INNOVATIVE LEARNING BASED ON CONSTRUCTIONISM APPROACH COMBLING MOBILE MICROBLOCK ROBOTICS BUILDING TO ENHANCE DIGITAL COLLABORATION SKILLS
Keywords:
Constructionism, MicroBlock Robotics, Digital CollaborationAbstract
Twenty-first century learning management aims to place learners at the center of the educational process by equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and attributes necessary for living and working effectively in the digital era. One of the key competencies emphasized is
digital collaboration, which enables learners to communicate effectively, assume roles and responsibilities, and work collaboratively as members of a team. This concept is consistent with
Papert's Constructionism theory, which posits that meaningful and deep learning occurs when learners actively construct tangible artifacts and reflect on their learning experiences through direct engagement.
Accordingly, integrating MicroBlock robots into Constructionism-based learning
management, which consists of six instructional stages: (1) Problem and Context Identification, (2) Design and Planning, (3) Construction and Development, (4) Testing and Problem Solving, (5) Presentation and Reflection, and (6) Conclusion and Extension, has considerable potential to enhance students' digital collaboration skills. Through hands-on activities, idea sharing, and collaborative knowledge construction, learners develop not only digital collaboration skills but also creative thinking, problem-solving abilities, and responsibility as learners in the modern
world. Furthermore, this instructional approach is flexible, contemporary, and adaptable to various educational levels and learning areas.
The innovation of Constructionism-based learning management using a mobile
MicroBlock robot to promote digital collaboration skills comprises six instructional stages. First, learners' interest is stimulated in the Problem and Context Identification stage. Second, they
engage in collaborative group processes during the Design and Planning stage. Third, learners participate in hands-on activities in the Construction and Development stage to create meaningful artifacts. Fourth, they develop analytical thinking and problem-solving skills through the Testing and problem solving stage. Fifth, learners exchange ideas and experiences during the Presentation and Reflection stage. Finally, the process concludes with the Conclusion and
Extension stage, where learners consolidate their knowledge and extend their understanding to future learning contexts.
References
Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. *College Teaching,
*(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
Bamrungcheep, U. (2023). *Creative innovation for learning towards digital citizenship*. Chonburi
Printing.
Bers, M. U. (2018). *Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the
early childhood classroom*. Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. *Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16*(5–6), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher
education: A review. *Studies in Higher Education, 24*(3), 331–350.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In D. Alimisis, G.
Granosik, & M. Moro (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Teaching
Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education*
(pp. 27–34). Edumotiva.
Google. (2026). *Gemini* [Large language model]. https://gemini.google.com/
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). *Constructionism*. Ablex Publishing.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils' school
performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data.
*Educational Technology & Society, 9*(3), 182–194.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university
instruction by basing practice on validated theory. *Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 25*(3–4), 85–118.
Kaemmanee, T. (2018). *Teaching science*. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylu, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school
education by project-based learning for supporting science and technology courses.
*Procedia Computer Science, 3*, 1425–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.025
Kolb, D. A. (2015). *Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development*
(2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Mueller, J. (2005). The authentic assessment toolbox: Enhancing student learning through online
faculty development. *Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1*(1), 1–7.
OECD. (2019). *OECD Learning Compass 2030: Learning framework 2030*. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/
Papert, S. (1980). *Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), *Constructionism* (pp.
–11). Ablex Publishing.
Papert, S. (1993). *The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer*. Basic
Books.
Petchrak, S. (2001). *Research report on the learning process for intellectual creativity in
Thailand*. Teachers Council of Thailand, Office of the National Education Commission.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.),
*Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators* (pp. 163–181).
Routledge.
Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in
higher education. *Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35*(1), 10–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604072
Silva, J. B., Nardi Silva, I., & Bilessimo, S. (2020). Technological structure for technology
integration in the classroom, inspired by the maker culture. *Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 19*, 167–204. https://doi.org/10.28945/4539
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade.
*International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26*(1), 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2006). A development of portfolio for
learning assessment of students taught by full-scale constructionism approach at
Darunsikkhalai School. *Research in the Schools, 13*(2), 24–36.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st
century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. *Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 44*(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows others to share the article with proper attribution to the authors and prohibits commercial use or modification. For any other reuse or republication, permission from the journal and the authors is required.
