Upshot: I describe my perception of deconstruction, including the controversial point of view that deconstruction is actually construction. I also provide more details about the some of the design decisions in the software, and how these affected the students’ experience.

Context: There is a movement to change education so that it is adequate to social expectations and uses the full potential of technology. However, there has been no significant breakthrough in this area and there is no clear evidence why. Problem: A potential issue explaining why education falls behind is the way educators focus on education. There is a possibility that a significant step in the learning process is routinely neglected. Method: Two different approaches to using IT in education are tested in two different environments: a university level course based on constructionism and IBL projects for secondary school students. Results: It is possible to apply constructionism in education, but there are still problems. They are not related to how students construct knowledge, but how they deconstruct knowledge. Implications: The most significant problem of deconstruction is that it requires creative skills. This makes it very difficult to formalize it and to provide effective recommendations for its application. Constructivist Content: Deconstruction is a prerequisite of construction, thus deconstructionism deserves more attention and study. A proper application of deconstructionism will make it possible to reconstruct education in a way that is impossible with the current approaches.

Key words: Deconstructionism, constructionism, future of education, inquiry-based learning.

Open peer commentary on the article “Creativity in Solving Short Tasks for Learning Computational Thinking” by Valentina Dagienė, Gerald Futschek & Gabrielė Stupurienė. Abstract: Teaching computing concepts and computational thinking via short tasks could be considered as an implementation of a minimalism movement in education. Minimalism in this context does not mean less educational or less creative. This commentary will attempt to provide additional insights of minimalism in the form of cards with short tasks, supported by personal experience at university level.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructionism and De-Constructionism: Opposite yet Complementary Pedagogies” by Jean M. Griffin. Abstract: Deconstructionism in education is a powerful approach, which is still insufficiently researched. Griffin’s presentation of the pedagogical aspect of deconstructionism is a success story, which may inspire others. Having experienced some of the issues, I also provide examples from my own practice.

Open peer commentary on the article “Problem Posing and Creativity in Elementary-School Mathematics” by E. Paul Goldenberg. Abstract: Supporting the inborn curiosity of children is the motivation for our involvement in developing novel curricula, textbooks and microworlds. Our main goal of implementing the constructionism as a fundamental educational strategy is to keep the students “as question marks,” i.e., to encourage them to pose questions, to make experiments, to invent their own problems. We strongly support the ideas behind Goldenberg’s experience in learning environments, generating curiosity and creative engagement (§15. As an extension of the ideas in §54 we propose a metaphor to visualize how programming can be “repurposed” to wrap the math in an attractive, yet educationally effective way.