YAPILANDIRMACILIKTAN İNŞACILIĞA ÖĞRENMENİN EVRİMİ: ÜRETEREK ÖĞRENME

Abstract

Bu çalışma, özellikle erken çocukluk yıllarında öğrenmeye ilişkin yaklaşımlarda yaşanan kuramsal ve pratik dönüşümü odağına almaktadır. Erken çocukluk dönemi, bireyin bilişsel, sosyal-duygusal ve dil gelişiminin en hızlı gerçekleştiği; öğrenmeye yönelik tutum ve becerilerin temellendiği kritik bir evredir. Bu nedenle, bu dönemde benimsenen öğrenme yaklaşımlarının niteliği, çocuğun yaşam boyu öğrenme sürecini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Günümüzde erken çocukluk eğitiminde, bilgi aktarımına dayalı geleneksel modellerin yerini, çocuğun aktif katılımını, araştırma ve keşfetme isteğini destekleyen daha etkileşimli ve esnek yaklaşımlar almaktadır. Bu bağlamda yapılandırmacı ve inşacı öğrenme kuramları, erken çocukluk döneminde öğrenmenin doğasını anlamada temel bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Çalışma, öğrenme yaklaşımlarının tarihsel gelişimini inceleyerek, özellikle bilişsel temelli bir kuram olan yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımının eğitimdeki yeri, önemi ve geçirdiği dönüşümü kapsamlı biçimde ele almaktadır. Yapılandırmacı yaklaşım, bireyin bilgiyi kendi yaşantıları ve deneyimleri aracılığıyla yapılandırdığını savunarak, öğrenenin pasif bilgi alıcısı değil, aktif bir bilgi üreticisi olduğunu vurgular. Bu anlayış, dijital çağın sunduğu imkânlarla birlikte paradigma değişimi geçirerek daha çağdaş ve işlevsel bir boyut kazanmış; bireyin sadece bilgiyi alan değil, aynı zamanda dijital araçlarla bilgi üreten, paylaşan ve yeniden inşa eden bir özneye dönüştüğü inşacı (constructivist) yaklaşıma everilmiştir. Bu dönüşüm, özellikle tasarım temelli öğrenme süreçleriyle daha da pekişmektedir. Tasarım süreci; problem çözme, yaratıcılık, eleştirel düşünme ve deneme-yanılma gibi becerileri destekleyerek, bireyin öğrenme sürecine aktif katılımını sağlamaktadır. Öğrencinin gerçek yaşamla ilişkili, çok adımlı ve açık uçlu görevlerle karşılaştığı bu süreçler, bilgiyi anlamlı biçimde yeniden yapılandırmasını mümkün kılmaktadır. İnşacılık ve tasarım temelli öğrenme yaklaşımlarının bütünleşmesi, çocuklar için gelişimsel olarak uygun bir öğrenme yaşantısı sunmanın yanında onların potansiyelini açığa çıkaran yenilikçi bir öğrenme ortamı oluşturmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımının dijital çağda geçirdiği dönüşümü inşacı bir perspektifle ele almakta ve bu dönüşümün özellikle tasarım temelli öğrenme süreçleriyle nasıl pekiştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda, tasarım süreciyle bütünleşen inşacı yaklaşımlar, erken çocukluk döneminde gelişimsel olarak uygun, yaratıcı ve katılımcı öğrenme ortamları sunarak çocukların bilişsel, sosyal-duygusal ve dil gelişimlerini desteklemekte; aynı zamanda onların yaşam boyu öğrenme süreçlerine yön veren kritik bir paradigma oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

• Yaparak Öğrenme
• Üreterek Öğrenme
• Tasarım Temelli Düşünme
• Dijital Çağ

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma, “Okul Öncesinde Tasarım Yoluyla Anlama Yaklaşımı Temelli Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme ve Kodlama Beceri Eğitim Modelinin Geliştirilmesi” başlıklı proje kapsamında Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK) tarafından finanse edilmiştir.

Project Number

TÜBİTAK 1001/122K975 nolu proje

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmada, "Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi"nde belirtilen kurallara uyulduğunu ve "Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler" kapsamında herhangi bir işlem yapmadığımızı beyan ederiz. Aynı zamanda, yazarlar arasında çıkar çatışması olmadığını, tüm yazarların çalışmaya katkıda bulunduğunu ve tüm etik ihlalleri durumunda tüm sorumluluğun makale yazarlarına ait olduğunu beyan ederiz.

THE EVOLUTION OF LEARNING FROM CONSTRUCTIVISM TO CONSTRUCTIONISM: LEARNING BY CREATING

Abstract

This study focuses on the theoretical and practical transformation in approaches to learning, particularly during the early childhood years. Early childhood is a critical stage during which an individual’s cognitive, social-emotional, and language development occurs most rapidly, and in which attitudes and skills toward learning are established. Therefore, the nature of the learning approaches adopted during this period directly influences the child’s lifelong learning process. In early childhood education today, traditional models based on knowledge transmission are being replaced by more interactive and flexible approaches that support the child’s active participation and desire to explore and discover. In this context, constructivist and constructional learning theories provide a fundamental framework for understanding the nature of learning during the early childhood period. This study examines the historical development of learning approaches, comprehensively addressing the role, importance, and transformation of the constructivist learning approach, a cognitive-based theory, in education. The constructivist approach argues that individuals construct knowledge through their own experiences and interactions, emphasizing that the learner is not a passive recipient of information but an active producer of knowledge. This understanding has undergone a paradigm shift alongside the opportunities offered by the digital age, gaining a more contemporary and functional dimension; it has evolved into a constructivist approach where the individual is not merely a recipient of knowledge but also a subject who produces, shares, and reconstructs knowledge using digital tools. This transformation is further reinforced by design-based learning processes. The design process supports skills such as problem-solving, creativity, critical thinking, and trial and error, thereby ensuring the individual’s active participation in the learning process. These processes, in which students encounter real-life, multi-step, and open-ended tasks, enable them to meaningfully reconstruct knowledge. The integration of constructivism and design-based learning approaches not only provides children with a developmentally appropriate learning experience but also creates an innovative learning environment that unlocks their potential. Consequently, this study examines the transformation of the constructivist learning approach in the digital age from a constructivist perspective and highlights how this transformation is reinforced, particularly through design-based learning processes. In this context, constructivist approaches integrated with the design process support children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and language development by providing developmentally appropriate, creative, and participatory learning environments during early childhood; simultaneously, they establish a critical paradigm that guides their lifelong learning processes.

Keywords

• Learning by Doing
• Learning by Producing
• Design Based Thinking
• Digital Age

Project Number

TÜBİTAK 1001/122K975 nolu proje

References

1. Akgül, E., & Metin, Ş. (2025). Cultivating Digital Citizens: Positive Technological Development and Children. e- Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1535047
2. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget' s Constructivism, Papert' s Constructionism: What's the difference?. Future Of Learni̇ng Group Publi̇cati̇on, (5), 438.
3. Ahmad, S., Sultana, N., & Jamil, S. (2020). Behaviorism vs constructivism: A paradigm shift from traditional to alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 7(2), 19-33.
4. Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature, and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
5. Anand, G., Larson, E. C., & Mahoney, J. T. (2020). Thomas Kuhn on paradigms. Production and Operations Management, 29(7), 1650-1657.https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13188
6. Angeli, C. & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children's computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in human behavior, 105, 105954.
7. Bagiati, A. (2011). Early engineering: A developmentally appropriate curriculum for young children (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
8. Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1120521

9. Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children's exploratory play with tangible materials. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(2), 212-235.
10. Baker, R.S.J.D. (2007). Modeling and Understanding Students' Off-Task Behavior in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2007: Computer-Human Interaction conference, 1059-1068.
11. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian journal of social psychology, 2(1), 21-41.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024
12. Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730-745.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1029
14. Bers, M. U. (2022). Beyond coding: How children learn human values through programming. MIT Press.
15. Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 59-73.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2734-1
16. Bers, M. U., Blake-West, J., Kapoor, M. G., Levinson, T., Relkin, E., Unahalekhaka, A., & Yang, Z. (2023). Coding as another language: Research-based curriculum for early childhood computer science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 64, 394–404.
17. Bers, M., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355-377.
18. Bichelmeyer, B. A., & Hsu, Y. C. (1999). Individually-Guided Education and Problem-Based Learning: A Comparison of Pedagogical Approaches from Different Epistemological Views.
19. Boulton‐Lewis, G. M., Wilss, L., & Lewis, D. C. (2001). Changes in conceptions of learning for Indigenous Australian university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 327-341.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00005-0
20. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
22. Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition. Pearson.
23. Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: Navigationism in the knowledge era. On the Horizon, 14(3), 108-120.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120610690681
24. Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M. (M.), & Magliaro, S. G. (2004). Behaviorism and Instructional Technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2. baskı) (ss 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
25. Bustamante, A. S., White, L. J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2017). Approaches to learning and school readiness in Head Start: Applications to preschool science. Learning and Individual Differences, 56, 112–118.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.012
26. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms. Science Teacher, 78(9), 34-40.
27. Cetin, I. & Andrews-Larson, C. (2016). Learning sorting algorithms through visualization construction. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 27-43.
28. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current directions in psychological science, 1(3), 98-101.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
29. Cohen, J., Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Calandra, B. (2017). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 217- 229.
30. Cri̇smond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: a study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal Of Research İn Sci̇ence Teachi̇ng, 38(7), 791- 820. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1032
31. Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is Elementary. the Bridge, 30(3), 11–17.
32. Dangel, J. R., Guyton, E., & McIntyre, C. B. (2004). Constructivist pedagogy in primary classrooms: Learning from teachers and their classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24(4), 237-245.https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102040240404
33. Davis, A. P., Grondin, C. J., Johnson, R. J., Sciaky, D., King, B. L., McMorran, R., ... & Mattingly, C. J. (2017). The comparative toxicogenomics database: update 2017. Nucleic acids research, 45(D1), D972-D978.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw838
34. De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 20, 631-642.https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3
35. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
36. Dilshad, M. N. (2017). Learning theories: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism. International Education and Research Journal, 3(9), 64-66.
37. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 103-120.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
38. English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1011-1032.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z
39. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
40. Evans-Greenwood, P., O'Leary, K., & Williams, P. (2015). The paradigm shift: Redefining education. Centre for the Edge, Deloitte Australia. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
41. Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2023). Abstractive-based programming approach to computational thinking: Discover, extract, create, and assemble. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(3), 605-638.
42. Flores, C. (2018). Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 25-30.
43. Floridi, L. (2011). A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 282-304.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01693.x
44. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. OUP Oxford.
45. Freiberg, H. J. (1999). Three creative ways to measure school climate and next steps. School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments, 208-218.
46. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional design.https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440211
47. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today's youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. Yale University Press.
48. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1991). Radical constructivism in mathematics education (7. Baskı). Spri̇nger Sci̇ence & Busi̇ness Medi̇a.
49. Gupta, S. K. (2011). Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspectives in clinical research, 2(3), 109-112.
50. Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2016). Imaginative science education: The central role of imagination in science education. Springer.
51. Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 127-141.
52. Harel, D. (1988). On visual formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 514-530.https://doi.org/10.1145/42411.42414
53. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 11(12), 11. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.83221
54. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730701728945
55. Jarvis, M. (2005). The psychology of effective learning and teaching. Nelson Thornes.
56. Jesionkowska, J., Wild, F., & Deval, Y. (2020). Active learning augmented reality for STEAM education—A case study. Education Sciences, 10(8), 198.
57. Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and innovation management, 22(2), 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
58. Joksimović, J. D., & Starčević, J. S. (2024). Learning to make, making to learn: STEAM meets maker movement. In STEM/STEAM/STREAM approach in theory and practice of contemporary education (sayfa bilgisi erişilememiştir). Yayınevi bilgisi erişilememiştir.
59. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39, 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
60. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and culture, 1(1), 36-40.https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767
61. Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Understanding virtual epidemics: children’s folk conceptions of a computer virus. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9102-x
62. Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of research in education, 35(1), 89-119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211
63. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (2012). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Routledge.
64. Kelley, T., & Sung, E. (2017). Examining Elementary School Students' Transfer of Learning through Engineering Design Using Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 83-108.
65. Kelly, G. J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2019). Epistemic tools in engineering design for K‐12 education. Science Education, 103(4), 1080-1111.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21513
66. Keune, A., Peppler, K. A., & Wohlwend, K. E. (2019). Recognition in makerspaces: Supporting opportunities for women to “make” a STEM career. Computers in human behavior, 99, 368-380.
67. Kivunja, C. (2014). Innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachers of 21st century skills: Unpacking the learning and innovations skills domain of the new learning paradigm. International journal of higher education, 3(4), 37-48.https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n4p37
68. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., Hong, H. Y., Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking and education (pp. 1-15). Springer Singapore.
69. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by design™: Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 338-350.
70. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
71. Kong, S. C., & Abelson, H. (2019). Computational thinking education (ss. 382). Springer Nature.
72. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
73. Kynigos, C. (2012). Niches for Constructionism: forging connections for practice and theory. In Proc. of Constructionism 2012 Conference, Athens, Greece.
74. Kynigos, C., & Futschek, G. (2015). Re-situating constructionism. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3).
75. Lenart, M., & Pasztor, A. (2004). On a paradigm shift in design: Toward constructivist foundations.
76. Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (Eds.). (2017). Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based stem learning. IGI Global.
77. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111
78. Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. International journal of STEM education, 6(1), 1-13.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9
79. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Disessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93-104.https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
80. Lifelong Kindergarten Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press.
81. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, K. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-engineering thinking and the engineering habits of mind in preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 187-198.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0898-6
82. Lottero-Perdue, P. S. (2019). Engaging young children in engineering designencouraging them to think, create, try and try again. Routledge.
83. Lottero-Perdue, P., Bowditch, M., Kagan, M., Robinson-Cheek, L., Webb, T., Meller, M., & Nosek, T. (2016). An engineering design process for early childhood: Trying (again) to engineer an egg package. Science and Children, 54(3), 70.
84. Lupetti, M. L. (2018). Thinking with things that learn. DS 91: Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, Linköping, Sweden, 14th-17th August 2018.
85. Metin, Ş., Kalyenci, D., Başaran, M., Relkin, E., & Bilir, B. (2024). Design-based digital story program: Enhancing coding and computational thinking skills in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1-20.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01728-3
86. Mills, L. F. (1998). Book-tax differences and Internal Revenue Service adjustments. Journal of Accounting research, 36(2), 343-356.https://doi.org/10.2307/2491481
87. Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships, and motherhood among Black women. Univ of California Press.
88. Nayfeld, I., Fuccillo, J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2013). Executive functions in early learning: Extending the relationship between executive functions and school readiness to science. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 81-88.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.011
89. Nicastro, F., Baranauskas, M. C. C., & da Silva Torres, R. (2020). Constructionism and Creative Learning: supporting the design of technology-based learning activities. Constructıonısm, 243.
90. Null, J. W. (2004, June). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy. In The Educational Forum, 68(2),, (ss. 180-188). Taylor & Francis Group.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984625
91. Olson, . H. ve Hergenhahn, B. R. (2013). An ıntroduction to theories of learning. Pearson Prenti̇ce Hall.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/014682
92. Ormrod, J. E. (2017). How we think and learn: Theoretical perspectives and practical implications. Cambridge University Press.
93. Papert, H. (2020). 4 lessons learned durıng research. Designing Constructionist Futures: The Art, Theory, and Practice of Learning Designs, 53.
94. Papert, S. (1980). Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Harvester Press.
95. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
96. Papert, S. (1990). Perestroika and epistemological politics. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.
97. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex Publishing.
98. Papert, S. (1994). Making sense of the computer’s place in the learning environment: A historical evolutionary perspective. In II Congresso Ibero-Americano de Informática na Educação (p. 3).
99. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. constructionism, 36(2), 1-11.
100. Peel, D. (2005). Peer observation as a transformatory tool?. Teaching in higher education, 10(4), 489-504.https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500239125
101. Peppler, K., Keune, A., & Thompson, N. (2020). Reclaiming traditionally feminine practices and materials for STEM learning through the modern maker movement. Designing constructionist futures: The art, theory, and practice of learning designs, 127-140.
102. Perkins, D. N., & Perkins, D. N. (2009). The mind's best work. Harvard University Press.
103. Prensky, M. (2001a). Nativos digitales, inmigrantes digitales. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-7.https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
104. Prensky, M. (2001b). Fun, play and games: What makes games engaging. Digital game-based learning, 5(1), 5-31.
105. Resni̇ck, M. (2007). All ı really need to know (about creative thinking) ı learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. Proceedi̇ngs Of The 6Th Acm Si̇gchi̇ Conference On Creati̇vi̇ty & Cogni̇ti̇on, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1254960.1254961
106. Resnick, M. ve Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Design, make, play: growing the next generation of stem innovators. Honey, M. ve Kanter, D. (Ed.), Designing for tinkerability içinde (s. 163- 181). New York, Ny: Routledge.
107. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The future of children, 76-101.https://doi.org/10.2307/1602690
108. Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. Or Books.
109. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(1), 53-64.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x
110. Samuelsson, R. (2025). Computational transformations of early childhood education: Pathways toward child‐ centred computing in two educational change projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(4), 1573–1592.
111. Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8-19.
112. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Attributions as motivators of self-regulated learning. In Motivation and self-regulated learning (ss. 245-266). Routledge.
113. Seifert, K., & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational psychology. Zurich, Switzerland: The Global Text Project.
114. Siemens, G. (2004). Elearnspace. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. org, 14-16.
115. Silva, R. S. R. D., Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J., & Namukasa, I. K. (2020). Computational thinking as a heuristic endeavour: students’ solutions of coding problems. Pro-Posições, 31, e20180034.
116. Stager, G. (2005, August). Papertian constructionism and the design of productive contexts for learning. In Proc. of EuroLogo (pp. 43-53).
117. Stone-MacDonald, A., & Douglass, A. (2015). Introducing online training in an early childhood professional development system: Lessons learned in one state. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 241-248.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0649-2
118. Strimel, G. J., Bartholomew, S. R., Kim, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). An investigation of engineering design cognition and achievement in primary school. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1, 173-201.https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0008-0
119. Terry, W. S. (2018). Learning and memory: Basic principles, processes, and procedures. Routledge.
120. Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological review, 55(4), 189.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626
121. Tsybulsky, D., & Levin, I. (2017). Inquiry-based science education and the digital research triad. In Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning (pp. 140-165). IGI Global.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2525-7.ch006
122. Turhan, B., & Özbay, Y. (2016). Erken çocukluk eğitimi ve nöroplastisite. Uluslararası Erken Çocukluk Eğitimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 54-63.
123. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. Sage Publications, Inc.
124. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
125. Wilson, A., Watson, C., Thompson, T. L., Drew, V., & Doyle, S. (2017). Learning analytics: Challenges and limitations. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 991-1007.https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1332026
126. Yang, X., Zhao, Y., Wu, W., & Wang, H. (2008). Virtual reality based robotics learning system. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, 859–864. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAL.2008.4636270
127. Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & education, 59(2), 339-352.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012
128. Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational learning theories. Education Open Textbooks. Book 1. Retrieved from https://oer.galileo.usg.edu/education-textbooks/1