I have always been an ambitious person, so when I’m challenged to think outside the box, generating ideas is never the difficult part. The challenge comes when my desire for perfection becomes a barrier. This week, I wanted to create something with Makey Makey that felt more polished than simply holding a handful of wires. A handheld controller for one of my MakeCode Arcade games seemed like the perfect challenge.
Even after reading about constructivism, constructionism, and productive failure, part of me still expected my first design to work.
It didn’t.
Instead of becoming frustrated, I found myself doing exactly what I had been reading about. I reflected, iterated, and tried again. Through Inquiry into Failure, I asked myself questions about what wasn’t working and where I should begin troubleshooting. Practicing Productive Failure helped me realize that the failed attempts were not wasted effort. They were the reason I eventually understood the technology better. Finally, Reflection on Learning helped me realize that my understanding grew because I revised my thinking, not because my first attempt was successful. (Cheah & Willems, 2025).
This experience also reinforced the difference between constructivism and constructionism. I didn’t learn how Makey Makey worked by reading about it. I learned by building something meaningful, watching it fail, and improving it. It also reminded me that meaningful learning doesn’t come from getting everything right the first time. I need to intentionally create opportunities for my students to struggle safely, reflect, iterate, and grow.
References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference?
Alexis Flandes 
Leave a comment