, but other answers are pursued); and its emphasis on concentration (the children sustained activity without direct supervision for relatively long periods of time)'. In some evaluations, the differences between Montessori and conventional classrooms might not actually be so great, which might explain why benefits of being educated in a Montessori classroom are not found. And even if the Montessori approach to teaching a particular curriculum area is different to those used in conventional classrooms, there are likely to be different, equally-effective approaches to teaching the same concepts. This is a suggested explanation for the finding that although children in Montessori kindergartens had an advantage relative to their conventionally-educated peers for base-10 understanding in mathematics, they did not maintain this advantage when tested 2 years later. 30

While most evaluations are interested in traditional academic outcomes or factors related to academic success such as executive functions, a small number have investigated creativity. For example, an old study 31 compared just 14 four and five-year-old children who attended a Montessori nursery school with 14 four and five-year olds who attended a conventional nursery school (matched for a range of parental variables, including attitudes and parental control). In a non-verbal creativity task, involving picture construction, they were given a blank sheet of paper, a piece of red gummed paper in the shape of a curved jellybean, and a pencil. They were then asked to think of and draw a picture in which the red paper would form an integral part. Each child’s construction was rated for originality, elaboration, activity, and title adequacy, and these ratings were then combined into a 'creativity' score. The group of conventionally-schooled children scored almost twice as high as the Montessori group. A second task involved the child giving verbal descriptions of seven objects: a red rubber ball, a green wooden cube, a short length of rope, a steel mirror, a piece of rectangular clear plastic, a piece of chalk, and a short length of plastic tubing. Each description was scored as to whether it was functional (i.e., focused on the object’s use) or whether it was a description of the object’s physical characteristics (i.e., shape, colour, etc.). Like the non-verbal creativity task, this task differentiated the two groups: whereas the conventionally educated children gave more functional descriptions (e.g., for the cube: “you play with it”), the Montessori children gave more physical descriptions (e.g., “it’s square, it’s made of wood, and it’s green”). A third task, the Embedded Figure Test, involved the child first being presented with a stimulus figure and then locating a similar figure located in an embedding context. Both accuracy and speed were measured. While the two groups did not differ in the number of embedded figures accurately located, the Montessori group completed the task significantly more quickly. The fourth and final task required children to draw a picture of anything they wanted to. Drawings were coded for the presence or absence of geometric figures and people. The Montessori group produced more geometric figures, but fewer people, than the conventional group.

The authors were careful not to cast judgement on the performance differences between the two groups. 31 They wrote that 'The study does, however, support the notion that differing preschool educational environments yield different outcomes' and 'Montessori children responded to the emphasis in their programme upon the physical world and upon a definition of school as a place of work; the Nursery School children responded on their part to the social emphasis and the opportunity for spontaneous expression of feeling'. They did not, however, compare and contrast the particular features of the two educational settings that might have given rise to these differences.

Creativity has been studied more recently in France. 32 Seven to twelve-year olds were tested longitudinally on five tasks tapping different aspects of creativity. 'Divergent' thinking tasks required children to (1) think of unusual uses for a cardboard box, (2) come up with ideas for making a plain toy elephant more entertaining, and (3) make as many drawings as possible starting from pairs of parallel lines. 'Integrative' thinking tasks required children to (1) invent a story based on a title that was provided to them, and (2) invent a drawing incorporating six particular shapes. Their sample was bigger than that of the previous study, 31 comprising 40 pupils from a Montessori school and 119 from two conventional schools, and pupils were tested in two consecutive years (no information is provided about whether pupils from different schools were matched on any variable other than age). For both types of task and at both time-points the Montessori-educated children scored higher than the conventionally-educated children. Again, the authors made little attempt to pinpoint the precise differences between schools that might have caused such differences in performance.

None of the studies discussed so far has attempted to isolate individual elements of the Montessori method that might be accounting for any of the positive effects that they find. There are several studies, however, that have focused on the practical life materials. A quasi-experimental study 33 demonstrated that the practical life materials can be efficacious in non-Montessori classrooms. More than 50 different practical life exercises were introduced into eight conventional kindergarten classes, while five conventional kindergarten classes were not given these materials and acted as a comparison group. The outcome measure was a fine motor control task, the 'penny posting test', whereby the number of pennies that a child could pick up and post through a one-inch slot in a can in two 30 s trials was counted. At pre-test the treatment and comparison groups did not differ in the number of pennies posted, but at post-test 6 months later the treatment group achieved a higher score than the comparison group, indicating finer motor control. A nice feature of this study is that teachers reported children in both groups spending the same amount of time on tasks designed to support fine motor control development, suggesting that there was something specific to the design of the practical life materials that was more effective in this regard than the conventional kindergarten materials on offer. And because the preschools that had used the practical life activities had introduced no other elements of the Montessori method, the effect could be confidently attributed to the practical life materials themselves.

An extension of this study 34 investigated the potential benefits of the practical life materials for fine motor control by comparing 5-year olds in Montessori kindergarten programmes with 5-year olds in a conventional programme (reported to have similarities in teaching mission and pupil background characteristics) on the 'flag posting test'. In this task, the child was given a solid hardwood tray covered with clay in which there were 12 pinholes. There were also 12 paper flags mounted on pins, six to the right of the tray and six to the left, and the child’s task was to place the flags one at time in the holes. The child received three scores: one for the amount of time taken to finish the activity, one for the number of attempts it took the child to put each flag into the hole, and one for hand dominance (to receive a score of 1 (established dominance) the child had to consistently use the same hand to place all 12 flags, whereas mixed dominance received a score of 0). Children were pre-tested at the beginning of the school year and post-tested 8 months later. Despite the lack of random assignment to groups, the two groups did not differ on pre-test scores, but they did at post-test: at post-test the Montessori group were significantly faster and significantly more accurate at the task, and had more established hand dominance. However, no attempt was made to measure how frequently children in both groups engaged with materials and activities that were designed to support fine motor control development. Furthermore, the children in the Montessori classrooms were at the age where they should also have been using the sensorial materials, some of which (for example, the 'knobbed cylinders' and 'geometric cabinet') are manipulated by holding small knobs, and whose use could potentially enhance fine motor control. At that age children would also have been using the 'insets for design', materials from the early literacy curriculum designed to enhance pencil control. Therefore, although the results of this study are consistent with the practical life materials enhancing fine motor control, the study does not securely establish that they do.

A further study 35 introduced practical life exercises into conventional kindergarten classes, while control kindergarten classes were not given these materials. 15 min were set aside in the experimental schools’ timetable for using the practical life materials, and they were also available during free choice periods. This time the outcome measure at pre-test and post-test was not fine motor skill but attention. There were benefits to attention of being in the experimental group, but only for girls—boys showed no such benefits. The differential gender impact of the practical life materials on the development of attention is puzzling. Girls did not appear to engage with the materials more than boys during the time that was set aside for using them, but no measure was taken of whether girls chose them more frequently than boys during the free choice periods. Similarly, there were no measurements of the time that children in both the experimental and control groups spent engaged in other activities that might have enhanced fine motor control. Nor is it clear whether it was the fine motor practice directly or rather the opportunity to select interesting activities (the teachers in the experimental schools commented on how interesting the children found the practical life activities) that was responsible for the benefits to attention that were recorded for girls.

Finally, it has been found that young adolescents in Montessori middle schools show greater intrinsic motivation than their peers in conventional middle schools (matched for an impressive array of background variables, including ethnicity, parental education and employment, home resources, parental involvement in school, and number of siblings). 36 The authors did not establish exactly which elements of the Montessori method might be responsible for this finding, but they did speculate that the following might be relevant: “students were provided at least 2 h per day to exercise choice and self-regulation; none of the students received mandatory grades; student grouping was primarily based on shared interests, not standardised tests; and students collaborated often with other students”. The authors did not evaluate the Montessori and non-Montessori groups on any measures of academic outcomes, but given the links between academic success and motivation at all stages of education (they provide a useful review of this literature), this link would be worth investigating in Montessori schools.

This section has discussed studies that have evaluated the Montessori method directly. To date there have been very few methodologically robust evaluations. Many suffer from limitations that make it challenging to interpret their findings, whether those findings are favourable, neutral or unfavourable towards the Montessori method. However, while randomised control trials could (and should) be designed to evaluate individual elements of the Montessori method, it is difficult to see how the random assignment of pupils to schools could work in practice (hence the ingenuity of the study reported in ref. 18 ). Nor could trials be appropriately blinded—teachers, and perhaps parents and pupils too, would know whether they were in the Montessori arm of the trial. In other words, although random assignment and blinding might work for specific interventions, it is hard to see how they could work for an entire school curriculum. Furthermore, given the complexity of identifying what it is that works, why it works, and for whom it works best, additional information, for example from observations of what children and teachers are actually doing in the classroom, would be needed for interpreting the results.

Evaluations of key elements of Montessori education that are shared with other educational methods

This final section examines studies that have not evaluated the Montessori method directly, but have evaluated other educational methods and interventions that share elements of the Montessori method. They, together with our growing understanding of the science underpinning learning, can add to the evidence base for Montessori education. Given the vast amount of research and the limited space in which to consider it, priority is given to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

One of the best-researched instructional techniques is the use of phonics for teaching children to read. Phonics is the explicit teaching of the letter-sound correspondences that allow the child to crack the alphabetic code. Montessori’s first schools were in Italy, and Italian orthography has relatively transparent one-to-one mappings between letters and sounds, making phonics a logical choice of method for teaching children the mechanics of reading and spelling. English orthography is, however, much less regular: the mappings between letters and sounds are many-to-many, and for this reason the use of phonics as a method of instruction has been challenged for English. 37 Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness despite English’s irregularities. 38 , 39 , 40 At the same time, great strides have been made in elucidating the neural mechanisms that underlie early reading and reading impairments, and these too demonstrate the importance to successful reading of integrating sound and visual representations. 41

As always in education, the devil is in the detail. Importantly, phonics programmes have the greatest impact on reading accuracy when they are systematic. 39 , 40 By 'systematic' it is meant that letter-sound relationships are taught in an organised sequence, rather than being taught on an ad hoc as-and-when-needed basis. However, within systematic teaching of phonics there are two very different approaches: synthetic phonics and analytic phonics. Synthetic phonics starts from the parts and works up to the whole: children learn the sounds that correspond to letters or groups of letters and use this knowledge to sound out words from left to right. Analytic phonics starts from the whole and drills down to the parts: sound-letter relationships are inferred from sets of words which share a letter and sound, e.g., $\underline{h}$ at , $\underline{h}$ en , $\underline{h}$ ill , $\underline{h}$ orse . Few randomised control trials have pitted synthetic and analytic phonics against one another, and it is not clear that either has the advantage. 40

The Montessori approach to teaching phonics is certainly systematic. Many schools in the UK, for example, use word lists drawn from Morris’s 'Phonics 44'. 42 , 43 Furthermore, the Montessori approach to phonics is synthetic rather than analytic: children are taught the sound-letter code before using it to encode words (in spelling) and decode them (in reading). One of the criticisms of synthetic phonics is that it teaches letters and sounds removed from their meaningful language context, in a way that analytic phonics does not. 44 It has long been recognised that the goal of reading is comprehension. Reading for meaning requires both code-based skills and language skills such as vocabulary, morphology, syntax and inferencing skills, 45 and these two sets of skills are not rigidly separated, but rather interact at multiple levels. 46 Indeed, phonics instruction works best where it is integrated with text-level reading instruction. 39 , 40 The explicit teaching of phonics within a rich language context—both spoken and written—is central to the Montessori curriculum. No evaluations have yet pitted phonics teaching in the Montessori classroom versus phonics teaching in the conventional classroom, however, and so whether the former is differentially effective is not known.

Research into writing supports Montessori’s view that writing involves a multitude of component skills, including handwriting, spelling, vocabulary and sentence construction. 47 , 48 Proficiency in these skills predicts the quality of children’s written compositions. 49 , 50 In the Montessori classroom these skills are worked on independently before being brought together, but they can continue to be practised independently. A growing body of research from conventional and special education classrooms demonstrates that the specific teaching of the component skills of writing improves the quality of children’s written compositions. 51 , 52 , 53 , 54

With respect to teaching mathematics to young children, there are many recommendations that Montessori teachers would recognise in their own classrooms, such as teaching geometry, number and operations using a developmental progression, and using progress monitoring to ensure that mathematics instruction builds on what each child knows. 55 Some of the recommended activities, such as 'help children to recognise, name, and compare shapes, and then teach them to combine and separate shapes' 55 map exactly on to Montessori’s sensorial materials such as the geometric cabinet and the constructive triangles. Other activities such as 'encourage children to label collections with number words and numerals' 55 map onto Montessori’s early mathematics material such as the number rods, the spindle box and the cards and counters. The importance of conceptual knowledge as the foundation for children being able to understand fractions has been stressed. 56 The Montessori fraction circles—which provide a sensorial experience with the fractions from one whole to ten tenths—provide just such a foundation, as do practical life exercises such as preparing snacks (how should a banana be cut so that it can be shared between three children?) and folding napkins.

Finally in this section, it is worth returning to the sustained attention and self-regulation that have been argued to characterise children’s engagement with the learning materials in the Montessori classroom. 2 , 3 , 4 These are important parts of the complex cognitive construct of executive functions (EFs), which also include inhibition, working memory and planning. Put simply, EFs are the set of processes that allow us to control our thoughts and actions in order to engage in motivated, goal-directed behaviour. That EFs are critical for academic success is backed by a wealth of research evidence. 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 Given this key role, EFs have become the target for a number of individually-administered interventions, full curricula, and add-ons to classroom curricula, such as CogMed (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ), Tools of the Mind, 62 PATHS (PATHS Training LLC, Seattle, WA), music, yoga and martial arts. A review study compared these, including Montessori education, and concluded that compared to interventions such as CogMed that solely target EFs, 'school curricula hold the greatest promise for accessibility to all and intervening early enough to get children on a positive trajectory from the start and affecting EFs most broadly'. 63

Conclusions

Montessori education has been in existence for over a hundred years. Such longevity could well be due, at least in part, to its adaptability. 6 However, by its very nature, of course, greater adaptability means lower fidelity. This paper has discussed evidence that children may benefit cognitively and socially from Montessori education that is faithful to its creator’s principles, but it is less clear that adapted forms—which usually result in children spending less time engaged with self-chosen learning materials—are as effective. Nevertheless, studies suggest that the practical life materials can be usefully introduced into non-Montessori classrooms to support the development of young children’s fine motor skills and attention, and there is ample evidence from the wider educational literature that certain elements of the Montessori method—such as teaching early literacy through a phonic approach embedded in a rich language context, and providing a sensorial foundation for mathematics education—are effective. It has not been possible in this paper to give an exhaustive discussion of all the elements of Montessori education that might be beneficial, for example the lack of extrinsic rewards, the reduced emphasis on academic testing and lack of competition between pupils, the 3-year age-banding that fosters cross-age tutoring, or the presence of a trained teacher in the early years classroom.

Where does this leave Montessori education more than 100 years after its birth, and more than 60 years after the death of its creator? As others have noted, Montessori was a scientist who truly valued the scientific method and would not have expected her educational method to remain static. 64 Yet Montessori teachers often feel fear or uncertainty about being able to apply Montessori’s theories in new and innovative ways while still adhering to her underlying philosophical principles. 65 Ultimately, only empirical research, undertaken by teachers and researchers working together, can be our guide, because the questions that need answering are empirical in nature. Neuroscientific research—using neuroimaging methods which were not available in Montessori’s day—might also play a guiding role. For example, Montessori was prescient in her views that adolescence was a special time in development where the individual required a specially-designed form of education to address their needs. 66 Recent neuroimaging evidence points to adolescence as indeed being an important period for neural development, particularly for areas involved in executive functions and social cognition. 67 , 68 Montessori did not fully develop her ideas for the education of 12–18-year olds during her lifetime, but it is an area where current Montessorians might be able to take over the reins. Although some Montessori schools take pupils up to the age of 18, they are few and far between, and to my knowledge there are no published evaluations of their effectiveness. Developing a Montessori education for this age group in conjunction with the best of our current knowledge of developmental cognitive neuroscience has the potential to make a very positive contribution.

Nor did Montessori consider using her method with the elderly. In the context of a rapidly aging population and increasing numbers of elderly adults with acquired cognitive impairments such as those that result from Alzheimer’s disease, 69 it is interesting to note that the Montessori method is now being adapted for use with dementia patients, with the aim of improving functioning in activities of daily living, such as feeding, and in cognition. There is strong evidence for a reduction in difficulties with eating, weak evidence for benefits on cognition, and mixed evidence for benefits on constructive engagement and positive affect. 70 However, the quality of studies varies across domains; those evaluating effects on cognition have been of rather poor quality so far, and they have not yet examined whether there might be long-term effects. Nevertheless, given the challenges to developing successful medication for patients with Alzheimer’s disease despite a detailed knowledge of changes in their neurobiology, it would be sensible to continue the search for successful behavioural interventions alongside that for medical interventions. 71 One method for delivering Montessori-based activities to the elderly is via inter-generational programmes, whereby older adults with dementia are supported in teaching Montessori-based lessons to preschool children. Benefits have been reported for the adults involved, 72 but whether the children also benefit in particular ways from such inter-generational teaching has not been evaluated. Nor is it known whether a Montessori education in childhood or Montessori-based activities experienced in later life can protect the executive control circuits of the brain, as has been proposed for bilingualism. 73 A lifespan approach to the evaluation of the Montessori method involving both behavioural and neuroimaging methods might be valuable.

In sum, there are many methodological challenges to carrying out good quality educational research, including good quality research on the Montessori method. Arguably the most obvious challenge to emerge from the literature reviewed here is the practical difficulty of randomly allocating pupils to Montessori and non-Montessori schools in order to compare outcomes. The majority of studies have relied instead on trying to match pupils and teachers in Montessori and non-Montessori schools on a number of different variables, with the concomitant danger that unidentified factors have contributed to any difference in outcomes. Even if randomisation is achievable, studies need to be conducted on a large enough scale to not only allow generalisations to be made beyond the particular schools studied, but to also allow investigation of which children the Montessori method suits best. On a more optimistic note, recent experimental studies—whereby features of existing Montessori classrooms are manipulated in some way, or features of the Montessori method are added to non-Montessori classrooms—hold promise for investigating the effectiveness of particular elements of the Montessori method. The evidence base can be strengthened yet further by drawing on research of educational interventions with which it shares certain elements, and by drawing on related research in the science of learning. National and regional education systems are beset by regular swings of the pendulum, for example towards and away from phonics, 74 and towards and away from children working individually. 75 This means that elements of the Montessori method will sometimes be in vogue and sometimes not. It is therefore particularly important that Montessori teachers understand the evidence base that supports, or does not support, their pedagogy.

Foschi, R. Science and culture around Montessori’s first “children’s houses” in Rome (1907–1915). J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 44 , 238–257 (2008).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Montessori, M. The Discovery of the Child (Clio Press, Oxford, UK, 1912/1988).

Polk Lillard, P. Montessori: A Modern Approach (Schocken Books, New York, NY, 1972)

Standing, E. M. Montessori: Her Life and Work (New American Library, New York, NY, 1957)

Daoust, C. J. An Examination of Implementation Practices in Montessori early childhood education . Doctoral thesis, University of California, Berkeley (2004).

Lillard, A. S. Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. J. School Psychol. 50 , 379–401 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

McDermott, J. J. in Montessori: Her Life and Work (ed Standing, E. M.) (New American Library, New York, NY, 1957).

Lillard, A. S. How important are the Montessori materials? Montessori Life 20 , 20–25 (2008).

Google Scholar

Cossentino, J. Big work: goodness, vocation and engagement in the Montessori method. Curric. Inq. 36 , 63–92 (2006).

Montessori, M. The Secret of Childhood (Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 1966).

Goldacre, B. Building evidence into education . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193913/Building_evidence_into_education.pdf (2013).

Torgerson, C. J. & Torgerson, D. J. The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 25 , 129–143 (2001).

Schneider, M., Marschall, M., Teske, P. & Roch, C. School choice and culture wars in the classroom: what different parents seek from education. Soc. Sci. Quaterly 79 , 489–501 (1998).

DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S. & Martinez, C. R. Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between social status and boys’ academic outcomes: unpacking the effects of socioeconomic status. Child. Dev. 70 , 1231–1245 (1999).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Okpala, C. O., Okpala, A. O. & Smith, F. E. Parental involvement, instructional expenditures, family socioeconomic attributes, and student achievement. J. Educ. Res. 95 , 110–115 (2001).

Sirin, S. R. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a metaanalyticreview of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 75 , 417–453 (2005).

Debs, M. C. Racial and economic diversity in U.S. public Montessori schools. J. Montessori Res. 2 , 15–34 (2016).

Lillard, A. S. & Else-Quest, N. Evaluating Montessori education. Science 313 , 1893–1894 (2016).

Linderfors, P. Letter to the editor: studying students in Montessori schools. Science 315 , 596 (2007).

Lillard, A. S. & Else-Quest, N. Response to Lindenfors and MacKinnon. Science 315 , 596–597 (2007).

CAS Google Scholar

Pitcher, E. G. An evaluation of the Montessori method in schools for young children. Child. Educ. 42 , 489–492 (1966).

Lillard, A. S. & Heise, M. J. Removing supplementary materials from Montessori classrooms changed child outcomes. J. Montessori Res. 2 , 16–26 (2016).

Karnes, M., Shewedel, A. & Williams, M. A. in As the Twig is Bent: Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs (ed. Consortium for Longitudinal Studies) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).

Miller, L. B. & Dyer, J. L. Four preschool programs: Their dimensions and effects. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev . 40 , 1–170 (1975).

Lopata, C., Wallace, N. V. & Finn, K. V. Comparison of academic achievement between Montessori and traditional education programs. J. Res. Child. Educ. 20 , 5–13 (2005).

Miller, L. B. & Bizzell, R. P. Long-term effects of four preschool programs: ninth- and tenth-grade results. Child. Dev. 55 , 1570–1587 (1984).

Clarke, A. D. B. & Clarke, A. M. “Sleeper effects” in development: fact or artefact? Dev. Rev. 1 , 344–360 (1981).

Dohrmann, K., Nishida, T., Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. & Grimm, K. High school outcomes for students in a public Montessori program. J. Res. Child. Educ. 22 , 205–217 (2007).

Banta, T. J. The Sands School Project: First Year Results (Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 1968)

Laski, E. V., Vasilyeva, M. & Schiffman, J. Longitudinal comparison of place-value and arithmetic knowledge in Montessori and non-Montessori students. J. Mont. Res. 2 , 1–15 (2016).

Dreyer, A. & Rigler, D. Cognitive performance in Montessori and nursery school children. J. Educ. Res. 62 , 411–416 (1969).

Besançon, M. & Lubart, T. Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learn. Ind. Diff. 18 , 391–399 (2008).

Rule, A. & Stewart, R. Effects of practical life materials on kindergartners’ fine motor skills. Early Child. Educ. J. 30 , 9–13 (2002).

Bhatia, P., Davis, A. & Shamas-Brandt, E. Educational gymnastics: the effectiveness of Montessori practical life activities in developing fine motor skills in kindergartners. Early Educ. Dev. 26 , 594–607 (2015).

Stewart, R. A., Rule, A. C. & Giordano, D. A. The effect of fine motor skill activities on kindergarten student attention. Early Child. Educ. J. 35 , 103–109 (2007).

Rathunde, K. & Csikszetnmihalyi, M. Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. Am. J. Educ. 111 , 341–371 (2005).

Dombey, H. in Phonics: Practice, Research and Policy (eds Lewis, M. & Ellis, S.) (Paul Chapman Publishing, London, UK, 2006).

Hattie, J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2008).

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups . NIH Publication no. 00–4754 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, 2000).

Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G. & Hall, J. A Systematic Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling (Department for Education and Skills, Sheffield, UK, 2006)

Dehaene, S. et al. How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science 330 , 1359–1364 (2010).

Morris, J. Phonics 44 for initial literacy in English. Reading 18 , 13–24 (1984).

Morris, J. The Morris-Montessori Word List (London Montessori Centre, London, UK, 1990).

Wyse, D. & Styles, M. Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading: the debate surrounding England’s ‘Rose Report’. Literacy 41 , 35–42 (2007).

Gough, P. B. & Tunmer, W. E. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial Spec. Educ. 7 , 6–10 (1986).

Rumelhart, D. Toward an interactive model of reading. Technical Report No. 56 . (San Diego Center for Human Information Processing, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, 1976).

Hayes, J. & Flower, L. in Cognitive Processes in Writing (eds Gregg, L. & Steinberg, E.) (Erlbaum, London, UK, 1980).

Berninger, V. W. & Swanson, H. L. in Children’s Writing: Toward a Process Theory of the Development of Skilled Writing (ed Butterfield, E. C.) (JAI Press, Bingley, UK, 1994).

Berninger, V., Nagy, W. & Beers, S. Child writers’ construction and reconstruction of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts: contributions of syntax and transcription to translation. Read. Writ. 102 , 151–182 (2011).

Medwell, J. & Wray, D. Handwriting - a forgotten language skill? Lang. Educ. 22 , 34–47 (2008).

Andrews, R. et al. The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. Br. Educ. Res. J. 32 , 39–55 (2006).

Duin, A. H. & Graves, M. F. Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique. Read. Res. Quaterly 22 , 311–330 (1987).

Graham, S. & Santangelo, T. Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Read. Writ. 27 , 1703–1743 (2014).

Wolf, B., Abbott, R. D. & Berninger, V. W. Effective beginning handwriting instruction: multi-modal, consistent format for 2 years, and linked to spelling and composing. Read. Writ. 30 , 299–317 (2017).

Frye, D. et al. Teaching math to young children: a practice guide (NCEE 2014-4005). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov (2013).

Siegler, R. et al. Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE #2010-4039). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512043.pdf (2010).

Blair, C. & Razza, R. P. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child. Dev. 78 , 647–663 (2007).

Cragg, L. & Gilmore, C. Skills underlying mathematics: the role of executive function in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 3 , 63–68 (2014).

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C. & Stegmann, Z. Working memory skills and educational attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 18 , 1–16 (2004).

Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. E. & Cutting, L. E. Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. J. Learn. Disabil. 43 , 441–454 (2010).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Shaul, S. & Schwartz, M. The role of executive functions in school readiness among preschool-age children. Read. Writ. 27 , 749–768 (2014).

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education 2nd edn (Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007)

Diamond, A. & Lee, K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science 333 , 959–964 (2011).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Elkind, D. Montessori education: abiding contributions and contemporary challenges. Young. Child. 38 , 3–10 (1983).

Malm, B. Constructing professional identities: Montessori teachers’ voices and visions. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 48 , 397–412 (2004).

Montessori, M. From Childhood to Adolescence: Including Erdkinder and the Function of The University (Schocken books, New York, NY, 1973).

Blakemore, S. Imaging brain development: the adolescent brain. Neuroimage 61 , 397–406 (2012).

Paus, T. Mapping brain development and cognitive development during adolescence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9 , 60–68 (2005).

Ferri, C. P. et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 366 , 2112–2117 (2005).

Sheppard, C. L., McArthur, C. & Hitzig, S. L. A systematic review of Montessori-based activities for persons with dementia. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 17 , 117–122 (2016).

Cummings, J. L., Morstorf, T. & Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: few candidates, frequent failures. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 6 , 37 (2014).

Camp, C. J. et al. An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. Gerontologist 37 , 688–692 (1997).

Gold, B. T. Lifelong bilingualism and neural reserve against Alzheimer’s disease: A review of findings and potential mechanisms. Behav. Brain Res. 281 , 9–15 (2015).

Seidenberg, M. S. The science of reading and its educational implications. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9 , 331–360 (2013).

Brehony, K. J. Montessori, individual work and individuality in the elementary school classroom. Hist. Educ. 29 , 115–128 (2000).

Download references

Acknowledgements

I dedicate this work to Sandra Nash Petrek (1939–2017), an inspiring Montessorian.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

Chloë Marshall

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloë Marshall .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares that they have no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Marshall, C. Montessori education: a review of the evidence base. npj Science Learn 2 , 11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7

Download citation

Received : 30 October 2016

Revised : 11 September 2017

Accepted : 12 September 2017

Published : 27 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A preliminary examination of a kindergarten school readiness assessment.

Marisa Macy
Mali Sawyer

Early Childhood Education Journal (2022)

Education shapes the structure of semantic memory and impacts creative thinking

Solange Denervaud
Alexander P. Christensen
Roger E. Beaty

npj Science of Learning (2021)

PeppeRecycle: Improving Children’s Attitude Toward Recycling by Playing with a Social Robot

Giovanna Castellano
Berardina De Carolis
Veronica Rossano

International Journal of Social Robotics (2021)

Interaction of children with and without communication disorders using Montessori activities for the tablet

Juan-Ramón Pérez-Pérez
David Cabielles-Hernández
MPuerto Paule-Ruiz

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2021)

An fMRI study of error monitoring in Montessori and traditionally-schooled children

Eleonora Fornari
David Sander

npj Science of Learning (2020)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Our Mission

Illustration concept of people solving research problems and puzzles

The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2021

From reframing our notion of “good” schools to mining the magic of expert teachers, here’s a curated list of must-read research from 2021.

It was a year of unprecedented hardship for teachers and school leaders. We pored through hundreds of studies to see if we could follow the trail of exactly what happened: The research revealed a complex portrait of a grueling year during which persistent issues of burnout and mental and physical health impacted millions of educators. Meanwhile, many of the old debates continued: Does paper beat digital? Is project-based learning as effective as direct instruction? How do you define what a “good” school is?

Other studies grabbed our attention, and in a few cases, made headlines. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Columbia University turned artificial intelligence loose on some 1,130 award-winning children’s books in search of invisible patterns of bias. (Spoiler alert: They found some.) Another study revealed why many parents are reluctant to support social and emotional learning in schools—and provided hints about how educators can flip the script.

1. What Parents Fear About SEL (and How to Change Their Minds)

When researchers at the Fordham Institute asked parents to rank phrases associated with social and emotional learning , nothing seemed to add up. The term “social-emotional learning” was very unpopular; parents wanted to steer their kids clear of it. But when the researchers added a simple clause, forming a new phrase—”social-emotional & academic learning”—the program shot all the way up to No. 2 in the rankings.

What gives?

Parents were picking up subtle cues in the list of SEL-related terms that irked or worried them, the researchers suggest. Phrases like “soft skills” and “growth mindset” felt “nebulous” and devoid of academic content. For some, the language felt suspiciously like “code for liberal indoctrination.”

But the study suggests that parents might need the simplest of reassurances to break through the political noise. Removing the jargon, focusing on productive phrases like “life skills,” and relentlessly connecting SEL to academic progress puts parents at ease—and seems to save social and emotional learning in the process.

2. The Secret Management Techniques of Expert Teachers

In the hands of experienced teachers, classroom management can seem almost invisible: Subtle techniques are quietly at work behind the scenes, with students falling into orderly routines and engaging in rigorous academic tasks almost as if by magic.

That’s no accident, according to new research . While outbursts are inevitable in school settings, expert teachers seed their classrooms with proactive, relationship-building strategies that often prevent misbehavior before it erupts. They also approach discipline more holistically than their less-experienced counterparts, consistently reframing misbehavior in the broader context of how lessons can be more engaging, or how clearly they communicate expectations.

Focusing on the underlying dynamics of classroom behavior—and not on surface-level disruptions—means that expert teachers often look the other way at all the right times, too. Rather than rise to the bait of a minor breach in etiquette, a common mistake of new teachers, they tend to play the long game, asking questions about the origins of misbehavior, deftly navigating the terrain between discipline and student autonomy, and opting to confront misconduct privately when possible.

3. The Surprising Power of Pretesting

Asking students to take a practice test before they’ve even encountered the material may seem like a waste of time—after all, they’d just be guessing.

But new research concludes that the approach, called pretesting, is actually more effective than other typical study strategies. Surprisingly, pretesting even beat out taking practice tests after learning the material, a proven strategy endorsed by cognitive scientists and educators alike. In the study, students who took a practice test before learning the material outperformed their peers who studied more traditionally by 49 percent on a follow-up test, while outperforming students who took practice tests after studying the material by 27 percent.

The researchers hypothesize that the “generation of errors” was a key to the strategy’s success, spurring student curiosity and priming them to “search for the correct answers” when they finally explored the new material—and adding grist to a 2018 study that found that making educated guesses helped students connect background knowledge to new material.

Learning is more durable when students do the hard work of correcting misconceptions, the research suggests, reminding us yet again that being wrong is an important milestone on the road to being right.

4. Confronting an Old Myth About Immigrant Students

Immigrant students are sometimes portrayed as a costly expense to the education system, but new research is systematically dismantling that myth.

In a 2021 study , researchers analyzed over 1.3 million academic and birth records for students in Florida communities, and concluded that the presence of immigrant students actually has “a positive effect on the academic achievement of U.S.-born students,” raising test scores as the size of the immigrant school population increases. The benefits were especially powerful for low-income students.

While immigrants initially “face challenges in assimilation that may require additional school resources,” the researchers concluded, hard work and resilience may allow them to excel and thus “positively affect exposed U.S.-born students’ attitudes and behavior.” But according to teacher Larry Ferlazzo, the improvements might stem from the fact that having English language learners in classes improves pedagogy , pushing teachers to consider “issues like prior knowledge, scaffolding, and maximizing accessibility.”

5. A Fuller Picture of What a ‘Good’ School Is

It’s time to rethink our definition of what a “good school” is, researchers assert in a study published in late 2020.⁣ That’s because typical measures of school quality like test scores often provide an incomplete and misleading picture, the researchers found.

The study looked at over 150,000 ninth-grade students who attended Chicago public schools and concluded that emphasizing the social and emotional dimensions of learning—relationship-building, a sense of belonging, and resilience, for example—improves high school graduation and college matriculation rates for both high- and low-income students, beating out schools that focus primarily on improving test scores.⁣

“Schools that promote socio-emotional development actually have a really big positive impact on kids,” said lead researcher C. Kirabo Jackson in an interview with Edutopia . “And these impacts are particularly large for vulnerable student populations who don’t tend to do very well in the education system.”

The findings reinforce the importance of a holistic approach to measuring student progress, and are a reminder that schools—and teachers—can influence students in ways that are difficult to measure, and may only materialize well into the future.⁣

6. Teaching Is Learning

One of the best ways to learn a concept is to teach it to someone else. But do you actually have to step into the shoes of a teacher, or does the mere expectation of teaching do the trick?

In a 2021 study , researchers split students into two groups and gave them each a science passage about the Doppler effect—a phenomenon associated with sound and light waves that explains the gradual change in tone and pitch as a car races off into the distance, for example. One group studied the text as preparation for a test; the other was told that they’d be teaching the material to another student.

The researchers never carried out the second half of the activity—students read the passages but never taught the lesson. All of the participants were then tested on their factual recall of the Doppler effect, and their ability to draw deeper conclusions from the reading.

The upshot? Students who prepared to teach outperformed their counterparts in both duration and depth of learning, scoring 9 percent higher on factual recall a week after the lessons concluded, and 24 percent higher on their ability to make inferences. The research suggests that asking students to prepare to teach something—or encouraging them to think “could I teach this to someone else?”—can significantly alter their learning trajectories.

7. A Disturbing Strain of Bias in Kids’ Books

Some of the most popular and well-regarded children’s books—Caldecott and Newbery honorees among them—persistently depict Black, Asian, and Hispanic characters with lighter skin, according to new research .

Using artificial intelligence, researchers combed through 1,130 children’s books written in the last century, comparing two sets of diverse children’s books—one a collection of popular books that garnered major literary awards, the other favored by identity-based awards. The software analyzed data on skin tone, race, age, and gender.

Among the findings: While more characters with darker skin color begin to appear over time, the most popular books—those most frequently checked out of libraries and lining classroom bookshelves—continue to depict people of color in lighter skin tones. More insidiously, when adult characters are “moral or upstanding,” their skin color tends to appear lighter, the study’s lead author, Anjali Aduki, told The 74 , with some books converting “Martin Luther King Jr.’s chocolate complexion to a light brown or beige.” Female characters, meanwhile, are often seen but not heard.

Cultural representations are a reflection of our values, the researchers conclude: “Inequality in representation, therefore, constitutes an explicit statement of inequality of value.”

8. The Never-Ending ‘Paper Versus Digital’ War

The argument goes like this: Digital screens turn reading into a cold and impersonal task; they’re good for information foraging, and not much more. “Real” books, meanwhile, have a heft and “tactility” that make them intimate, enchanting—and irreplaceable.

But researchers have often found weak or equivocal evidence for the superiority of reading on paper. While a recent study concluded that paper books yielded better comprehension than e-books when many of the digital tools had been removed, the effect sizes were small. A 2021 meta-analysis further muddies the water: When digital and paper books are “mostly similar,” kids comprehend the print version more readily—but when enhancements like motion and sound “target the story content,” e-books generally have the edge.

Nostalgia is a force that every new technology must eventually confront. There’s plenty of evidence that writing with pen and paper encodes learning more deeply than typing. But new digital book formats come preloaded with powerful tools that allow readers to annotate, look up words, answer embedded questions, and share their thinking with other readers.

We may not be ready to admit it, but these are precisely the kinds of activities that drive deeper engagement, enhance comprehension, and leave us with a lasting memory of what we’ve read. The future of e-reading, despite the naysayers, remains promising.

9. New Research Makes a Powerful Case for PBL

Many classrooms today still look like they did 100 years ago, when students were preparing for factory jobs. But the world’s moved on: Modern careers demand a more sophisticated set of skills—collaboration, advanced problem-solving, and creativity, for example—and those can be difficult to teach in classrooms that rarely give students the time and space to develop those competencies.

Project-based learning (PBL) would seem like an ideal solution. But critics say PBL places too much responsibility on novice learners, ignoring the evidence about the effectiveness of direct instruction and ultimately undermining subject fluency. Advocates counter that student-centered learning and direct instruction can and should coexist in classrooms.

Now two new large-scale studies —encompassing over 6,000 students in 114 diverse schools across the nation—provide evidence that a well-structured, project-based approach boosts learning for a wide range of students.

In the studies, which were funded by Lucas Education Research, a sister division of Edutopia , elementary and high school students engaged in challenging projects that had them designing water systems for local farms, or creating toys using simple household objects to learn about gravity, friction, and force. Subsequent testing revealed notable learning gains—well above those experienced by students in traditional classrooms—and those gains seemed to raise all boats, persisting across socioeconomic class, race, and reading levels.

10. Tracking a Tumultuous Year for Teachers

The Covid-19 pandemic cast a long shadow over the lives of educators in 2021, according to a year’s worth of research.

The average teacher’s workload suddenly “spiked last spring,” wrote the Center for Reinventing Public Education in its January 2021 report, and then—in defiance of the laws of motion—simply never let up. By the fall, a RAND study recorded an astonishing shift in work habits: 24 percent of teachers reported that they were working 56 hours or more per week, compared to 5 percent pre-pandemic.

The vaccine was the promised land, but when it arrived nothing seemed to change. In an April 2021 survey conducted four months after the first vaccine was administered in New York City, 92 percent of teachers said their jobs were more stressful than prior to the pandemic, up from 81 percent in an earlier survey.

It wasn’t just the length of the work days; a close look at the research reveals that the school system’s failure to adjust expectations was ruinous. It seemed to start with the obligations of hybrid teaching, which surfaced in Edutopia ’s coverage of overseas school reopenings. In June 2020, well before many U.S. schools reopened, we reported that hybrid teaching was an emerging problem internationally, and warned that if the “model is to work well for any period of time,” schools must “recognize and seek to reduce the workload for teachers.” Almost eight months later, a 2021 RAND study identified hybrid teaching as a primary source of teacher stress in the U.S., easily outpacing factors like the health of a high-risk loved one.

New and ever-increasing demands for tech solutions put teachers on a knife’s edge. In several important 2021 studies, researchers concluded that teachers were being pushed to adopt new technology without the “resources and equipment necessary for its correct didactic use.” Consequently, they were spending more than 20 hours a week adapting lessons for online use, and experiencing an unprecedented erosion of the boundaries between their work and home lives, leading to an unsustainable “always on” mentality. When it seemed like nothing more could be piled on—when all of the lights were blinking red—the federal government restarted standardized testing .

Change will be hard; many of the pathologies that exist in the system now predate the pandemic. But creating strict school policies that separate work from rest, eliminating the adoption of new tech tools without proper supports, distributing surveys regularly to gauge teacher well-being, and above all listening to educators to identify and confront emerging problems might be a good place to start, if the research can be believed.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Int J Environ Res Public Health

Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review

Associated data.

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Adolescence, a period of physical, social, cognitive and emotional development, represents a target population for sexual health promotion and education when it comes to achieving the 2030 Agenda goals for sustainable and equitable societies. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of what is known about the dissemination and effectiveness of sex education programs and thereby to inform better public policy making in this area. Methodology : We carried out a systematic review based on international scientific literature, in which only peer-reviewed papers were included. To identify reviews, we carried out an electronic search of the Cochrane Database Reviews, ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and PsycINFO. This paper provides a narrative review of reviews of the literature from 2015 to 2020. Results : 20 reviews met the inclusion criteria (10 in school settings, 9 using digital platforms and 1 blended learning program): they focused mainly on reducing risk behaviors (e.g., VIH/STIs and unwanted pregnancies), whilst obviating themes such as desire and pleasure, which were not included in outcome evaluations. The reviews with the lowest risk of bias are those carried out in school settings and are the ones that most question the effectiveness of sex education programs. Whilst the reviews of digital platforms and blended learning show greater effectiveness in terms of promoting sexual and reproductive health in adolescents (ASRH), they nevertheless also include greater risks of bias. Conclusion : A more rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of sexual education programs is necessary, especially regarding the opportunities offered by new technologies, which may lead to more cost-effective interventions than with in-person programs. Moreover, blended learning programs offer a promising way forward, as they combine the best of face-to-face and digital interventions, and may provide an excellent tool in the new context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. Introduction

Adolescence is a period of transition, growth, exploration and opportunities that the World Health Organization defines as referring to individuals between 10 years and 19 years of age [ 1 ]. During this life phase, adolescents undergo physical, psychological and sexual maturation and tend to develop an increased interest in sex and relationships, with positive relationships becoming strongly linked to sexual and reproductive health as well as overall wellbeing [ 2 ]. Sexual health is understood as a state of wellness comprising physical, emotional, mental, and social dimensions [ 3 ]: it represents one of the necessary requirements to achieve the general objective of sustainable and equitable societies in terms of the 2030 Agenda [ 4 ], which advocates the need for a sexual education that is anchored in a gender- and human rights-oriented perspective.

In high-income countries, sexual debut usually occurs during adolescence [ 5 ], though research suggests that sexual initiation is increasingly occurring at earlier ages [ 6 ]. Adolescents have to deal with the results of unhealthy sexual behaviors, including unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections [ 7 ], as well as experiences of sexual violence [ 8 , 9 ]. Adolescents are aware that they need more knowledge in order to enjoy healthy relationships [ 10 ], yet do not receive enough of the kind of information from parents or other formal sources that would allow them to develop a more positive, respectful experience of sexuality and sexual relationships [ 11 ].

Sexual education can be defined as any combination of learning experiences aimed at facilitating voluntary behavior conducive to sexual health. Sex education during adolescence has centered on the delivery of content (abstinence-only vs. comprehensive instruction) by teachers, parents, health professionals or community educators, and on the context (within school and beyond) of such delivery [ 12 ]. As regards content, the proponents of abstinence-only programs aim to help young adults avoid unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), working on the assumption that while contraceptive use merely reduces the risk, abstinence will eliminate it entirely [ 13 ]. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of studies in this field have shown that programs advocating abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) are neither effective in delaying sexual debut nor in changing other sexual risk behaviors [ 14 , 15 ], and participants in abstinence-only sex education programs consider that these had only a low impact in their lives [ 16 ]. On the other hand, holistic and comprehensive approaches to sex education go beyond risk behaviors and acknowledge other important aspects, as for example love, relationships, pleasure, sexuality, desire, gender diversity and rights, in accordance with internationally established guidelines [ 17 ], and with the 2030 Agenda [ 4 ]. Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) “plays a central role in the preparation of young people for a safe, productive, fulfilling life” (p. 12) [ 17 ] and adolescents who receive comprehensive sex education are more likely to delay their sexual debut, as well as to use contraception during sexual initiation [ 18 ]. Comprehensive sexual education initiatives thereby promote sexual health in a way that involves not only the biological aspects of sexuality but also its psychological and emotional aspects, allowing young people to have enjoyable and safe sexual experiences.

With regard to context, sexual education may occur in different settings. School settings are key sites for implementing sexual education and for promoting adolescent sexual health [ 19 ], but today internet is becoming an increasingly important source of information and advice on these topics [ 20 ]. Access to the internet by adolescents is almost universal in high-income countries. The ubiquity and accessibility of digital platforms result in adolescents spending a great deal of time on the internet, and the search for information is the primary purpose of health-related internet use [ 21 ]. At the same time, this widespread use of technology by young people offers interesting possibilities for sexual health education programs, given the ease of access, availability, low cost, and the possibility of participating remotely [ 22 ]. The topics that young people search for online include information on everyday health-related issues, physical well-being and sexual health [ 23 ]. The majority of internet users of all ages in the US (80%) search online for health information including sexual health information [ 24 ], and among adolescents social media platforms are the most frequent means of obtaining information about health, especially regarding sexuality [ 25 ].

Thanks to the ubiquity and popularity of technologies, digital media interventions for sexual education offer a promising way forward, both via the internet (eHealth) and via mobile phones (mHealth, a specific way of promoting eHealth), given the privacy and anonymity they afford, especially for young people. Digital interventions in school—both inside and outside the classroom—offer interesting possibilities, because of their greater flexibility with regard to a variety of learning needs and benefits in comparison with traditional, face-to-face interventions, and because they offer ample opportunities for customization, interactivity as well as a safe, controlled, and familiar environment for transmitting sexual health knowledge and skills [ 26 ]. As Garzón-Orjuela et al. [ 27 ] argues, contemporary adolescents’ needs are mediated by their digital and technological environment, making it important to adapt interventions in the light of these realities. Online searches for sexual health information are likely to become increasingly important for young people with diminishing access to information from schools or health care providers in the midst of the lockdowns and widespread school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 28 ], with more than two million deaths and 94 million people infected around the world [ 29 ]. Specifically, blended learning programs, consisting of internet-based educational interventions complemented by face-to-face interventions, may prove a significant addition to regular secondary school sex education programs [ 30 , 31 ]. Blended learning programs can be especially helpful in promoting sexual and reproductive health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is challenging the way we have so far approached formal education, with its focus on face to face interventions, given the need, now more than ever, to “develop and disseminate online sex education curricula, and ensure the availability of both in-person and online instruction in response to school closures caused by the pandemic” [ 28 ].

The present study sets out to research the dissemination and effectiveness in different settings (school, digital and blended learning) of sex education programs that promote healthy and positive relationships and the reduction of risk behaviors, so as to make current sexual health interventions more effective [ 32 ]. Numerous researchers have carried out trials and systematic reviews so as to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based sexual health and relationship education [ 19 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], as well as that of digital platform programs [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. However, there has not been a review that is representative of the literature as a whole. Furthermore, in the reviews that have been carried out, differing aims and inclusion criteria have led to differences in the sampling of available primary studies [ 19 ]. As Garzón-Orjuela et al. [ 27 ] asserts, the field of adolescent sex education is continuously evolving and in need of evaluation and improvement. Better assessments are necessary in order to clarify whether they offer a viable and effective strategy for influencing adolescents, especially with respect to improved ASRH behaviors. Hence, given the need for an up-to-date revision so as to consider more recent emerging evidence in this field, in this study we carry out a review of reviews that includes reviews of interventions both in school settings and via digital platforms, as well as, for the first time, those that combine both formats (blended learning).

The decision to conduct a review of reviews (RoR), assessing the quality and summarizing the findings of existing systematic reviews, rather than working directly with primary intervention studies, addresses the need to include as wide a range of topics covered within the field of sex education as possible [ 40 ]. As Schackleton et al. [ 35 ] (p. 383) point out, in order to provide overviews of research evidence that are relevant to policy making, it is important “to bring together evidence on different forms of intervention and on different outcomes because it is useful for policy makers to know what is the range of approaches previously evaluated and whether these have consistent effects across different outcomes.” Carrying out and publicly sharing reviews of reviews such as the present study constitutes one way of better providing practitioners with evidence they can then carry over into their interventions [ 32 ].

2. Methodology

(1) To systematically review existing reviews of Sex Education (SE) of school-based (face-to-face), digital platforms and blended learning programs for adolescent populations in high-income countries.

(2) To summarize evidence relating to effectiveness.

2.2. Methods

The review is structured in accordance with the PRISMA checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) (see Figure A1 ), and the systematic review protocol has previously been published on the PROSPERO International Prospective Registry of Technical Reviews (CRD42021224537).

2.3. Search Strategy

This systematic review is based on international scientific literature and only peer- reviewed papers have been included. Only meta-analyses (publications that combine results from different studies) and systematic reviews (literature reviews that synthesize high-quality research evidence) were used for this review. Findings from reviews of reviews were not analyzed. To identify reviews, we electronically searched the Cochrane Database Reviews, ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and PsycINFO. After the list was completed the duplicated papers were automatically removed. Two reviewers working independently applied inclusion criteria in screening citations by titles, abstracts, and keywords to identify records for full-text review. A third reviewer reconciled any disagreement. The same procedure was carried out in screening the full text of studies selected after the title and abstract screening phase. Two reviewers then examined the full text of each article to determine which satisfied inclusion criteria. Data extraction was carried out independently by the first and second reviewer. The extracted data included specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes significant to the review question and objective. Any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Search terms are included in Table A1 .

This RoR included the reviews published since 2015, when the United Nations decided on new Global Sustainable Development Goals, until December 2020. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [ 4 ] takes into account the relevance of Sexual Health to achieve peace and prosperity.

2.4. Inclusion Criteria

We extracted data using a “Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome” structure, PICO [ 41 ].

Population: Reviews of interventions targeting adolescents (aged 10–19 years), school-setting, digital platforms or blended learning education were eligible for inclusion. Reviews in which studies of interventions targeted youth and adults were eligible if the primary studies included people between the ages of 10–19 years.

Intervention: Reviews of interventions developed in school-setting (school-based), digital (digital platforms) or blended learning programs were included. Interventions based on multiple settings or targeted multiple health-related issues were only considered for inclusion if any primary studies were linked to school-based, digital or blended learning interventions, as well as targeting Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH).

Comparison groups: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies using a quasi-experimental design (including non-randomized trials—nRCTs). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs, group exposed to sexual education (SE) program (school-based, digital platforms or blended learning) compared with non-exposed control group or another intervention.

Outcomes: Primary outcomes: (1) Sexual behavior and (2) Health and social outcomes related to sexual health. Secondary outcomes: (1) Knowledge and understanding of sexual health and relationship issues and (2) Attitudes, values and skills.

2.5. Exclusion Criteria

Reviews were excluded if:

Their primary focus was adult people and adolescents were not included.
Their primary focus was sexual-health screening, sexual abuse or assault or prevention of sexual abuse or rape.
The studies targeted specific populations (e.g., pre-pubertal children, children with developmental disorders, migrant and refugee, or sexual minorities).
The interventions focused on low- and middle-income countries or if high income countries were not included in the study.
Recipients were professionals, teachers, parents or a combination of the latter.

2.6. Risk of Bias and Assessment of Study Quality

Review quality was assessed by the first author using the AMSTAR II checklist [ 42 ]. This is an updating and adaptation of AMSTAR [ 43 , 44 ] which allows a more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. It consists of a 16-item tool (including 5 critical domains) assessing the quality of a review’s design, its search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment of included studies, methods used to combine the findings, likelihood of publication bias and statements of conflict of interest. The maximum quality score is 16.

2.7. Data Synthesis

After manually coding the papers and extracting relevant data, we used a narrative/descriptive approach for data synthesis to summarize characteristics of the studies included. Considering the heterogeneity of outcomes, their measures and research designs, meta-analysis of all the studies included was not carried out. Two researchers were involved in data synthesis. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and a third researcher was consulted to resolve any remaining discrepancies. For the classification of the information and presentation of the effects of the interventions reported, data was separated (school setting, digital platforms or blended learning) and structured around population, intervention, comparison, and outcome. To address the main review questions, data was synthesized in two phases. Phase 1 addressed the first question, the description of sex education/sexual health interventions. Phase 2 addressed the second question, the effectiveness and benefit of the interventions; studies with a low risk of bias were highlighted, so as to strengthen the reliability of findings (AMSTAR II) [ 42 ].

3.1. Results of Search

Our searches yielded 1476 unique citations. After excluding 776 records based on title and abstract screening, we reviewed 217 full-text articles for eligibility, of which 20 ultimately met inclusion criteria, and proceeded to data extraction. Of the 197 studies that we excluded after full-text review, 82 were carried out in low- and middle-income countries, 47 targeted exclusively adults, 56 dealt with minority groups, and 12 targeted exclusively pre-teen students.

3.2. Risk of Bias in Included Studies

According to the AMSTAR II quality assessment tool’s developers [ 42 ] scores may range from 1 to 16: in this case only 2 reviews scored 16 out of 16: 1 in a school setting [ 45 ], and 1 on a digital platform [ 46 ]. 6 of the 20 systematic reviews were of high quality: 5 in school settings [ 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], and 1 in digital platforms [ 46 ]; there was one study of medium quality in a school setting [ 51 ]. The remaining studies were of low or very low quality (N = 13). It is possible that low quality reviews may not provide reliable evidence, so those scoring in low and critically low quality should be regarded skeptically.

3.3. Reviews Included

Key information regarding the 20 reviews included is shown in Table A2 and Table A3 .

3.3.1. Setting

Ten studies (50%) dealt with school-based interventions [ 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], 9 (45%) referred to online interventions [ 46 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ] and 1 (5%) was a review of blended learning programs [ 64 ]. In total 491 studies were included in the 20 reviews covered by the present RoR. The 10 reviews of school setting interventions include a total of 266 studies (54%), the 9 reviews of online interventions cover a total of 216 (44%) studies, and the only review of blended learning interventions includes a total of 9 studies (2%). All studies were conducted in high-income economies following the World Bank classification [ 65 ], including US samples in 16 of the 20 studies, although there are two studies in which the country of the sample is not identified [ 51 , 52 ]. Most of the studies evaluating interventions in school settings also include developing countries (low- and middle-income economies) [ 45 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 ], as is also the case in three reviews of online interventions [ 46 , 61 , 62 ] (see Table A2 ).

3.3.2. Population

The targeted age for reviews in school settings, as shown in Table A2 , is the period of adolescence, from 10 to 19 years of age, though one of the studies covers ages from 7 to 19 years [ 53 ]. All the online studies also include young adults (20–24 years old), alongside the adolescent sample [ 46 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ], whilst the review by DeSmet et al. [ 58 ] extends the upper limit to 29 years of age. Along with the sample of adolescents and young adults, the blended learning studies review also incorporates adults of over 25 years of age [ 64 ].

3.3.3. Interventions/Types of Study

All the studies included in this review of reviews used randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCT), and a quasi-experimental design or a pre-test/post-test design to examine program effects.

3.3.4. Outcomes

The term “sexual outcomes” refers to the attitudes, behaviors, and experiences of adolescents consequent to their sex education [ 14 ] (p. 1), and an extensive range of variables was included (see Table A2 ): knowledge (e.g., knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness or effective method use); attitudes (e.g., about sex and reproductive health); beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy); skills (e.g., condom skills); intentions/motivation (e.g., use of birth control methods; condom use); behaviors (e.g., sexual debut; condom use; contraception use; intercourse; initiation of sexual activity) and; other outcomes related to sexual behavior (e.g., pregnancy prevalence; number of partners; rates of sexually transmissible infections (STIs); cervical screening; appreciation of sexual diversity; dating and intimate partner violence prevention; sexual violence).

3.3.5. Country of Review

Of the 10 reviews of interventions in school settings, the authors are from the USA in 7 reviews [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], from the United Kingdom in 1 [ 45 ], from Australia in 1 [ 51 ], and from Thailand in 1 [ 52 ]. Of the 9 reviews of interventions in digital settings, the authors are from the United States in 3 reviews [ 59 , 60 , 63 ], from the United Kingdom in 2 [ 46 , 56 ], from Australia in 1 [ 62 ], from Belgium in 1 [ 58 ], from France in 1 [ 61 ] and from Turkey in 1 [ 57 ]. The authors of the blended learning review are from the USA [ 64 ].

3.3.6. Year of Last Paper Included

The studies cited in the reviews that met the inclusion criteria for this review were published over a wide range of years (between 1981–2019), although only one [ 61 ], with articles published up to and including 2019 was published later than 2017. Of these, 3 were carried out in school settings [ 49 , 51 , 53 ], and 1 on digital platforms [ 46 ].

3.3.7. Search Tools

All reviews include more than 2 tools to carry out the search, in a range of 3–12, and in 7 of them the review of gray literature was included.

3.3.8. Multicenter Studies and Number of Studies Included

All reviews from school settings are multicenter, except that of Mirzazadeh et al. [ 49 ], which includes only one North American sample. The same is true for the blended learning review [ 64 ] and for the reviews of digital platforms, except for the reviews by Bailey et al. [ 56 ], L´Engle et al. [ 60 ], and Widman et al. [ 63 ]. Regarding the number of countries included in the reviews, the range in the school-setting reviews is from 1 to 11, in digital platforms reviews from 1 to 16, and in the only review of blended learning, 3. As for the range of studies included, in the reviews in school setting the range is between 8 and 80, in digital platforms, between 5 and 60, and in the only review of reviews of blended learning 9 studies were included.

3.3.9. Number of Reviews Covered That Include Meta-Analysis

As for the number of reviews that carry out a meta-analysis, there are 8 in total: 4 in school settings [ 45 , 48 , 49 , 55 ] and 4 on digital platforms [ 43 , 46 , 56 , 58 ], while in the only review of blended learning there is no meta- analysis.

3.4. Effectiveness

3.4.1. school settings.

Half of the reviews conclude that interventions are not effective in promoting healthy sexual behaviors and/or reducing risks [ 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. These reviews are of high quality and with a reduced risk of bias (see Table A4 ), so that the results are highly reliable, even though in most of the studies cited the risk of bias was judged to be high and the quality of evidence was low or very low. These reviews include those of the Marseille et al. [ 48 ] and Mirzazadeh et al. [ 49 ] team, who in two studies—each led by one of the two authors—analyze, on the one hand, the effectiveness of school-based teen pregnancy prevention programs [ 48 ], and, on the other hand, the effectiveness of school-based programs prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in North America [ 49 ]. The results of the studies question the usefulness of interventions carried out in schools to prevent both unwanted pregnancies and the incidence of HIV and other sexual transmitted infections in adolescents in North America. In addition to these results, those of Lopez et al. [ 47 ] focus on analyzing the effectiveness of programs implemented in schools to promote the use of contraceptive methods and conclude that many trials reported contraceptive use as an outcome but did not take into consideration whether contraceptive methods and their relative effectiveness were part of the content. For its part, the review by Mason-Jones et al. [ 45 ] also concludes that the educational programs covered had no significant effect as regards the prevalence of HIV or other STIs (herpes simplex virus, moderate evidence and syphilis, low evidence), nor was there any apparent effect in terms of the number of pregnancies at the end of the trial (moderate evidence). Finally, the review by Oringanje et al. [ 50 ] finds only limited evidence for program effects on biological measures, and inconsistent results for behavioral (secondary) outcomes across trials and concludes that it was only the interventions which combined education and contraception promotion (multiple interventions) that led to a significant reduction in unintended pregnancies over the medium- and long-term follow-up period.

In contrast to these negative results in terms of the effectiveness of the programs implemented in the school environment (identified in 5 of the 10 reviews included), 3 of the 10 reviews concluded that the programs evaluated were mostly effective in promoting knowledge, attitudes and/or in reducing risk behaviors [ 51 , 52 , 53 ] whilst programs were effective in terms of some of the primary outcomes in the reviews by Haberland et al., [ 54 ], and Peterson et al. [ 55 ]. However, these data must be taken with caution since the level of bias in these reviews—excepting that of Kedzior et al. [ 51 ] with a medium quality level—is at a low or critically low-quality level. In the review by Chokprajakchad et al. [ 52 ], 22 programs reviewed were effective in changing targeted adolescent psychosocial and/or behavioral outcomes, in 12 of 17 studies evaluating delay in the initiation of sexual intercourse, the programs were effective and many of the reviewed studies demonstrated impacts on short-term outcomes, such as knowledge, attitudes, perception and intention. The review by Goldfarb et al. [ 53 ] identifies changes in appreciation of sexual diversity, dating and intimate partner violence prevention, healthy relationships, child sex abuse prevention and additional outcomes. According to the review by Kedzior et al. [ 51 ], focused on studies promoting social connectedness with regard to sexual and reproductive sexual health, the programs reviewed improved condom use, delayed initiation of sex, and reduced pregnancy rates. Additionally, in this review, program effectiveness was influenced by ethnicity and gender: greater improvements in condom use were often reported among African American students. For its part, in the study by Peterson et al. [ 55 ] the meta-analysis of three randomized trials provided some evidence that school-environment interventions may contribute to a later sexual debut while their narrative synthesis of other outcomes offered only mixed results.

Finally, the review by Haberland et al. [ 54 ], which focused on studies analyzing whether addressing gender and power in sexuality education curricula is associated with better outcomes, concluded that where interventions addressed gender or power (N = 10/22) there was a fivefold greater likelihood of effectiveness than in those that did not.

3.4.2. Online Platforms

The reviews included show a very diverse panorama of digital platforms used to carry out educational interventions (e.g., websites, social media, gaming, apps or text messaging and mailing), which makes it difficult to compare the results. Of the 9 reviews of studies included, only one—in which the effects of TCCMD (Targeted Client Communication delivered via Mobile Devices) are evaluated [ 46 ]—meets the quality criteria according to the AMSTAR II quality assessment tool [ 42 ] (see Table A4 ); the rest include biases that limit the reliability of the results so that these must be taken with caution. In the studies reviewed by Palmer et al. [ 46 ] among adolescents nine programs were delivered only via text messages; four programs used text messages in combination with other media (for example, emails, multimedia messaging, or voice calls); and one program used only voice calls.

When compared with more conventional approaches, interventions that use TCCMD may increase sexual health knowledge (low certainty evidence), and may modestly increase contraception use (low certainty evidence) while the effect on condom use remains unclear given the very low certainty evidence. Additionally, when compared with digital non-targeted communication, the effects TCCMD on sexual health knowledge, condom and contraceptive use are also unclear, again given the very low-certainty evidence. The review finds evidence of a modest beneficial intervention effect on contraceptive use among adolescent (and adult) populations, but that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this translated into a reduction in contraception.

Most of the reviews included refer to changes to a greater or lesser extent [ 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 ], while no changes determined by the intervention were identified in the study by DeSmet et al. [ 58 ]. Finally, the review by Martin et al. [ 61 ] does not include details about changes as a result of the programs.

The review by L´Engle et al. [ 60 ] assesses mHealth mobile phone interventions for ASRH (almost all of which were carried out via SMS platforms, with the notable exception of only four of the programs covered which used other media formats instead of or as well as SMS). The interventions reviewed set out to foster positive and preventive SRH behaviors, augment take-up and continued use of contraception, support medication adherence for HIV-positive young people, support teenage parents, and encourage use of health screening and treatment services. Results from the studies covered in the review offer support for diverse uses of mobile phones in order to help further ASRH. The health promotion programs that made use of text messaging demonstrated robust acceptability and relevance for young people globally and contributed to improved SRH awareness, less unprotected sex, and more testing for STIs. However, the review also found that improved reporting on essential mHealth criteria is necessary in order to understand, replicate, and scale up mHealth interventions. Holstrom’s [ 59 ] review, focused on evaluations of internet-based sexual health interventions, finds that these were associated with greater sexual health knowledge and awareness, lower rates of unprotected sex and higher rates of condom use, as well as increased STI testing. Moreover, the review explores young people’s continuing use of and trust in internet as a source of information about sexual health, as well as the particular themes that interest them. Specifically, the study finds that young people want to know not only about STIs, but also about sexual pleasure, about how to talk with partners about their sexual desires, as well as about techniques to better pleasure their partners.

The review by Widman et al. [ 63 ] reveals a significant weighted mean effect of technology-based interventions on condom use and abstinence, the effects of which were not affected by age, gender, country, intervention, dose, interactivity, or program tailoring. The effects were more significant when evaluated with short-term (one to five months) follow-ups than with longer term (over six months) ones. Moreover, digital programs were more effective than control programs in contributing to sexual health knowledge and safer sex norms and attitudes. This meta-analysis, drawing on fifteen years of research into youth-oriented digital interventions, is clear evidence of their ability to contribute to safer sex behavior and awareness. In the review by Wadham et al. [ 62 ] the majority of studies used a web-based platform for their programs (16 out of 25). These web-based programs varied between complex, bespoke multimedia interventions to more simplified educational modules. Five studies employed SMS platforms both via mobile phone messaging and web-based instant message services. Three of the programs used social networking sites, either for live chat purposes or alongside a web-based platform. Several studies showed that variety in terms of media and platforms was associated with stronger positive responses among participants and improved outcomes. Eleven of the twenty-five studies focused specifically on HIV prevention, with seven finding a statistically significant effect of the program with regard to knowledge levels about prevention of HIV and other STIs, as well as about general sexual health knowledge. However, only twenty percent of the programs that assessed intended use of condoms reported significant effects due to the intervention.

The review by Bailey et al. [ 56 ] (p. 5) assesses interactive digital interventions (IDIs), defined as “digital media programs that provide health information and tailored decision support, behavioral-change support and/or emotional support” and focuses on the sexual well-being of young people between the ages of thirteen and twenty four in the United Kingdom. IDIs have significant though small effects on self-efficacy and sexual behavior, although there is not sufficient evidence to ascertain the effects on biological outcomes or other longer-term impacts. When comparing IDIs with in-person sexual health programs, the former demonstrate significant, moderate positive effects on sexual health knowledge, significant small effects on intention but no demonstrable effects on self-efficacy. The review by Celik et al. [ 57 ] looks at digital programs (the majority internet- and computer-based with only six making use of mobile phone-based applications) and sets out to understand their effectiveness in changing adolescents’ health behaviors. Findings from the studies ( n = 9) suggest that the digital interventions carried out with the adolescents generally had a positive effect on health-promoting behaviors. However, in another study focused on fostering HIV prevention [ 66 ], there was a statistically significant increase in health-promoting behavior in only one of the four studies reviewed.

In the review by DeSmet et al. [ 58 ], no significant behavioral changes as a result of the interventions for sexual health promotion using serious digital games are identified, although the interventions did have significant though small positive effects on outcomes. The fact that so few studies both met the inclusion criteria and also analyzed behavioral effects suggests the need to further investigate the effectiveness of this kind of game-based approach.

Finally, in the review by Martin et al. [ 61 ] 60 studies were covered, detailing a total of 37 interventions, though only 23 of the reviews included effectiveness results. A majority of the interventions were delivered via websites ( n = 20) while online social networks were the second most favored medium ( n = 13), mostly via Facebook ( n = 8). The programs under review favored online interaction, principally amongst peers ( n = 23) but also with professionals ( n = 16). The review concludes that ASHR programs promoting these kinds of online participation interventions have demonstrated feasibility, practical interest, and attractiveness, though their effectiveness has yet to be determined, given that they are still in the early stages of design and evaluation.

3.4.3. Blended Learning

In the only blended learning review included in our study [ 64 ], the authors conclude that blended learning approaches are being successfully applied in ASHR interventions, including in school-based programs, and have led to positive behavioral and psychosocial changes. However, these results should be treated with caution as the review does not follow the guidelines recommended in the AMSTAR II quality assessment tool [ 44 ] (see Table A4 ) and only includes nine studies.

4. Discussion

The present review of reviews assesses, for the first time jointly to our knowledge, the effectiveness of sexual education programs for the adolescent population (ASRH) developed in school settings, digital platforms and blended learning. Of the twenty reviews included (comprising a total of 491 programs, mostly from the USA), ten correspond to reviews of programs implemented in school settings, nine to those dealing with interventions via digital platforms and only one deals with studies relating to blended learning. Twelve (60%) of the reviews included (6 out of 10 in school settings, 5 out of 9 on digital platforms, and the only blended learning review) have been published in the last 3 years (between 2018 and 2020). Thus, the present study constitutes the most up-to-date and recent review of reviews incorporating several contemporary studies not covered by earlier reviews [ 19 , 27 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

4.1. Interventions Reviewed

The interventions included in the reviews covered by our study were largely focused on reducing risk behaviors (e.g., VIH/STIs and unwanted pregnancies), and envisaging sex as a problem behavior. Programs reviewed often focused on the physical and biological aspects of sex, including pregnancy, STIs, frequency of sexual intercourse, use of condom, and reducing adolescents´ number of sexual partners. One exception is Golfard’s et al. [ 53 ] review about comprehensive sex education, which is centered on healthy relationships and sexual diversity, though it also makes reference to prevention of violence (dating and intimate partner violence prevention and sex abuse prevention). However, Golfard’s et al.’s [ 53 ] rejects more than 80% of the studies initially reviewed because they were focused solely on pregnancy and disease prevention. In the reviews of interventions on digital platforms and via blended learning all the outcomes focused on behaviors related to sexual health (focused on the prevention of risk behaviors), and in several cases also addressed perceived satisfaction and usability. These results are in line with other studies that confirm the over-attention given to risk behaviors, to the detriment of other more positive aspects of sexuality [ 67 , 68 ]. Teachers continue to perceive their responsibility as combating sexual risk, whilst viewing young people as immature and oversexualized [ 69 ], even as adolescents themselves express a preference for sex education with less emphasis on strictly negative sexual outcomes [ 16 ], and more emphasis on peer education [ 70 ].

As for more positive views of sexuality, only on rare occasions do interventions address issues such as sexual pleasure, desire and healthy relationships. Desire and pleasure were not included in the outcome evaluations for school settings, nor for digital and blended learning programs included in this review: again this is in line with the position of other authors cited in the present study, who advocate the need to also embrace the more positive aspects of sexuality [ 53 , 56 ]. Specifically, Bailey and colleagues [ 56 ] (p. 73) suggest as “optimal outcomes” social and emotional well-being in sexual health. Young people want to know about more than STIs, they also “want information about sexual pleasure, how to communicate with partners about what they want sexually and specific techniques to better pleasure their partners” [ 59 ] (p. 282). Similarly, Kedzior et al. [ 51 ] also argue for the need to move beyond a risk-aversion approach and towards one that places more emphasis on positive adolescent sexual and reproductive health.

Pleasure and desire are largely absent within sex and relationship education [ 71 ] and, when they are included, they are often proposed as part of a discourse on safe practice, where pleasure continues to be equated with danger [ 72 ]. The persistent absence of a “discourse of desire” in sex education [ 73 , 74 ] is especially problematic for women, for whom desire is still mediated by (positive) male attention, and for whom pleasure is derived from being found desirable and not from sexual self-expression or from their own desires [ 75 ]. Receiving sexualized attention from men makes women “feel good” by increasing their self-esteem and self-confidence [ 76 ]. However, it is still men who decide what is sexy and what is not, based on the attention they pay to women “girl watching”, [ 77 ] (p. 386), which leads the latter to self-objectify [ 78 ] with all the attendant negative consequences for their overall and sexual health [ 79 ]. In fact, women experience “pushes” and “pulls” [ 80 ] (p.393) with regard to sexualized culture. In one sense, the sexualization of culture has placed women in the position of subjects who desire, not just that of subjects who are desired, but at the same time it becomes a form of regulation in which young women are forced to assume the current sexualized ideal [ 81 , 82 ] in order to position themselves as “modern, liberated and feminine,” and avoid being seen as “outdated or prudish” [ 83 ] (p. 16). Koepsel [ 84 ] provides a holistic definition of pleasure as well as clear recommendations for how educators can overcome these deficits by incorporating pleasure into their existing curricula. At present, sexual education is still largely centered on questions of public health, and there is as yet no consensus on criteria for defining sexual well-being and other aspects of positive sexuality [ 85 ]. Patterson et al. [ 86 ] argue for the need to mandate “comprehensive, positive, inclusive and skills-based learning” to enhance people´s ability to develop healthy positive relationships throughout their lives.

The absence of desire and pleasure in the outcomes of the evaluated reviews is connected with the absence of gender-related outcomes. Only one of the reviews addresses the issue of gender and power in sexuality programs [ 54 ], illustrating how their inclusion can bring about a five-fold increase in the effectiveness of risk behavior prevention. Nonetheless, men are far less likely than women to sign up for a sexuality course, and as a result of masculine ideologies many young males experience negative attitudes towards sex education [ 87 ]. To date we still have little idea as to what are the “active ingredients” that can contribute to successfully encouraging men to challenge gender inequalities, male privilege and harmful or restrictive masculinities so as to help improve sexual and reproductive health for all [ 88 ] (p.16). Schmidt et al.’s [ 89 ] review looks at 10 evidence-based sexual education programs in schools: the majority discuss sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy, abstinence, and contraceptive use, while very few address components related to healthy dating relationships, discussion of interpersonal violence or an understanding of gender roles.

The International Guidance on Sexuality Education [ 90 ], and the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education [ 17 ] promote the delivery of sexual education within a framework of human rights and gender equality to support children and adolescents in questioning social and cultural norms. The year 2020 marked the anniversaries of several path breaking policies, laws and events for women’s rights: the 100th anniversary of women´s suffrage in the United States; the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, a global roadmap for women´s empowerment; and, the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Security Council Resolution for a Women, Peace and Security agenda. Although there have been important advances in recent years in research relating to the inclusion of gender equality and human rights interventions in ASRH policies and programming still “fundamental gaps remain” [ 40 ] (p.14). Gender equality, and to an even greater extent human rights, have had very little presence in sexual and reproductive health programs and policies, and there is a pressing need to do more to address these issues systematically. Specifically, issues such as abortion and female genital mutilation, with clear repercussions in terms of gender equality and human rights, are rarely dealt with [ 40 ].

Furthermore, sexual education that privileges heterosexuality reinforces hegemonic attributes of femininity and masculinity, and ignores identities that distance themselves from these patterns. Our collective heteronormative legacy marginalizes and harms LGB families [ 91 ] and LGBTQ+-related information about healthy relationships is largely absent from sexual and reproductive health programs [ 92 ]. Students want a more LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum [ 92 ]: in the present RoR one review [ 53 ] addresses the issue of non-heteronormative identity in sexuality programs with significant results; and other authors are exploring promising initiatives which are also challenging this lack of inclusivity [ 93 ] and rectifying heterosexual bias [ 94 ]. However, unfortunately, the underlying neoliberal focus of the majority of contemporary sexuality education militates to assimilate LGBTQ+ people into existing economic and social normative frameworks rather than helping disrupt them [ 95 ].

4.2. Effectiveness

This present review of reviews shows a variety of types of sexual health promotion initiatives across the three settings (school-based, digital and blended learning), with inconsistent results. The reviews with lower risk of bias are those carried out in school settings and those that are most critical regarding the effectiveness of programs promoting ASRH, both in the prevention of pregnancies and of HIV/STIs. Reviews dealing with digital platforms and blended learning show greater effectiveness in terms of promoting adolescent sexual health: however, these are also the studies that incorporate the highest risks of bias. Specifically, in digital platforms programs the great variety of alternatives makes comparability difficult. Moreover, these programs, along with blended learning, are in a more incipient state of evaluation, compared to school-setting evaluations, and present greater risks of lower quality than reviews in school settings.

The results of the present RoR are in line with those of previous RoRs [ 19 , 32 ]. The review of reviews by Denford et al.s´ [ 19 ] RoR covered 37 reviews up to 2016 and summarized 224 primary randomized controlled trials: whilst it concludes that school-based programs addressing risky sexual behavior can be effective, its reviews of exclusively school-based studies offer mixed results as to effectiveness in relation to attitudes, skills and behavioral change. Some of those studies report positive effects while others find there are no effects, if not even negative effects, in terms of the aforementioned outcomes [ 19 ]. As regards pregnancy, programs appear to be effective at increasing awareness regarding STIs and contraception but overall the findings suggest that the impact of these interventions on attitudes, behaviors and skills variables are mixed, with some studies leading to improvements whilst others show no change. Moreover, the fact that community-based programs were also taken into consideration might have led to the effectiveness of school-based programs being exaggerated [ 19 ].

However, although in our RoR the higher quality/lower bias studies—in keeping with the findings of previous reviews [ 19 , 33 ]—fail to show a clear pattern of effectiveness, the interventions could nevertheless be generating changes as Denford et al. [ 19 ] suggest, though not in the measured outcomes, bearing in mind the low incidence of sexual intercourse and pregnancy in school-going adolescents.

With regard to school settings, Peterson et al. [ 55 ] conclude that further, more rigorous evidence is necessary to evaluate the extent to which interventions addressing school-related factors are effective and to help better understand the mechanisms by which they may contribute to improving adolescent sexual health. With regard to digital platform programs, Wadham et al. [ 62 ] (p. 101) argue that “although new media has the capacity to expand efficiencies and coverage, the technology itself does not guarantee success.” An interesting observation in their review was that interventions which were either web-based adaptations of prior prevention programs, or were theory-based or had been developed from models of behavioral change appeared effective independently of the chosen digital media mode. However, digital programs are still in the early stages of design and evaluation, especially in terms of the effects of peer interaction and often diverge from existing theoretical models [ 61 ] (p. 13). The expert opinion-based proposal of the European Society for Sexual Medicine [ 96 ] argues that e-sexual health education can contribute to improving the sexual health of the population it seems the future of CSHE is moving towards smartphone apps [ 97 ].

However, “despite clear and compelling evidence for the benefits of high-quality curriculum-based CSE, few children and young people receive preparation for their lives that empowers them to take control and make informed decisions about their sexuality and relationships freely and responsibly” [ 17 ] (p. 12), and during “the current public health crisis, the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents and young adults must not be overlooked, as it is integral to both their and the larger society’s well-being” [ 28 ] (p. 9). In the light of these challenges, Coyle et al.’s [ 64 ] suggestion that the blended learning model may end up achieving a far more dominant role in the future of sexual education acquires even more relevance.

4.3. Limitations

This study represents the first review of reviews, as far as we are aware, in which the effectiveness of sex education programs in different settings (school-based, digital and blended learning) is evaluated, using a rich methodology and providing interesting conclusions. However, the present review of reviews is not without its limitations.

While systematic reviews and reviews of reviews can offer a way synthesizing large amounts of data, the great heterogeneity and diversity of measured outcomes make it difficult to establish a synthesis of the results, even more so in cases where it is not possible to apply meta-analysis. Furthermore, the quality of reviews of reviews is limited by that of the reviews they include and RoRs do not necessarily represent the leading edge research in the field.

In addition, although we searched for a wide range of keywords on the most commonly used databases in the field of health (namely ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO) to identify relevant papers, it is possible that the choice of keywords and database may have resulted in our omitting some relevant studies. Moreover, our review has focused on articles in international journals published in English, allowing us access to the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies and to those with greater international diffusion, given that English is the most frequently used language in the scientific environment: notwithstanding, this has also limited the scope of our review by precluding research published in other languages and contexts. Nor have documents that could have been found in the gray literature been included, given that only peer-reviewed studies have been considered for inclusion.

It is worth remembering moreover that most of the data on the outcomes of the studies included are self-reported, with mention of only occasional biological outcomes, which may limit the reliability of the effectiveness results. This represents another interesting reflection on the way in which the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs on sexual education is being carried out, and alerts us to the need for change.

Finally, it should be noted that this review of reviews is focused on adolescents from high-income countries, and our results show that studies carried out in the United States are largely overrepresented, since it is the country that provides the highest number of samples, especially in school settings: this may give rise to bias when it comes to generalizing from these results. Once again, this raises another necessary reflection on the capitalization that studies focused on American samples are having in the construction of the body of scientific knowledge on sexual and reproductive behavior, when in reality sexuality is conditioned by socio-economic variables that require a far-more multicultural and world-centric approach.

5. Conclusions

This review of reviews is the first to assess jointly the effectiveness of school-based, digital and blended learning interventions in ASRH in high-income countries. The effectiveness of the sex education programs reviewed mostly focused on the reduction of risky behaviors (e.g., STI or unwanted pregnancies) as public health outcomes; however, pleasure, desire and healthy relationships are outcomes that are mostly conspicuous by their absence in the reviews we have covered. Nonetheless, the broad range of studies included in this RoR, with their diversity of settings and methods, populations and objectives, precludes any easily drawn comparisons or conclusions. The inconsistent results and the high risk of bias reduce the conclusiveness of this review, so a more rigorous assessment of the effectivity of sexual education programs is pending and action needs to be taken to guarantee better and more rigorous evaluations, with sufficient human and financial resources. Schools and organizations need technical assistance to build the capacity for rigorous program planning, implementation and evaluation [ 98 ]. To this end, there are already examples of interesting proposals, such as that of the Working to Institutionalize Sex Education (WISE) Initiative, a privately funded effort to help public school districts develop and deliver comprehensive sexuality programs in the USA [ 99 ].

The extent of the risks of bias identified in the reviews and studies covered by this RoR points to an important conclusion, allowing us to highlight the precariousness that characterizes the evaluation of sexual education programs and the consequent undermining of public policy oriented to promoting ASRH. Public policies that promote ASRH are of vital importance when it comes to minimizing risks related to sexual behavior, and maximizing healthy relations and sexual well-being for the youngest members of our society.

Above all it is important to recognize the opportunities afforded by new technologies, so ubiquitous in the lives of young people, since they allow for programs that are far more cost-effective than traditional, in-person interventions. Finally, blended learning programs are perhaps even more promising, given their combination of the best of face-to-face and digital interventions, meaning they provide an excellent educative tool in the new context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and may even become the dominant teaching model in the future.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02555-g0A1.jpg

Flow diagram Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, PRISMA).

Search Terms Used.

Description of studies.

Characteristics and main results of the studies included.

Evaluation of the studies included (AMSTAR II).

1 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PCIO?; 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?; 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?; 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?; 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?; 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?; 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?; 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?; 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?; 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?; 11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?; 12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?; 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in primary studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?; 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?; 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?; 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 2 H = Hight; M = Media; C = Low; CL = Critically Low. N = No; Y = Yes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.-F. and R.M.-R.; methodology, M.L.-F.; R.M.-R.; Y.R.-C. and M.V.C.-F.; formal analysis, M.L.-F.; R.M.-R.; Y.R.-C. and M.V.C.-F.; investigation, M.L.-F.; R.M.-R.; Y.R.-C. and M.V.C.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.-F. and R.M.-R.; writing—review and editing, M.L.-F.; R.M.-R., and Y.R.-C. and.; supervision, M.L.-F.; R.M.-R.; Y.R.-C. and M.V.C.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

News & Insights
All News & Insights

New study finds that Black and Latinx youth online engagement can foster a positive sense of self

Building on data from a project led by USC Rossier professor Brendesha Tynes, Naila Smith is the lead author of a new research paper that examines how online spaces created by Black and Latinx youth benefit their ethnic-racial identity development.

Image of a hand typing on a laptop computer.

With social media use among many youth nearly constant, we often read reports of the adversities that young people encounter online, from impacts on their mental health to the dangers that meeting malicious strangers in real life can pose. While the negative effects of social media usage for teens should not be discounted, there are some benefits for Black and Latinx youth in particular as they navigate their ethnic-racial identity (ERI) online. Brendesha M. Tynes, Dean's Professor of Educational Equity at the USC Rossier School of Education, is a co-author of a newly published article led by Naila A. Smith, assistant professor of education at the University of Virginia, and supported by Daisy E. Camacho-Thompson, that shows how the race/ethnic- and civic-related online experiences of Black and Latinx adolescents are connected to their ERI development.

Black and Latinx youth tend to spend more time engaged online than their White peers, and they also spend more time than youth of other ethnic-racial groups making sense of what their ERI means to them and engaging civically and politically online. Exploring and seeking out information about one’s race/ethnicity, refining how one understands one’s race/ethnicity, and feeling positively or negatively about one’s race/ethnicity are factors in ERI development.

Research on Black and Latinx adolescents’ online experiences has shown that they do face additional risks such as online racial discrimination and hate and viewing traumatic racial content. Online social connection can help Black and Latinx youth cultivate a sense of belonging to a social group that may help them make meaning of their identity as they encounter some of the harms in online spaces. This newly published article builds on some of Tynes’ previous work about how content youth are exposed to online impacts their ERI exploration.

Using data from the Teen Life Online and in Schools Project (TLOS), which Tynes directs, Smith and her team found that youth who can establish relationships online with friends of the same race/ethnicity experience more adaptive outcomes over time, meaning that in fostering online relationships with same-age, same ethnic/racial group peers these young people can better cope with some of the harmful information that they encounter online.

Tynes’s TLOS data was one of the first datasets to investigate teens' online experiences across multiple years (three years) using both survey and interview data and a multi-racial sample of adolescents. While Tynes created the dataset, her collaborators and mentees led studies that were not previously included in the original proposal.

Smith’s research interests include the development of racial and ethnically minoritized youth over time. She was curious about youths’ experiences in the online space over time and sought to examine the role of socio-cultural resources and assets in the experiences of Black and Latinx youth.

“I was really interested in examining what factors contributed to ethnic-racial identity development, which is a sociocultural asset for Black and Latinx youth. In examining aspects of youths’ race- and civic-related online experiences and looking at how young people curate or create online spaces that meet their needs, we were able to show that there are these different ways that Black and Latinx adolescents are engaging online in their exploration of their world and their ethnic-racial background,” said Smith.

The study also found that earlier online activity is connected with ERI development one year later, meaning that race and civic-related online activities are important for young people’s feelings and behaviors in terms of their future ERI. Having a clearer idea of what their ERI means to Black and Latinx youth is associated with having better outcomes academically and mental health benefits.

“A major goal of the TLOS Project was to see what cultural resources youth bring to online spaces that might buffer them from some of the negative outcomes we might see that have been published in journals and in news articles. I wanted to paint a more holistic view of young people’s experiences online,” said Tynes. “Most of what we have published has been on the negative side, but I’m excited to have this manuscript focus on the positive experiences that young people are having online.”

Smith started her collaboration with Tynes because of her advocacy for students and her deep knowledge of youth development. The two met at an academic conference when Smith was a graduate student.

“I wanted to meet Brendesha specifically because she was the foremost scholar on the online experiences of Black and Latinx youth, and I wanted to develop my expertise in the role of the internet in youth development. Her tremendous productivity and creativity are built on deep knowledge of a wide range of fields that inform her innovation in thinking about how we can support Black and Brown youth in their development specifically in online spaces,” concluded Smith.

Smith and her co-authors want teachers and parents to know that Black and Latinx youth can benefit positively from the time they spend online, and that access to online information and experiences can support meaningful identity exploration. According to Smith, parents and teachers can help guide youth in their online ERI exploration and engage them in conversations about what they are learning to help them process the information that they are consuming. In schools where Black and Latinx youth may be in the minority or where they may not have access to materials in the curriculum that allow them to learn about their cultures and identities, supporting online activities around ERI is even more critical.

“With new laws banning certain books or talking about Black people’s history in the classroom in some states, people have to make an effort to make sure that kids are getting what they need to explore who they are,” said Tynes. “The digital literacy that young people need to sift through stereotypes and misinformation about their racial-ethnic group becomes more important in these places where the students cannot rely on their teachers to provide accurate information.”

The team’s findings may be used to support the creation of interventions to help adolescents create and curate online spaces where they can meet peers in their age range and ethnic/racial groups to help them with their relationship-building skills.

“Instead of the internet being a place where people are in constant danger, youth can craft spaces where their experiences are actually beneficial for their development, and these young people are doing that on their own,” said Tynes . “Parents and educators can support that exploration and provide guidance.”

Tynes is supporting that guidance by building a digital literacy and mental health intervention with a $4.6 million Transformational Research Award NIH grant. With the funds, Tynes seeks to research and provide adolescents with tools to cope with the negative messages they receive online and the skills to use digital media as a tool to excel in school. Tynes’s goal is to help youth thrive in their everyday lives as they navigate digital spaces. The newly designed, first-of-its-kind platform will have several modules and virtual reality experiences to help adolescents practice how to respond to some of their experiences online. The alpha version of this intervention is scheduled to launch in September 2024.

Brendesha Tynes

Professor of Education and Psychology
Director of CELDTECH

Center for Empowered Learning and Development with Technology

Article Type

Article topics, related news & insights.

April 4, 2024

Annual conference challenges presenters to dismantle racial injustice and construct educational possibilities

The 2024 American Educational Research Association Conference to feature over five-dozen USC Rossier scholars.

Yasemin Copur-Gencturk named Katzman/Ernst Chair for Educational Entrepreneurship, Technology and Innovation

As chair, Copur-Gencturk will work to address the underlying causes of inequity in the K–12 education system and create an environment that produces stronger educational outcomes for all.

Featured Faculty

Yasemin Copur-Gencturk

March 28, 2024

Photograph of a classroom at USC Rossier.

Center for Education, Identity and Social Justice hosts USC Hybrid High students for visit and releases report on study of the school

The final report finds students’ sense of belonging to their high school and college declines after graduation and provides recommendations to improve student support.

Shafiqa Ahmadi
Darnell Cole

IMAGES

(PDF) EVALUATION OF IMPORTANCE FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
Benefits of Online Education Research Paper Example
(PDF) IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING STYLES MAGNITUDE IN EDUCATION
The Importance of College Education
(PDF) Benefits of a Small Research Study for the Teacher Education at a
(PDF) Philosophy of Education

VIDEO

(PG) 1st semester education research paper-4 2023 (MA)
Comprehensive Exploration of the Archimedean Property: Insights & Proofs for UG Mathematics Students
How Misuse of Funding Could Affect Education
Write a short essay on Benefits of Education
MP Higher education Research Paper MA M.COM
Oscillating Light Clocks Reveal the Possibility of Time Conservation in Moving Frames

COMMENTS

PDF The Vital Role of Research in Improving Education
The Value of Education Research States and the federal government have a legal and ethical obligation to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their students. Far from being unrelated to states' and districts' core education functions, research plays a unique and integral role in identifying best practices, applying resources
Early Childhood Education: Academic and Behavioral Benefits of
Kelchen et al. (2016) summarized their research specific to gender-based benefits to early educational programming by saying, "Our preliminary findings of achievement, cognitive, and other school-related outcomes measured in evaluations of early childhood programs suggest that the broad achievement and school outcomes of boys and girls are ...
PDF Student Goal Setting: An Evidence-Based Practice
associated with positive academic benefits for students across a wide . 2 A review of selected research studies on student goal setting was conducted by the REL Midwest and approved by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in January 2018. The results of this review suggest that there is promising evidence for student goal setting. A
PLAT 20(1) 2021: Enhancing Student Learning in Research and Educational
Teachers at all levels of education, including readers of Psychology Learning and Teaching, aim to provide high-quality instruction and educational experiences to their students.From very different research backgrounds, researchers are eager to contribute to a broad empirical basis for the decisions that teachers must make in order to enhance student learning and achievement.
Editorial: Educational Research and Why It's Important
The New Zealand Journal of Educational Research (NZJES) is aptly named, because the distinction between 'education' research and 'educational' research is critical. As Lingard has argued, "When we use the descriptor 'educational' attached to research, we are arguing that such research has educational or educative purposes, that is, such research is progressive in the sense of ...
(PDF) Educational Research: Educational Purposes, The Nature of
The paper then uses the Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training to demonstrate the central importance of philosophical thinking if one is to pass from the 'disguised nonsense' to the ...
PDF Educational Research: Purpose, Quality and Effectiveness
They are the setup of the research, the design. of the study, the quality of the data, the findings and conclusions, and the presentation of the. research. Besides meeting the general criteria of social research as above, a good piece of. educational research should also: (1)- Pay serious attention to ethical issues.
PDF Understanding the Purpose of Higher Education: an Analysis of The
Nonetheless, this paper reviews and synthesizes the economic and social benefits (e.g., knowledge, core competences, skills, capabilities, dispositions) for completing a college degree from the perspective of education providers and undergraduate students in the field of higher
What are the benefits of educational research for teachers?
This is why research is embedded into initial teacher education. As research becomes embedded in your practice you can gain a range of benefits. Research can: develop your agency, influence, self-efficacy and voice within your own school and more widely within the profession. Each of these can involve investigation using evidence from your own ...
What are the benefits of educational research for teachers?
As research becomes embedded in your practice you can gain a range of benefits. Research can: help you find solutions to particular problems arising in your classroom or school. underpin professional learning of knowledge, skills and understanding. connect you with sources of information and networks of professional support.
(PDF) The Importance of Education
The Importance of Education. Education is an important issue in one's life. It is the key to success in the future, and t o. have many opportunities in our life. Education has many advantages ...
Montessori education: a review of the evidence base
Abstract. The Montessori educational method has existed for over 100 years, but evaluations of its effectiveness are scarce. This review paper has three aims, namely to (1) identify some key ...
The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2021
3. The Surprising Power of Pretesting. Asking students to take a practice test before they've even encountered the material may seem like a waste of time—after all, they'd just be guessing. But new research concludes that the approach, called pretesting, is actually more effective than other typical study strategies.
Early Childhood Education: The Long-Term Benefits
Results. The results section is divided into three areas for analyses: (1) academics, (2) social skills, and (3) attitudes toward school. All three areas are deemed important because past research has indicated that the long-term benefits from a quality preschool program are academic, social, and attitudinal.
Full article: Parental involvement and educational success among
Introduction. The family has been recognised as one of the primary contributors to children's and adolescents' success in school. In one of the earliest and best-known studies about the influence of families and schools on student achievement and educational opportunities, Coleman et al. (Citation 1966) concluded that family background matters most, whereas there are few differences ...
PDF The High Impact of Education Abroad: College Students' Engagement in
research question that guides this inquiry is as follows: controlling for other ... educational benefits regardless of students' pre-college backgrounds, educational aspirations, or college experience. ... In their initial paper outlining their multi-institutional research, Sutton and Rubin (2004) noted that "the field of international ...
Full article: The Power of Collaboration
The Power of Collaboration. Collaboration has long been one of the defining characteristics of self-study (Lighthall, 2004 ). The eight articles in this issue of Studying Teacher Education delve into collaborative relationships with peers, students, and the wider educational community. The authors of the first four articles convey how ...
Family Engagement in Schools: Parent, Educator, and Community
Studies of family engagement in children's education reveal large associations between family engagement and success for students. Family engagement improves classroom dynamics and increases teacher expectations, student-teacher relationships, and cultural competence, regardless of students' age groups (Boberiene, 2013).While research supports the educational association between family ...
AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions
2.1 Prolific countries. Artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) research has been conducted in many countries around the world. The 40 articles reported AIEd research studies in 16 countries (See Table 1).USA was so far the most prolific, with nine articles meeting all criteria applied in this study, and noticeably seven of them were conducted in K-12.
(PDF) Feedback and Students' Learning
It was recommended that the exploits of this paper be followed to enable teachers provide effective feedback which will optimally benefit both teachers and students. Discover the world's research ...
Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review
2.3. Search Strategy. This systematic review is based on international scientific literature and only peer- reviewed papers have been included. Only meta-analyses (publications that combine results from different studies) and systematic reviews (literature reviews that synthesize high-quality research evidence) were used for this review.
New study finds that Black and Latinx youth online engagement can
Research New study finds that Black and Latinx youth online engagement can foster a positive sense of self. Building on data from a project led by USC Rossier professor Brendesha Tynes, Naila Smith is the lead author of a new research paper that examines how online spaces created by Black and Latinx youth benefit their ethnic-racial identity development.
(PDF) The Significance of ICT in Education
The main areas that have been taken into account in this research paper include, policy of ICT in education, benefits of ICT in education, and role of ICT in bringing about changes in learning ...

Editorial: Educational Research and Why It’s Important

Cite this article

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

You are here

Product Type plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Disciplines plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Status plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

You are here

Product Type plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Courses plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Disciplines plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Status plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

Montessori education: a review of the evidence base

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning to teach through noticing: a bibliometric review of teacher noticing research in mathematics education during 2006–2021

Exploration of implementation practices of Montessori education in mainland China

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction

Some key elements of the Montessori educational method

The learning materials

Self-directed engagement with the materials

Evaluations of Montessori education

Evaluations of key elements of Montessori education that are shared with other educational methods

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Education shapes the structure of semantic memory and impacts creative thinking

PeppeRecycle: Improving Children’s Attitude Toward Recycling by Playing with a Social Robot

Interaction of children with and without communication disorders using Montessori activities for the tablet

An fMRI study of error monitoring in Montessori and traditionally-schooled children

Quick links

The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2021

1. What Parents Fear About SEL (and How to Change Their Minds)

2. The Secret Management Techniques of Expert Teachers

3. The Surprising Power of Pretesting

4. Confronting an Old Myth About Immigrant Students

5. A Fuller Picture of What a ‘Good’ School Is

6. Teaching Is Learning

7. A Disturbing Strain of Bias in Kids’ Books

8. The Never-Ending ‘Paper Versus Digital’ War

9. New Research Makes a Powerful Case for PBL

10. Tracking a Tumultuous Year for Teachers

Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

2.2. Methods

2.3. Search Strategy

2.4. Inclusion Criteria

2.5. Exclusion Criteria

2.6. Risk of Bias and Assessment of Study Quality

2.7. Data Synthesis

3.1. Results of Search

3.2. Risk of Bias in Included Studies

3.3. Reviews Included

3.3.1. Setting

3.3.2. Population

3.3.3. Interventions/Types of Study

3.3.4. Outcomes

3.3.5. Country of Review

3.3.6. Year of Last Paper Included

3.3.7. Search Tools

3.3.8. Multicenter Studies and Number of Studies Included

3.3.9. Number of Reviews Covered That Include Meta-Analysis

3.4. Effectiveness

3.4.2. Online Platforms

3.4.3. Blended Learning

4. Discussion

4.1. Interventions Reviewed

4.2. Effectiveness