Applying a Constructionist Frame to Learning about Sustainability


Sustainability as a concept is by nature complex and elusive and therefore difficult to address. Creative thinking is thought among the core abilities needed to be fostered for developing a more integrated understanding of sustainability issues and for achieving a more sustainable world. We argue that Constructionism offers an appropriate frame of identifying and fostering creativity by viewing learning as an experiential process of collaboratively generating new ideas and meaningful digital artefacts through the active engagement with microworlds. The study reported in this paper is based on the design and implementation of a pedagogical intervention aiming to engage students in creatively tinkering with a game microworld along with the concept of sustainability. Our analysis focuses on one group of students and examines how ideas and shared understandings of sustainability emerge and evolve along with the creation of a “sustainable city” digital game and through the students’ constructive interaction with a related microworld.

Share and Cite:

Daskolia, M. and Kynigos, C. (2012) Applying a Constructionist Frame to Learning about Sustainability. Creative Education, 3, 818-823. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.326122.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, P., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
[2] Daskolia, M., Dimos, A., & Kampylis, P. (2012). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of creative thinking within the context of Environmental Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7, 269-290.
[3] Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M. (2008). The situated aspect of creativity in communicative events: How do children design web pages together? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 203-216. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.007
[4] Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3, 163-178. doi:10.1080/1350462970030205
[5] Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
[6] Kampylis, P., & Valtanen, J. (2010). Redefining creativity—Analyzing definitions, collocations and consequences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 191-214. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x
[7] Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-baked logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education, 6, 1-24.
[8] Kynigos, C., & Daskolia, M., (2011). Collaborative design and construction of digital games to learn about sustainable lifestyles. In L. Gómez Chova, I. Candel Torres, A. López Martínez (Eds.), Proceedings of the international technology, education, development Conference (pp. 1583-1592). Valencia.
[9] Lange, H., & Meier, L. (2009). The new middle classes, globalizing lifestyles, consumerism and environmental concern. Heidelberg: Springer.
[10] Liarakou, G., Daskolia, M., & Flogaitis, E. (2007). Investigating the associative meanings of “sustainability” among Greek kindergarten teachers. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1, 29-36.
[11] Meggill, A. (1995). Relativism, or the different senses of objectivity. Academic Questions, 8, 33-39. doi:10.1007/BF02683217
[12] Moran, S. (2010). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Woods, & J. K. Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319-359). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[13] Papert, S. (1993). The Childrens’ machine. Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
[14] Redclift, M. (1994). Reflections on the “sustainable development” debate. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1, 3-21. doi:10.1080/13504509409469856
[15] Resnick, M. (1996). Distributed constructionism. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 280-284). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
[16] Scott, W., & Gough, S. (2004). Sustainable development and learning. framing the issues. London: Routledge Falmer.
[17] Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464-510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[18] Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
[19] Wals, A. E. J. (2010a). Mirroring, Gestalt switching and transformative social learning—Stepping stones for developing sustainability competence. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11, 380-390. doi:10.1108/14676371011077595
[20] Wals, A. E. J. (2010b). Between knowing what is right and knowing that is it wrong to tell others what is right: On relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental and sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 16, 14. doi:10.1080/13504620903504099

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.