In this PZip project, we (Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner, Harvard Project Zero researchers) worked with arts teachers from dance, visual arts, drama, and music. The project was hosted by Folkert Haanstra at the Amsterdam University of the Arts. We met in four two-hour sessions via video-conference, supported by ongoing sharing of documents on Google docs. We both have been members of Harvard Project Zero for decades and, together, have carried out work on learning and assessment in the arts. Four projects have been central to our thinking about this topic: ArtsPROPEL, Teaching for Understanding, Reviewing Education and the Arts Project (REAP), and the Studio Thinking framework. 

The challenge presented to us was to help teachers develop formative and summative assessment systems in the arts at the secondary level. Teachers worked to develop systems that were objective as well as able to capture learning characteristic of each art discipline (teacher-, peer-, and self-assessment). Learning was to be assessed by considering what students made, said, and did. In the performing arts disciplines, we attended to learning at both individual and ensemble levels.

Teachers read relevant literature suggested by us as background for planning a series of small pilot projects in their respective schools. Between sessions, we reviewed work in progress on each teachers’ developing assessment system. During sessions, teachers presented their assessment projects for our response. 

We were impressed by the deep, clear, and flexible thinking of the teachers and their appreciation of the need for ongoing revision. They made good use of the structures we asked them to consider. For example, projects assessed the Studio Habits of Mind outlined in Studio Thinking: reflect, express, observe, envision, engage & persist, understand art worlds, and stretch & explore, in addition to craft/technique. Their work informed our understanding of the challenges of assessment in each art form. This work represents a pioneering effort to develop systematic and authentic assessments across four art forms.

References 
Blythe, T., & the Researchers and Teachers of the Teaching for Understanding Project. (1998). The Teaching for Understanding Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hetland, L, Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. New York: Teachers College (2nd ed., Studio Thinking 2, 2013).

Winner, E. (Ed.). (1991). Arts PROPEL: An introductory handbook. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Educational Testing Service.

Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between arts study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 11–75.

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (Eds.). (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4).

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (Eds.). (2001). Proceedings from ‘Beyond the soundbite: What the research actually shows about arts education and academic outcomes.’ Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.

Winner, E., & Simmons, S. (Eds.). (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbook for visual arts. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Educational Testing Service.

Winner, E., Davidson, L., & Scripp, L. (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbook for music. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Educational Testing Service.

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (Eds.). (2000b). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Double Issue of Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34 (3-4), Fall/Winter, 2000.

Wiske, M.S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.