Charette - Learning Through Process

                                     -  video created by Julie Daughtry

As a part of the Future of Learning (FOL) Institute at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, a small number of the 200-plus institute participants volunteered and were selected to participate in a charette.  When asked to volunteer for this experience, we were told little about the process other than the fact that it would involve designing an artifact to represent the learner of the future.

While others may define a charette to fit their own needs, our experience in charette could be defined as a small group working together over multiple, intense sessions to design and construct a product through collaboration.  The process was valued equally, or perhaps more, than the product.

The success of the charette was achieved by the intentional and thoughtful planning of our facilitators, Justin Reich and Arzu Mistry, along with several FOL Fellows.  The sessions were an outstanding example of excellent teaching and reinforced my belief that great teaching occurs as a result of great planning.  While what happens in a classroom has been referred to as art, that art only occurs when the teacher is constantly engaged in the creation of the experience.

This charette experience focused on the process of creation.  Daily elements of scaffolding were put into place before we began our design work.  The intention of the scaffolding was to prepare us for the process that we would undertake during that specific class period.  The best example of this scaffolding was prior to the session when we were asked to develop our design elements.  We were asked to create something in five minutes given a concept and a medium.  We all randomly chose slips of paper from two piles; my medium was a sculpture and my concept was “tension between old and new.”  I had five minutes to think of an idea and make something.  The limited time forced me just to do something without thinking.  Most of the time this is the exact opposite of what teachers try to get students to do, but in this case the purpose was for us to generate ideas.  It was freeing not to have to think about whether the idea was good or bad and just do something with it.

The other effect of this small exercise was that it lowered tension and stress for me.  Justin told us that we didn’t have time for good ideas, we just needed to jump in and do it.  This removed the expectation of judgement by others.  We were all in the same boat, individuals creating something under impossible constraints with little or no expectations.  Many of the products of this brief exercise were creative because the exercise forced us to get out of our normal analytical minds and access the creative parts of our mind.  One of my partners stated that before the charette she thought she was not an artist and after it she thought that she was an artist.  I had the same feeling as I accessed and employed my “creative mind.”

There were many other short scaffolding sessions before and during our work.  All of them were purposeful, and, for me, effective.

The other element that focused us on the process was forced reflection.  At different points of our work session, we were asked to reflect on how we felt or what we were doing in front of a camera.  This was done in two different ways, one was in the “confessional booth” where we responded in front of a camera to a written question without anyone else present.  The other method occurred when we were filmed responding to oral questions in the middle of our design work.  Perhaps Arzu and Justin were really interested in documenting the process, but the effect for me was that it forced me to look inside myself frequently throughout the process.  The filming was essential to this process as it made my reply spontaneous.  I didn’t have time to craft a response.  While I don’t remember specific revelations in design that occurred as a result of this process, I do remember feeling less stress and more focused afterwards.  I was never asked to look at my recorded reflections, and I don’t know if anyone ever looked at them.  This made and makes no difference to me as the value gained was in the moment.

The final essential element in process was getting outside input into our design.  There were a couple of formal review periods where people outside of the charette were invited to question us about our process and design.  There were also informal reviews done by Justin, Arzu, and the Fellows.  The reviews were always done by questioning:  Have you thought about this?  Why did you do it that way? What are you trying to express?  What about the use of color?  Why did you choose wood as a medium? Getting input was crucial to the process.  Nearly every time someone interacted with us it changed our design to some degree.  At the very least it forced us to think in deeper and broader ways about the design.


While I have believed in Constructivist learning for years, participating in this charette gave me a personal understanding of the process that I previously lacked. To be a student in a classroom where process was central to learning deepened my appreciation for this model and will give me a framework to build upon.