Constructionism can be a powerful framework for teaching complex content to novices. At the core of constructionism is the suggestion that by enabling learners to build creative artifacts that require complex content to function, those learners will have opportunities to learn this content in contextualized, personally meaningful ways. In this paper, we investigate the relevance of a set of approaches broadly called “educational data mining” or “learning analytics” (henceforth, EDM) to help provide a basis for quantitative research on constructionist learning which does not abandon the richness seen as essential by many researchers in that paradigm. We suggest that EDM may have the potential to support research that is meaningful and useful both to researchers working actively in the constructionist tradition but also to wider communities. Finally, we explore potential collaborations between researchers in the EDM and constructionist traditions; such collaborations have the potential to enhance the ability of constructionist researchers to make rich inferences about learning and learners, while providing EDM researchers with many interesting new research questions and challenges.

Key words: constructionism, educational data mining, learning analytics, design of learning environments, project-based learning

Abstract: Maker education is a new instantiation of the decades-old project of project-based, constructionist, inquiry-driven learning. However, unlike other past implementations, it offers many unique characteristics, makes possible novel educational outcomes, and challenges policy makers and teachers with new infrastructural needs. In this response, using examples from school and district-wide implementation, we address three categories of questions raised in the commentaries around maker education: the uniqueness of makerspaces and the artifacts produced within them (and how they differ from projects and artifacts produced in other educational environments), teacher professional development for this novel type of school environment, and new approaches to assessment. Our conclusions point to recommendations that could be useful for policy makers, teachers and educators working on the implementation of maker programs.

Context: The construction of a product is fundamental. However, students’ having produced something is not enough to ensure that they have constructed knowledge. Problem: The objective of this article is to understand how maker education can contribute to the process of students’ knowledge construction. Method: Initially we discuss aspects related to the theory of constructionism, subsequently, using Piaget’s notions of conceptualization, we discuss how knowledge can be constructed in a makerspace, then turn to a case study that illustrates our theoretical commentary, and end with conclusions about our main research question: “Where is the knowledge construction in making?” Results: We show that in makerspaces students can develop sophisticated artifacts by using digital technologies, and that besides the product, this process allows for the representation of the actions with these machines, expressed as concepts and strategies used. Implications: The action representation constitutes the “window into the mind” of the learner, allowing one to understand and identify the knowledge used and, with that, help the learner reach a new stage in knowledge construction. However, in order to know whether the student has constructed knowledge, the teacher can use different strategies, such as Piaget’s clinical method, analysis of results gathered throughout product testing, and use of simulation software related to concepts involved in the maker activity. Constructivist content: The discussion in this article is based on Papert’s constructionist ideas. However, we use Piaget’s distinction between success and understanding to discuss how knowledge can be constructed by students in makerspaces. Key words: Makerspaces, fabrication technologies, constructionism, knowledge evaluation.