 |
|
Significant Publications (1967-2003)
PZ has passed through several phases: l. Conceptual Groundwork (1967-1971): During its early years, PZ consisted of a loose collection of 10-15 research assistants and senior scholars. Included in this group were: psychologist Paul Kolers, philosopher Israel Scheffler, literary analyst Barbara Leondar, and Howard Gardner and David Perkins, as founding (and sometimes uncompensated) research assistants. The group met regularly to discuss philosophical, psychological, and conceptual issues in the arts and art education. From the first, the Project took a cognitive view of the arts, viewing artistic activity as involving mental processes fully as powerful and subtle as those used in the sciences or public policy. In that sense, the Project reflected the Cognitive Revolution of the time--countering both the behaviorist past of psychology and the overly romantic view of the arts as matters of mystery, emotion, or entertainment. The "Bible" for this period was Goodman's influential Languages of Art (1968). During this early period position papers were written, and modest experiments were undertaken. The results of this first phase of work are captured in a final report for the U.S. Office of Education, prepared by Goodman, Perkins, and Gardner, called Basic Abilities Required for Understanding and Creation in the Arts (1972). During the first years of PZ, Goodman also served as impresario for a dozen memorable lecture-performances at GSE. The purpose of these lecture-performances was to introduce GSE students, and the Harvard community more broadly, to the cognitive processes that characterize artistic planning, performance, and production. In later years, Goodman continued to serve as producer for a series of artistic activities and events at Harvard: these included newly commissioned multimedia performances of John Updike's Rabbit Run (1970), multimedia presentations inspired by Katharine Sturgis' drawing series Hockey Seen, and Picasso's drawings after Velasquez. Goodman was also catalytic in the formation of the Harvard Summer School Dance Program and the Harvard Business School Program in Arts Management. 2. Empirical Research in Cognitive and Developmental Psychology (1971/2-1983): In 1971, Goodman announced his intention to retire from PZ. He told Gardner and Perkins that they could direct the project--quipping, in characteristic fashion, "that means you can raise the money from now on." At first, Perkins took on the directorship and he was joined in 1972 by Gardner. During the following decade, Gardner, Perkins, and a small group of researchers that included Laurie Meringoff (Brown), Ellen Winner, and Dennie Wolf focussed their attention principally on empirical work in the area of cognitive psychology, with a continuing emphasis on artistic issues. An informal division of labor took place, with Gardner and colleagues focussing primarily on developmental issues and populations, while Perkins and colleagues worked primarily with adult artists (and other adult populations). Results of this work can be found in many books and articles, and a number of collections, including Perkins and Leondar The Arts and Cognition (1977) and Gardner and Perkins Art Mind and Education (1989). During this period, much of PZ research was focussed on the arts. Yet across the organization, there was an increased desire to examine issues that went beyond the arts, to look at issues like problem solving, critical thinking, and brain organization. Even in these cases, however, researchers typically were informed by the artistic focus of PZ. 3. The Turn to Education (1983-1993): In 1983, the influential report A Nation at Risk was issued by the U.S. Department of Education. This report catalyzed a lengthy re-examination of American public education as well as newly energized research and development efforts on educational issues at the University Level. PZ had always been housed at the Graduate School of Education and various members had been involved in educational questions and research over the years. Nonetheless, by 1990 PZ had a very different feeling than it had in 1970 (philosophical and conceptual) or in 1980 (primarily psychological research funded by governmental grants). The staff was larger (an average of 50 persons, rather than 20); more of the staff had backgrounds in education rather than in psychology or other scholarly disciplines; and more of the research and development was of a distinctly applied nature. Funding came increasingly from private foundations. At this time, PZ became involved with schools that were based on multiple intelligences; "smart schools" that encouraged creative and critical thinking; and collaborations like ATLAS, that included the Coalition of Essential Schools, the School Development Program, and the Education Development Center. In 1992, PZ celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary at a gala at the Fogg Art Museum. A few hundred individuals attended. Among the speakers were founder Goodman, long term friend Jerome Bruner, and Harvard Deans of Education Theodore Sizer, Patricia Graham, and Jerome Murphy. At the time it was evident that PZ had gone through a number of changes. Compared to the early years, it was much larger; more empirically oriented; extended well beyond the arts; and had a strong applied division, which worked in the schools, museums, and other educational institutions. 4. The Maturing of PZ (1993-2003): PZ has always been self-supporting. In the 1960s and 1970s support came chiefly from the federal government (NSF, NIH). Since the early 1980s support has come increasingly from private foundations. Thanks in significant part to core support from the Atlantic Philanthropic Services Co., Inc. (now The Atlantic Philanthropies), PZ had the opportunity in the last decade to consolidate and mature. We built up a strong central "core" administration. The former "Development Group" (led by Gardner) and "Cognitive Skills Group" (led by Perkins) gave way to a loosely knit but cohesive organization with many internal and external ties and arrangements. PZ became much more prominent on the national and international scene. Details on this most recent period constitute the remaining parts of this report. During the 1990s, Project Zero went through various attempts at reorganization. Each of these phases advanced PZ, and, in retrospect, each seemed a necessary stage of growth. In 2000, Steve Seidel was chosen to be the new Director. Later that year, Cynthia Quense joined Steve as the Administrative Director; Gardner and Perkins were given the honorary title of Senior Director, and continue to function as key advisors and members of the Steering Committee. At PZ, we are sometimes asked about our most important accomplishments. It is easy for us to mention books, articles, videos, programs, publicity--the usual indices of success at the University. However, internally, we take pride in two additional accomplishments:
1. General Remarks: The world is a different place in 2003 than it was a decade ago. In 1993, the Soviet empire had recently collapsed, America was embarking on an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity, and Harvard was also embarking on what turned out to be an amazingly successful capital campaign. Few individuals outside the University used the Internet and no one had heard of the World Wide Web. Educational reform was in full flower in the United States and "progressive" programs (of the sort with which PZ was involved) had considerable popular and financial support. In 1993, the organization was coming to the end of a number of very large multi-year grants. These included support for ATLAS, the Teaching for Understanding initiative, Arts PROPEL, the Lincoln Center Collaboration, and the initiative in Thinking Dispositions. Core support from Atlantic Philanthropies allowed us to build up and maintain a central administrative structure and to try out various governance structures. It also tided the Project over as it made a transition from these large-scale grants, to smaller, shorter, and more targeted initiatives. And it made possible a quantum leap in our technological sophistication, our outreach both nationally and internationally, and our capacity to collaborate with a variety of organizations both locally and at more remote sites. Changes over the course of the decade were much more Evolutionary than Revolutionary. Never was there an abrupt change from one year to another. The size of PZ staff and budget remained remarkably constant, though, as stated, the kinds of support received changed a good deal. Various new structures were introduced, some temporarily, and others for a much longer run. Perhaps most important for the long-term health of a University-based organization, important new research efforts were launched, and a vigorous new cohort of researchers and Principal Investigators was added to our fold. In what follows, we look in more detail at each of these features. 2. Principal Research Thrusts: At any one time, during the past 15 years, PZ has somewhere between 10-20 different research projects underway. We mention here a number of the most ambitious undertakings. Arts Survive: Steve Seidel, Principal Investigator Many arts education partnerships between schools and professional artists and/or arts organizations are started, but far too few survive beyond their first years and initial sources of funding. Arts Survive, a three year national research study, investigated arts education partnerships in schools in order to determine why some partnerships survive and others do not. The study provided a greater understanding of what survival means to arts education partnerships and, specifically, what circumstances, activities, and interactions among teachers, parents, administrators, artists, community members, students, and others, are essential to build and sustain lasting partnerships. Perhaps the central finding of the study is that, in arts education partnerships that not only survive, but "thrive," all participating partners adopt a proactive attitude toward learning about each other and how to make their programs for young people more effective. This means that the partnering schools, as well as the participating arts organizations, must be deeply committed to bridging the usual differences in organizational culture that so often cause friction and misunderstanding between those two very different kinds of organizations. As in so many other settings, this commitment to learning is far less common and far more difficult to sustain than one might think. The findings of the Arts Survive study, Arts Survive: A Study of Sustainability in Arts Education Partnerships (2001), have been widely distributed by PZ and the Arts Education Partnership since the completion of the study. Collaborative Inquiry and Assessment of Student Work: Steve Seidel, Principal Investigator; Tina Blythe, Project Manager Over the last ten years, PZ has engaged in a number of projects that create and evaluate processes for bringing teachers together to assess their students' learning and their own teaching. The early roots of this work stretch back to Arts PROPEL (1987-1990). Those ideas were further developed through the APPLE Project (1989-1992), followed by the Massachusetts Schools Network (1994-1997) and culminated in the recent work of The Evidence Project (1998-2002). The Evidence Project focused on establishing small groups of teachers within schools. These groups met regularly to identify questions about their teaching practice, share evidence (usually their students' work) with the group to help them explore those questions, and develop and try out new instructional strategies based on the discussions of the evidence. For all the schools, these meetings provided a rare--and sometimes the only--opportunity for teachers to discuss teaching and learning. The meetings helped teachers to gain new perspectives on students; revise their curriculum and instructional strategies; problem-solve with colleagues; consider more carefully what counts as "evidence" of student learning; and understand more deeply the processes of learning. The Evidence Project produced a handbook, The Evidence Process: A Collaborative Approach to Understanding and Improving Teaching and Learning (2001), and a video to support schools and teachers who want to develop a collaborative inquiry program. Currently, Seidel and Blythe are collaborating with Academy of Educational Development and the Coalition of Essential Schools on a book that draws together the results and lessons of the three organizations' work with collaborative inquiry as a professional development tool in schools. The GoodWork Project: Howard Gardner, Principal Investigator Building on a collaborative year at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in 1994-1995, Howard Gardner has been co-directing a study of professions in the United States (and ultimately abroad). The GoodWork Project is designed to determine how professionals succeed or fail to carry out GoodWork--work that is at once excellent and ethical--at a time when market forces are enormously powerful and there are few if any comparable counterforces. The Project proceeds primarily through in-depth interviews of leading professionals; for studies of GoodWork in education, the focus falls on institutions rather than individuals. Researchers have identified those "factors of alignment and misalignment" which facilitate or impede GoodWork. They have also determined the factors in early life that predispose beginning workers to assume an ethical stance. Finally, they have begun to develop activities and programs that encourage GoodWork among professionals at various points in their career. Early findings were reported in Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and Damon GoodWork: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (2001). Findings on the origins of GoodWork appear in a forthcoming book: Fischman, Solomon, Greenspan, and Gardner Making Good (in press). For updates see www.goodworkproject.org. Interdisciplinary Investigations: Veronica Boix Mansilla and Howard Gardner, Co-Principal Investigators Veronica Boix Mansilla and Howard Gardner have been examining the nature of interdisciplinary claims and work at three levels: secondary schools (e.g., International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge Course); universities (e.g., Stanford's Human Biology Course); and self-standing think tanks (The Sante Fe Institute, the Media Lab, the Neurosciences Institute). They have identified different models of interdisciplinarity ("soups" where disciplines meld, as compared to "salads" where individual disciplinary identities are preserved). They have outlined different strategies for interdisciplinary instruction--ranging from creation of products, to exploring concepts that operate across topics, to providing rich contexts for the understanding of scientific phenomena. These findings have been reported in a dozen separate papers. The next phase of the work will entail a creation of a team of interdisciplinary secondary school teachers. Working with researchers, the teachers will create model curricula along the lines developed in the early 1990s by the Teaching for Understanding Project. Learning in Afterschool Programs: Steve Seidel, Principal Investigator; Tina Blythe, Project Manager The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the demand for and funding of afterschool programs. During that time, PZ has carried out several projects to study the possibilities for turning afterschool programs into places that not only provide supervision and recreation for students, but that also nurture deep learning for students. In collaboration with the afterschool programs funded by Ernesto Cortes Jr., Texas Interfaith Alliance, we documented the work of successful afterschool programs. The resulting paper, More Than a Place to Go: Creating and Sustaining Afterschool Programs (1997), has been used by numerous schools and community centers as a tool for designing the schedule and curriculum for their afterschool programs. Simultaneously, PZ staff collaborated with the Mather School, a Boston elementary school, to develop an approach to designing learning experiences for afterschool programs that would help students develop thinking skills. Teaching through Projects: Creating Effective Learning Environments (1995), the book generated by that work, has proven a useful resource in places where the afterschool programs are taught by certified teachers from the regular school day. However, in many places, afterschool staff members have no teaching experience at all and have only their own formal (and often less-than-adequate) schooling experiences to guide them. To assist with the professional development for such staff members, we created an adaptation of the Teaching for Understanding framework specifically for use in afterschool programs funded by The After-School Corporation and whose staff members have no or little teaching experience. The framework and planning process are captured in the book Fun Learning Matters! A Guide to Project-Based Learning in Afterschool Settings (2003). Learning in Science/Understandings of Consequence Project: Tina Grotzer and David Perkins, Co-Principal Investigators How students develop deep and lasting understanding in science marks an ongoing area of inquiry for Tina Grotzer and David Perkins. The Understandings of Consequence Project combines continued inquiry into the nature of cognition in science and causality with the development of products to help teachers realize the promise of the extant findings. The research shows that helping students learn to reason about the forms of causality inherent in difficult science concepts significantly advances their ability to grasp and retain these concepts. This is important given the wealth of research to show that students typically have difficulty learning fundamental science concepts such as the nature of matter, pressure, and density, and that they often revert to their initial, naive explanations after instruction. We are currently investigating whether learning about causal structures in one topic transfers to other topics (with isomorphic or non-isomorphic causal structures) and researching whether the advanced causal understandings that students achieve are persistent across two to three years of schooling. The project has mapped out the forms of causality involved in scientific explanation, offering a sense of the cognitive challenges presented by specific science concepts, and has completed an extensive review of the existing literature to inform what we know and don't know about learning and development of these forms, and thus where more research is needed. In addition to numerous professional presentations and forthcoming journal articles, the work has resulted in a website for teachers and curriculum modules to guide teachers in the teaching of essential causal forms in the context of specific science concepts. One of the modules, Causal Patterns in Ecosystems: Lessons to Infuse into Ecosystems Units to Enable Deeper Understanding (2002), will be featured on the series Essential Science, developed by the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory and will be broadcast on the Annenberg/CPB Channel which is currently available in 70,000 schools. Learning Innovations Laboratories: David Perkins, Principal Investigator; Daniel Wilson, Project Manager Built upon lessons learned from the three-year "Understanding for Organizations" project with administrators in Bogotá, Colombia, Learning Innovations Laboratories (LILA) convenes leaders from a dozen non-competing organizations to explore issues of human learning and creativity in organizations. Leaders from organizations such as Motorola, the U.S. Army, and Johnson & Johnson come together for quarterly meetings to share challenges they face and discuss best practices. Researchers facilitate and document this process. Now in its third year, LILA has developed researchers who have learned how to build trust across these organizations, organize powerful learning conversations with their leaders, and create and sustain a community of practice. LILA researchers have produced over two dozen articles and briefs on topics of organizational learning, collaboration, and innovation. For updates see https://lila.pz.harvard.edu. Making Learning Visible: Howard Gardner and Steve Seidel, Co-Principal Investigators; Mara Krechevsky, Project Manager The Making Learning Visible (MLV) Project draws attention to the power of the group as a learning environment and documentation as a way for all--students, teachers, parents, administrators, and the community--to see how and what children are learning. In the first phase, research teams from the municipal preschools of Reggio Emilia and PZ investigated documentation as a central component of group learning and produced a book, Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners (2001). This book has been very well received; sales have been strong nationally and internationally. In the second phase, the PZ team worked with American educators investigating how practices related to documenting individual and group learning, grounded in early childhood experiences in Reggio Emilia, might enhance pre-K-8 education in the U.S. The American research teams produced two monographs: Making Teaching Visible: Documenting Individual and Group Learning as Professional Development (2003) and the forthcoming The Aesthetic Dimension of Learning in Groups. All indications from this work are that the ideas about documentation and group learning, while extremely challenging in the context of American values and educational practice, are also very attractive to American teachers and relevant to the learning experiences of older children. Teachers find the frameworks for understanding learning groups and documentation a valuable form of professional support as they go about applying these ideas in their classrooms. Reviewing documentation of learning in groups has influenced curriculum in terms of the amount of time a group spends on a topic and the level of student involvement in shaping an activity or unit. In a third phase of the project, we are collaborating with teacher educators and pre-K-12 classroom teachers to continue to expand the research and reach of this work. Multiple Intelligences Initiatives: Howard Gardner, Principal Investigator In response to the growing interest in the educational implications of Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory, we have undertaken a number of initiatives. Under the direction of Mindy Kornhaber, we studied 41 American schools that have used MI ideas and principles for at least three years. We discovered a number of properties associated with such schools, including improved attendance, more support for arts programs, and more opportunities for students with special needs. Under the co-direction of Julie Viens and Silja Kallenbach, we developed a Multiple Intelligences program for adult learners. Initially and surprisingly, non-literate adults resist "MI approaches" for they see them as infantilizing. Once this hurdle has been overcome, a pluralistic approach to literacy proves quite effective. Reviewing Education and the Arts Project (REAP): Ellen Winner, Principal Investigator; Lois Hetland, Project Manager REAP conducted a comprehensive search for studies testing the claim that studying the arts leads to some form of academic improvement. One hundred eighty-eight reports investigating the relationship between one or more arts areas to one or more academic areas were reviewed. Ten meta-analyses were conducted in which similar studies were combined to determine whether general effects could be found. Three areas were found in which clear causal links could be demonstrated between the arts and achievement in a non-arts academic area: Listening to music leads to short-term enhancements in spatial reasoning in adults (the "Mozart effect"); learning to make music leads to enhancements in spatial reasoning in children; and classroom drama boosts verbal abilities of many kinds. In two areas, causal links were found, but only on the basis of a very few studies: Learning to make music improved math scores; and learning dance improved spatial reasoning scores. Because of the small number of studies in these two areas, we urge caution and more rigorous research before conclusions can be confidently drawn. In five areas, no clear causal links were found. Studying multiple forms of arts (or studying in an arts-integrated curriculum) improved neither academic performance nor creative thinking skills. And reading skills were not improved by studying visual arts, music, or dance. We conclude that these mixed findings show that even in cases where arts programs add value to non-arts academic outcomes, it is dangerous to justify arts education by secondary, non-arts effects. Arts educators must build justifications based on what is inherently valuable about the arts themselves, even when the arts contribute secondary benefits. The results of this project were of great interest to the field, and two full-length journals were devoted to its findings: The Arts and Academic Achievement: What the Evidence Shows, a double issue of The Journal of Aesthetic Education (2000); and the May/June 2001 issue of Arts Education Policy Review. In addition, the J. Paul Getty Trust sponsored an international symposium of experts in arts education to review the project's findings and published the proceedings as a book, Proceedings from 'Beyond the Soundbite: What the Research Actually Shows About Arts Education and Academic Outcomes' (2001). Teaching and Learning in the Visual Arts Project: Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner, Co-Principal Investigators The arts are of central importance to the education of young minds. However, educators know surprisingly little about how the arts are actually taught and the types of decisions teachers make in designing and carrying out instruction. The Teaching and Learning in the Visual Arts Project is a two-year investigation designed to analyze teaching in the visual arts and identify the kinds of cognitive and social concepts and techniques that are taught in serious visual arts classes, as well as the ways that teachers go about teaching them. Over the course of the 2001-2002 school year, researchers videotaped over 35 three-hour visual arts classes in two high schools where the arts are taken very seriously. Following each class, researchers interviewed teachers about the goals and intentions that motivated their actions in that class. We then analyzed the videotapes and interviews in relation to a set of cognitive and social learning outcomes that teachers intend students to develop. Findings will be presented in two forms. We found a set of core cognitive and social outcomes that teachers are attempting to inculcate in visual arts classes. Students are taught far more than technique in these classes. For example, they are also taught to observe closely, to critically evaluate their own and other work, to envision images in their mind and then translate these into works, and to express their own personal vision. Complementing this study of teaching is a pilot study investigating learning in the visual arts. Researchers interviewed a sample of 15 students and their teachers from each of the videotaped classrooms about students' learning over the course of the 2001-2002 school year. This study revealed that the categories we identified to describe what teachers intend students to learn align with three sources of data on student learning gathered from our sample: student works, student comments, and teacher comments about student learning. We identified vivid examples of four levels of learning for each category. These results were the foundation for our proposed longitudinal study of learning. That proposed study would test these pilot results and design an assessment instrument for use by classroom art teachers. Teaching for Understanding Institutes for International Schools: Lois Hetland and Ron Ritchhart, Co-Principal Investigators For the past six years, PZ has held a Teaching for Understanding (TfU) Institute for a small collection of International Schools located in Northern Europe, America, and Turkey. Designed primarily as a vehicle for disseminating PZ ideas within the context of a rich professional development opportunity for teachers, this work also has provided the opportunity to learn more about what TfU looks like in practice, how to sustain the work on a school-wide level, and the typical trajectory of teachers' learning about this practice. Our informal findings suggest: 1) TfU is a valuable and accessible practice for mid-career teachers interested in refining and bettering their teaching, 2) TfU is often a grass-roots initiative that can thrive in schools because of the teachers who believe even when there is no guiding vision of a school leader, 3) TfU can change the way school professionals talk about and approach teaching and learning when a critical mass of teachers have become involved (this generally takes 4-5 years). Another outgrowth of this small initiative is the rich cadre of teacher mentors that have emerged: Two individuals from this group now instruct courses on TfU for WIDE World (see this project below), many others serve as coaches on WIDE World, two individuals have come to PZ as visiting scholars, and a large and committed group attend the PZ summer institute as study group leaders, mini course instructors, and apprentices. Thinking Dispositions: David Perkins, Shari Tishman, and Ron Ritchhart, Co-Principal Investigator The PZ work on thinking dispositions (e.g., curiosity, open-mindedness, metacognition, etc.) has spanned more than a decade. Early work focused on developing a grounded theoretical model of dispositions to explain both the gap between one's thinking abilities and one's actions and the way in which patterns of thinking develop. The developed model, explicated in numerous journal articles and three books, identifies three crucial components necessary to fully realize a disposition: ability, inclination, and sensitivity. Validation research revealed that inclination and sensitivity make unique contributions to intellectual behavior that are empirically separable from the contribution of ability. Interestingly, findings revealed that the contribution of sensitivity is larger than would have been predicted, and that it is sensitivity, rather than inclination, that appears to be the chief bottleneck in effective intellectual performance. Current research is moving to develop programs for schools that build on these empirical findings. Early work has focused on ways in which to make thinking generative for teachers and students, strategies to integrate thinking into the existing curriculum, and increasing the opportunities for students to think. Early findings have shown that the use of "thinking routines" are useful for both teachers and students in the development of patterns of thinking. In addition, strategies for making thinking visible in the classroom have helped teachers to better understand the thinking opportunities evident in their classrooms. WIDE World: David Perkins and Stone Wiske, Co-Principal Investigators; Nathan Finch, Project Manager WIDE World developed out of several years' work on dissemination websites at PZ. In 1996 the PZ website was launched as a part of the Learning and Resource Network at PZ (LEARN@PZ), and then Active Learning Practices for Schools (ALPS) and the sister site from the Educational Technology Center, Education with New Technologies (ENT). These sites served a number of teachers well, but many using ALPS and ENT asked for more structured support as they explored ideas of teaching for understanding, thinking skills, and authentic assessment. In 1999, the ALPS/ENT group began to develop structured online professional development courses in a variety of pedagogical areas. We pilot tested three courses during the first year and in fall of 2000 we offered those courses for a fee. Since that initial offering we have served over 1200 educators with 8 English and 3 Spanish semester-long courses. Our participants have come from 64 countries, ranging from teachers and school administrators to parents and business executives. For the first 3 years, our work focused on building infrastructure and courses. The results of the courses are quite positive as reflected in our participant feedback. However, for wide-scale impact, we need to move to self-sufficiency in the future. During the past year, the project has begun a transition from a traditional research and development project to a more business-like entity that we hope will, sometime in the future, become self-supporting. WIDE World has been learning about business practices by working with business consultants and we are starting to hire business expertise into the project as Harvard employees--something that is new to WIDE World. During the next few years, we plan to become smarter about the economics of our work, become more responsive to our market, and reach thousands of educators each year through institutional contracts, while maintaining high quality and remaining true to our mission. Collaborations with Other Institutions The general operating support that we received in the past decade made it easier to enter into collaborations with other institutions. In fact, in the period from 1997-2002, we collaborated with over 100 individuals, universities, and corporations. Among the groups with which we worked in recent years are the Atlas Communities (Education Development Center of Newton, MA); The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School (studies of the effect of music training on brain and cognition in young children); Colombia's Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano; the DeCordova Museum and Sculpture Park; The Underground Railway Theater; GoodWork teams at Claremont Graduate University, Institute of Education in Denmark, and Stanford University; the International Schools of Northern Europe; the Lemshaga School in Sweden; LEGO Learning Institute; New York's Museum of Modern Art (Visual Thinking Curriculum); the Municipal Schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy; The Ross School and Institute in East Hampton, L.I.; and the Disney Channel. Halperin Lunch Once a month throughout the academic year, we have a formal lunch, hosted by PZ. These lunches are named after a benefactor, James Halperin of the Heritage Coin Company. The lunches provide an opportunity for Project members to share their work with one another in a comfortable setting. Typically, there is a half hour presentation, followed by 45 minutes of small-group discussion; and then a final wrap up. These lunches have been highly successful. Individuals prepare their presentations carefully; there is high attendance, and good plenary and small group participation. Often projects are enhanced as a result of the rich discussions on the part of individuals who have a great deal of familiarity with educational and research issues. The L@titud Project The L@titud Project supports Latin American research and development initiatives that seek to promote an education for understanding and intelligent action in the region through institutions like schools, museums, community centers, and corporations. This small project was established with the support of the Steering Committee in a seminar entitled, "Toward a Culture of Understanding--Generating and Sustaining Change Among Individuals, Groups, Organizations and Educational Systems," August 2001. During 2002 the project undertook the following initiatives: Strengthening distance education opportunities: Working closely with the Organization of American States and WIDEWorld, L@titud secured scholarships for 194 Latin American educators and was responsible for the development of a seminar to select and train online Spanish 40 speaking online coaches. Courses, conferences, and seminars: During 2002 L@titud carried out seven seminars and video conferences to disseminate PZ's work, train regional agents of change, and advise districts and Ministries about possible large scale applications of PZ ideas. These activities took place in Brazil (2), Costa Rica (2), Nicaragua (1), and Puerto Rico (2). L@titud has also advised projects led by our colleagues in the region, such as the establishment of a new pre- and in-service professional development program (K-12) centered on TfU at Universidad Torcuato DiTella, Argentina. Producing and disseminating materials in Spanish: Finally, L@titud is currently collaborating with the National Council for the Culture and the Arts in Mexico to co-produce the MUSE QUEST game in Spanish and develop an accompanying publication. Publications and Electronic Book Store At the time of the AP grant in 1993, Nelson Goodman, Howard Gardner, and David Perkins had all published books, but the best way to learn about PZ was to order from a list of articles about the research. PZ sold them for the cost of copying and mailing, and received 100 or so requests a year. Following the recommendations of the Publications Task Force, and near-simultaneous publication of the Arts PROPEL handbooks and the first Project Spectrum handbook, Shirley Veenema developed a plan to manage the burgeoning interest in PZ work and grow revenue. Karen Chalfen became Publications Coordinator in January, 1996. Since then, working with Shirley and Denise Simon--our in-house designers--projects have self-published 21 titles, and Karen has negotiated reseller agreements with trade publishers of 46 books by PZ authors. Since 1995, the Publications list has grown from 12 to 80 titles and annual revenue has increased more than tenfold, from $12,751 to $153,627. More importantly, while Publications depended until 1999 on Core funding for salaries and other expenses, it is now not only self-supporting, but in 2002 generated a modest profit of 4.5%. The most significant factor in this steady growth was the opening of the eBookstore in November, 2001. A Steering Committee grant to Karen Chalfen, Nathan Finch, and Jenn Raley Miller supported development of the site, but operating expenses are now supported entirely by Publications revenue. We are exploring the possibility of ramping up our publishing capabilities. A PZ imprint would complete the vision of the Publications Task Force. Summer Institute Since 1996, we have had a yearly Summer Institute. With one exception, this Institute has been held at Harvard and has been facilitated by GSE's Professional Education Programs. The Institute has three principal purposes: l) To bring the research and development activities of PZ to the attention of a wider public, both national and international; 2) To bring together present and past members of PZ on an educational activity of significance; 3) To raise money for the general operating expenses of PZ. By any index the Summer Institute has been very successful. The Institute is always sold out, often within a month: until this year, due to the size of available space, we have had a maximum of 260 registrants. Some years, we could have filled the Institute twofold or even more. In a typical year, attendees come from thirty states and 20-30 countries. There is extremely active participation by PZ members, past and present: the faculty typically consists of sixty individuals. The curriculum has been fairly steady across the years, though incremental changes and improvements occur. The ratings by attendees are overwhelmingly positive; many individuals return year after year and many more recommend the Institute to their colleagues. Rounds at Project Zero In the early 1990s, building on the APPLE Project, Joe Walters and Steve Seidel created the Regional Assessment Network, a loose group of educators with an interest in alternative assessment and an affiliation with PZ. Though the financial support for those semi-annual network meetings ran out, many of those teachers and administrators wanted to continue meeting. In 1996, Seidel developed the idea of creating a monthly meeting for area educators built on the model of grand rounds in a teaching hospital. The premise of these meetings was that educators, like doctors, should have settings in which they can gather for rigorous, analytic collaboration aimed at addressing the need for professional development well beyond formal training. The specific design of Rounds at PZ incorporates a case study model and focuses on examinations of student work. Now, seven years later, the meetings continue monthly from October to May each year. In the early years, the sessions drew from 12-20 participants; in the past two years, sessions regularly draw well over 35 participants. We believe that dedicated educators long for powerful learning environments and a community of like-minded colleagues as much as those in any other profession and that these "Rounds" may provide a powerful and replicable model for the field of education. Video Record In 2000 much of the Summer Institute was videotaped by a team of professionals. In 2001 eight videos of high production value and rich curricular material were released commercially. The set serves as a documentation of the Summer Institute; and it is very useful to individuals and groups that, for one reason or another, cannot attend the Institute itself. 4. Maturing research: Over the past nine years the pattern of PZ's research has changed, due largely to the AP grant. Right around the time when the AP funding started, PZ was ending a period of very large and multi-year grants focused on education reform. A Nation at Risk had spurred large scale reform initiatives and PZ grew in size and became more education focused as a result. It included work such as ATLAS, Teaching for Understanding, the Thinking Dispositions Work, and Arts PROPEL. As the funding landscape changed, Project Zero adapted by making a shift towards smaller, shorter, and more targeted initiatives. This shift has helped our research to mature in a number of ways. For one, it is more diverse than ever before, yet still it retains the hallmarks of PZ research. The topics of our research are far ranging, from the nature of assessment, to what supports the ability of professionals to carry out ethical and excellent work, to understanding the nature of causality in science, to interdisciplinary understanding, to understanding in the arts, and so on. Our work currently focuses on learning across the ages from preschool through adulthood, and addresses learning in both formal and informal settings. In terms of audience, much of our work still focuses on schools, but it has also expanded to benefit such groups as business leaders, school and university administrators, artists, museum educators and directors, to name a few. PZ's research reaches audiences locally, nationally, and internationally. In terms of the products of our research, we are now less likely to create a collection of journal articles and are more likely to create a more eclectic set of offerings: videos, teacher handbooks, curriculum guides, books, institutes, etc. At the same time, the growth of our cohesiveness as an organization has engendered more cross-project fertilization, less isolation of projects, more synchronicity, and a more common language. A crucial dimension of PZ's work that the AP has protected and nurtured during this time of transition was our ability to weather and make funding shifts while sustaining high quality research. The AP support has allowed us to look for ways to fund ourselves that grow out of the work itself and enhance it, rather than divert us from it. It has given us the stability to experiment with new ideas and venues. And it has allowed us internally to provide modest seed money for initiatives that have subsequently become successful and independent, such as LILA, L@titud, and the eBookstore. 5. Governance Structures: Whether one considers this a positive or a negative symptom, it is fair to say that most individuals are drawn to PZ by the research and educational questions, rather than by issues of governance. And indeed, in the early years of PZ, issues of governance were essentially invisible. Gardner and Perkins would get together periodically to discuss the need for a new Xerox machine, use of office space, the submission of individual or joint applications, and the like. Other members of the Project had little involvement in these questions of high import! With the expansion in size and scope of PZ, the receipt of core funding, and the desire of Gardner and Perkins to be relieved of management concerns, we began in the early 1990s to experiment with various governance structures. First we set up a Steering Committee which continues to meet on a monthly basis. The Group is small (3-6 members); meetings are informal; decisions are reached by consensus. The Steering Committee is concerned primarily with the overall health and direction of PZ; it also develops a budget for core expenses; and it reviews the credentials of individuals who are being considered for the role of Principal Investigator. (The ranks of PIs have been expanded over the years; at present, nine individuals are allowed to apply for grants.) Over this last decade, a number of governance and management structures have been designed and tested. These have included a Managing Director, a set of Management Committees, a Management Team, and, most recently, the Director and Administrative Director model. Each of these structures was overseen by the Steering Committee and each had strengths and weaknesses. Analysis of the effectiveness of these structures led, in each case, to the development of the next model. In this current model, Steve Seidel and Cynthia Quense coordinate the management of the organization with the assistance of the Core Staff, a group of 12. In addition, they work closely with the group of Principal Investigators and Project Managers (PI/PM group) and the Steering Committee on funding, coordination of work, and the intellectual environment for the organization. The Steering Committee continues to meet monthly with the Directors to oversee all matters of future direction for the organization as well as the annual budget review and approval process. The Committee continues to review and approve nominations to the Dean for principal investigator status. 6. A Capable Core Structure and the Information Age: In the early days, everyone that worked at Project Zero (staff and research assistants, project managers, PIs) wore multiple hats in order to absorb all of the various responsibilities of running a research organization with no central administration. Everyone took turns answering the phones and writing messages by hand in a notebook called the "Phone Log." Some took on the finances for the organization. Others handled the Human Resource functions, while simultaneously working on their own research. These duties were all handsomely rewarded at the end of the year with... a candy bar. Some of this volunteerism continues, and hopefully always will, but now we call it "citizenship" and we would not be able to get the summer institute off the ground each year without it. With the receipt of core funding, Project Zero was finally able to establish a core administration whose sole responsibility is to see that all of the important administrative functions are taken care of by people with the appropriate expertise. The shape of this core administration has shifted over the years as we have grown both in size and maturity. Our understanding of ourselves as an organization and of our mission have been allowed to grow and take shape as a result of this funding and, as that understanding has evolved, so has our clarity about what and who we need to get these jobs done well. The current structure is one that not only keeps the organization running smoothly, but also is recognized throughout the School and University as very high-functioning and reliable. These structures are but one of the ways that our work at Project Zero has been transformed. Another significant change is in relation to the technological resources that we have at our disposal. Any organization looking back ten years would agree that technological advances have changed immeasurably the way they conduct business. Those of us with dinosaur computers got newer and faster ones, capable of giving us access to the technological advances in the world and increasing our productivity. We were also able to hire staff to support those machines and to network them, ensuring our work to extend not only across buildings at GSE, but to states across the U.S. and countries throughout the world. 7. Leadership capacity and intellectual synergy: This technological sophistication, along with the newly integrated organization, has allowed us to create new ways to share and distribute ideas across the organization. This in turn has strengthened our capacity to generate high-quality new ideas. While PZ has always developed leading ideas in the field of education, the last 10 years has strengthened our ability to do so, and it has spread the "authorship" of these ideas across a wider range of people in the organization. Although our many different research projects still retain their individuality, we are each much more aware of how our work relates to other work of the organization. This intellectual synergy has led to stronger work internally, and a more robust public presence. Leadership growth and cross-fertilization of ideas across the organization. Being a collaborative organization, Project Zero has shared the vision-setting responsibilities at all levels from the Steering Committee through the Management Team to staff committees. Over the last 10 years, almost everyone in the organization has played some sort of leadership role, and contributed in substantive ways to the development of leadership visions for the organization. We have retained a spirit of partnership and collegiality in the process. We now seem to have achieved something quite rare: We are an organization of individual leaders who work together collaboratively as partners. 8. Relation to GSE and Harvard: Until the middle 1980s, the relationship between PZ and Harvard was almost entirely nominal. We submitted applications through Harvard's Office Sponsored Research, used Harvard stationery and offices, and occasionally offered courses (typically without compensation!). A few GSE students worked at PZ and a few researchers went on for higher degrees. But if PZ had disappeared during this time, that event would scarcely have been noticed in Cambridge. (Its demise would have had a serious impact on the broader world of arts education research, where PZ has for decades been "the only institutional show in town.") In 1986, Gardner joined the senior faculty at Harvard and this immediately gave the Project a more prominent presence at the School. In the middle 1990s, Jessica Davis, a longtime PZ Principal Investigator, in conjunction with Gardner, proposed a concentration in the Arts in Education. This concentration was approved by the Senior Faculty and a successful program is now in its seventh year. This program has resulted in much greater intercourse between the School and PZ. In 1999 Perkins, who had been teaching at the school for many years and had for a time supervised the Technology in Education concentration, joined the Senior Faculty. With the long time Project Co-directors as members of the Senior Faculty, with several other students of Goodman in various roles at the School, and with a well-regarded program in Arts in Education, far closer ties began to evolve between PZ and the School. More recently, working with Stone Wiske and others, Perkins has also spearheaded the successful WIDE World initiative in distance learning. WIDE World relies heavily on ideas developed at PZ and also on PZ personnel; it is likely to evolve into a major national distance learning effort in education, thereby cementing further our relation to GSE and the broader Harvard community. As we write, the Graduate School of Education has a new Dean, a new administrative team, and a new set of initiatives. We are hopeful that the ties between PZ and the School will be further solidified in the coming years. Already discussions are starting about ways in which PZ can become even more integrated into various aspects of the life of the School. Besides Gardner and Perkins, Steve Seidel and Shari Tishman also currently teach in the School, and exploratory conversations have begun about the possibility that other principal investigators could teach courses as well. 9. Future Directions: We expect PZ to continue its major initiatives in the years ahead. We envision continuing to engage in the innovative, high-quality research and development activities that have been our hallmark for over 35 years. Additionally, we expect there to be a continuing evolution of the key initiatives that have emerged as a result of the past decade of AP support, including our modes of governance and operation, our liaisons with broader Harvard community, and our national and international outreach initiatives. At this juncture, two new initiatives are uppermost in our minds. First of all, we are working actively to plan a new Museum of Learning. We expect this Museum to start with exhibitions that stand alone, can travel, and/or are virtual, but we hope that it eventually it will exist in bricks and mortar as well, perhaps on the new Harvard campus in Allston. We see this Museum both as a showcase for the many insights about learning that we (and others, of course) have developed over the years; and as a means of broadening public understanding of the many remarkable ways in which human beings learn. Second, we are working actively to put the fruits of our research-and-development findings and products at the service of educators--locally, nationally, and internationally. Some of this activity is already well launched. But we hope to work effectively with individuals and institutions at the Graduate School and beyond, to achieve a multiplier effect in the years ahead. We will build on strong ties to such programs as The Arts in Education; Mind, Brain and Education; The Teacher Education Program; and Technology in Education and we expect to play a major role in the new Research and Innovations Outreach Program (RIO) at GSE. The next decade promises to be as exciting and productive as the one just completed. |
|
Search the Project Zero web site. |
|
[Project Zero] [Research Projects] [History of Project Zero ] [Principal Investigators] [Summer Institute] [Products and Services] [eBookstore] Copyright © 2009 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 124 Mount Auburn Street, Fifth Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-4342, Fax: 617-495-9709 |