In 1967, a small, nonprofit start-up think tank was founded at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Two things are surprising about this event. First, the founder, Nelson Goodman, was a formidable analytic philosopher, an unlikely player in a graduate school of education. Second, this think tank was henceforth called Project Zero — a name that was perhaps intentionally opaque. Goodman enjoyed being provocative.
The focus of this new little research group was to be the theoretical and empirical study of thinking and learning in the arts. Stating that there were few “firm and usable results” about the ways individuals become involved in artistic activities and practices as well as gain knowledge and skills, Goodman (1968, p. 1) pronounced that it was necessary “to begin almost at zero, with basic theoretical studies into the nature of art and of education.”
Soon after Project Zero’s founding, Goodman handed over control to two research assistants, both of whom had a deep interest in the arts: Howard Gardner, who at the time was a doctoral student in developmental psychology at Harvard, and David Perkins, then a doctoral student in mathematics and computer science at MIT.
The focus of Project Zero during its first decade was on conceptual analyses of the nature of the arts and artistic symbols and on empirical research on learning and cognition in the arts. Among the many investigations were a study of creative thinking in poets and the study of young children’s creativity in the visual arts.
Building pedagogical frameworks
In the 1980s, Project Zero’s focus shifted significantly from empirical research related to psychology of the arts to multidisciplinary approaches to education — not only in the arts but in education writ large. This was part of a renewed national interest in the improvement of K-12 education, as epitomized by the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. However, in contrast to the calls for more drilling and testing heard in response to this report, Project Zero developed frameworks to encourage deeper thinking and understanding in students, pursuing the goals of the best of progressive education.
These frameworks offer research-informed, cohesive structures to support teaching with certain goals in mind (e.g., creating a culture of thinking, teaching for understanding, expanding awareness of other cultures, promoting ethical thinking, and learning to think like an artist). Project Zero’s frameworks are not curricula covering specific content. Rather, they are overall pedagogical structures and methods, flexible enough to allow teachers to adapt them to their own circumstances.
The frameworks are designed to support educators in moving away from a transmission-based model of teaching. They help educators translate progressive education concepts into workable and rigorous practice. In addition, most of Project Zero’s frameworks are co-developed with educators — ensuring they are teacher-friendly and feasible.
Because the frameworks call for modes of instruction that are often very different from how many teachers were educated, Project Zero’s approach to professional development has been to engage teachers in the very practices that they will later use with their students. For example, when researchers introduce teachers to the framework of thinking routines, they don’t lecture them on the what and the why of these routines. Instead, they turn the teachers into students, posing thinking routines to them.
Impact on educators
With neither endowment nor funding from Harvard, Project Zero has continued to grow and thrive over the past 58 years. Millions of dollars in research funding have supported our efforts, but not until recently did Project Zero investigate its possible impact on educators’ philosophies and practices of teaching.
Over three years, I tracked down and interviewed educators who had encountered Project Zero’s professional development and were currently using one or more of its frameworks. My research assistants and I spoke at length to 227 educators from 57 countries spread across six continents seeking to determine whether working with Project Zero had altered their educational philosophy and practice. In addition, we asked them how they believed the changes in their teaching affected student learning.
The most common way these teachers encountered Project Zero frameworks was through its annual four-day summer institute, soon entering its fourth decade. Some teachers attended more than once, and many invited Project Zero researchers to their schools for further professional development.
Teachers consistently reported shifting away from a traditional “drill and kill” approach to an inquiry-based model of teaching as they engaged with frameworks designed to deepen student thinking and understanding. Many had been using these methods for at least several years, some for much longer. Teachers supplied numerous examples of how they had changed, often sending us materials they had developed and examples of their students’ work.
These changes were seen in both public and private schools and in affluent as well as under-resourced schools. Changes lasting more than a few years were correlated with several important factors, including buy-in from multiple teachers, regular dedicated time to reflect together about new approaches, and strong support from school leaders.
A two-volume impact report detailing our findings is available free at https://pz.harvard.edu/pz-impact-report or for a nominal fee on Amazon (volume 1, volume 2). And soon you will be able to search the report for those frameworks that you are most interested in applied to the age groups relevant to your practice.
References
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols, 2nd ed. Hackett Publishing.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ellen Winner
Ellen Winner is a senior research associate at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, and professor emerita of the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College.
