International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction ( ) –

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcci

Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy

in middle school
Christa Flores
Asheville Museum of Science, Asheville NC, FabLearn, Stanford, CA, United States

article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper describes a four-year observation using a model designed and tested in a middle school maker
Received 24 February 2017 space, called problem-based science (PbS). PbS was used as the primary model for a middle school science
Received in revised form 11 October 2017 curriculum adapted by the tools and mindsets of the maker movement. PbS is learning through inventing
Accepted 5 November 2017
and problem solving — while using the latest in fabrication technology, like 3D printers and laser cutters,
Available online xxxx
as well as more traditional making skills, like electronics, robotics, sewing and carpentry. PbS is based on
Keywords: Seymour Papert’s constructionism, set to a science curriculum taught full time in a makerspace or fablab.
Curriculum design Bridging ideas in design thinking, maker education, and applied math and science, the term problem-
Design science based science was used to describe how learning would look, sound, and feel different in a makerspace,
Learning spaces design when a focus was on learner-centered curriculum. The design and testing of this curriculum took place as
Science literacy part of the 5th and 6th grade science courses offered at a private (non-public) school in California (USA)
Maker education the fall of 2012, through the spring of 2016. Through daily formative assessment, as well as exit surveys,
Mindsets the patterns and benefits of learning in a self-directed learning space, designed for constructionism,
Problem-based science
were observed. This paper shares the highlights of those years. Video taped exit surveys conducted by
Constructionism
Constructivism the author, show that self-direction is both challenging and rewarding, students often felt trusted and
Inclusivity respected, even if they did not always feel supported in a manner common in a more teacher directed
classroom setting. Daily informal classroom observations revealed that using student driven, open-ended
problem solving, rather than a 100% teacher led, step by step lab, lends to a more diverse pool of leadership
practice in students and higher engagement in hard problems. Students typically seen as struggling in
traditional classrooms, identified as experts and successful learners in this setting. Lastly, using PbS as a
model for science literacy allows the youngest of learners to practice mindsets and habits typical of real
scientists and inventors, fostering early identify formation in STEM fields.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

0. Introduction in constructivism, however, or the belief that learners should

This study took place at the Hillbrook School, an independent
school in the state of California that serves Junior Kindergarten
(age 3) through 8th grade (age 13) students. In effort to make
science education more inclusive, as well as relevant to a changing
and unpredictable future, the school’s fifth and sixth grade sci-
ence curriculum was redesigned in the spring of 2012 to be 100%
constructivist and constructionist based. Constructivism is Jean
Piaget’s learning theory of learning through experience [1]. Con-
structionism is a learning theory first championed by Seymour Pa-
pert, based on the making of artifacts to construct new knowledge
[2]. Constructionism is commonly known in elementary through
secondary learning environments as ‘‘Maker Education’’. The term
Problem-based Science, is loosely based on the design thinking
trend first coined in the Bay Area of California, by IDEO founder
David Kelly. The underlying pedagogy of PbS is more deeply rooted
E-mail address: cflores@ashevillescience.org.
construct their own scientific understanding through making and
doing, and real life discoveries. When students make models, de-
sign tools for inquiry, or build inventions to learn science, this
is constructionism or making in science. Piaget’s Constructivism
alone is difficult to measure or make visible. Papert’s Construc-
tionism, alternatively, is based on children making artifacts or
some physical evidence of learning that makes their thinking and
learning visible [3]. When you add the idea of constructionism for
real world problem solving with a user in mind while designing,
you get Problem-based Science.
The goal of using the PbS model was to increase science liter-
acy, while fostering the mindset of creative problem solvers. Sci-
ence literacy is defined here as using applied content knowledge,
while practicing safe and ethical approaches to inquiry during
the practice of constructionism, or invention literacy. PbS allows
students to construct scientific literacy by behaving like a real
scientist or engineer. David Perkins, author of the book Making
Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001
2212-8689/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.
2 C. Flores / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
Education, says this gives students ‘‘threshold experiences, that
stimulate curiosity, discovery, imagination, camaraderie and cre-
ativity’’ [4]. The author would add to Perkins’ list; joy, engagement
and pride of ownership.
1. Methods
Adapting constructionism to a science course is possible when
pedagogy and learning space design are reimagined concurrently.
Open-ended prompts and problems instead of rote, or 100%
teacher driven work was employed. Second, the design of a self-
directed learning space that allows student access to creative
technologies (also known as a makerspace) was employed for this
study. All PbS classes were held in a room designed with tools
for group work, brainstorming, self-documentation, basic wood
and metal working, electronics, 3D printing, laser cutting, sewing,
painting, and programming. The makerspace, known as the Hill-
brook iLab, functioned as a drop in makerspace when not employed
for fifth or sixth grade science, and hosted STEM (Science, Technol-
ogy, Engineering, Math) related electives for seventh–eighth grade
students.
During this study, teacher to student ratio was most often 1:20.
To lower the ratio, volunteers/mentors would be asked to join the
iLab to share their skills in electronics, programming, woodwork-
ing, sewing, etc. Volunteers ranged from parents and grandparents,
to local experts, to distant experts through the use of Skype. All 5th
and 6th grade science classes met for five hours (two classes were
doubled back to back to create one two hour work time) per six day
rotation. Total observation time allotted to the design and testing
of PbS occurred over eight academic semesters, between the fall of
2012 and the spring of 2016.
To collect data on the effects of using PbS as a model in middle
school, baseline surveys, in the form of paper based questionnaires,
were conducted in the fall to assess student attitudes and self-
identity around issues of creativity and a perceived value for fixing
or making objects. Paper based exit surveys were also given to 5th
and 6th graders, and video taped interviews of 5th and 6th graders
were conducted by the author and science faculty of the Hillbrook
school. While only small shifts in attitude were revealed by the
paper surveys, more probing questions utilized during the filmed
interviews, revealed evidence of increased self-efficacy around
finding, addressing and designing solutions to real problems. Ide-
ally, the interviews would be conducted by an outside researcher
that the students did not have a personal relationship with, but that
would require partnering with a university and or funding, which
as a small private school we did not have. A complete literature
review on the subjects of problem and design-based pedagogy
were not possible during this study due to a lack of access to non-
open source research articles. Consideration was made, regarding
all major contributions to the topic of constructionism, available to
the author at the time this paper was written.
1.1. The problem-based science model
The Problem-based Science (PbS) model is simple on the sur-
face. As an applied approach to gaining literacy, learners use real
problems, small and large, real tools, real materials, and sufficient
time to grow as learners. Addressing problems small and large is
a form of applied technology, engineering, art, math, and science
(t.e.a.m.s.). We used the acronym t.e.a.m.s., rather than just STEM
or STEAM, to suggest that all of the disciplines, including their tools
and ideas, must work together in an antidisciplinary fashion for
effective problem solving. Using this approach also signals that
every learner is valued as a polymath willing and able to connect
the dots of seemingly disparate ideas to design solutions. The
PbS model is deeply founded on Jean Piaget’s constructivism and
Seymour Papert’s constructionism. In effort to respect the learner,
we adopted the following driving principles for the core of PbS.
Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.
) –
1. Deep projects take time. When we spend more than a mo-
ment on an observation or task, we make deeper, more
rewarding observations. Craftsmanship and research are the
behavioral embodiment of this concept.
2. Learning to problem solve, to create versus consume, is a
fundamental part of living a liberated existence. Exercising
creativity and self-exploration is as important as learning
facts, that were discovered by others. This is the core of
constructivism and the true spirit of exploration. Practicing
creativity builds creative confidence.
3. Autonomy is not a privilege, but the right of the human child
and essential to the intellectual and spiritual fulfillment of
the individual. Learning self-governance through construc-
tive autonomy is central to self-actualization.
4. Failure is not a measure of a person, it is a natural con-
sequence of trying something new and of learning. Failure
teaches us what works and what does not. Failure is essen-
tial feedback for all learners, engineers and scientists.
1.2. ‘‘The prompt’’
Because PbS allows for individualized, learner driven experi-
ences, PbS lessons do not all look alike. Sometimes, students are
presented with open-ended problems, called prompts. Prompts in
PbS lessons are best likened to a game. Like most games, there
are goals and rules. The goals offer the big picture, like ‘‘get the
ball over the goal line’’, while the rules make the game purposeful
(content specific), safe and fun. We call the goals of the PbS game
‘‘prompts’’. Once given the prompts, students solve a problem
using their knowledge or passion for skills related to t.e.a.m.s.
Using prompts, rather than a fixed set of instructions, is an
open-ended approach to learning that affords students choice and
voice, and promotes confidence, engagement and self-esteem [5].
An example of a prompt might be ‘‘Make something that can move
a 75 g steel ball from point A to B, that uses two or more forms of en-
ergy’’. Once given the prompt, students are given weeks to months
(Driving Principle 1) to form teams based on passion and/or skill
sets, brainstorm, then test and iterate on various solutions (Driving
Principles 2, 4). No solution will look the same, allowing for a highly
differentiated learning experience for each student or group of
students. The open-endedness of prompts provides students with
control over the ‘‘why, how and what’’ of their learning journey in
a way that a learner needs and values (Driving Principle 3).
Once a learner is given time to see themselves as a creative,
problem solvers, they are ready for the next phase of PbS. By
the end of the school year students may be charged with finding
their own problems to solve. They are prompted to do this by
observing their local environment for the possible needs of others
to address. This kind of problem finding can come in the shape of
slow looking (observation and inquiry) or interviewing others to
hear their needs (design thinking). With the PbS model, students
use slow looking to find needs, followed by authentic inquiry and
innovation, then we document what we learn and share our new
knowledge. Using design as a platform for authentic inquiry makes
sense to learners of any age.
1.3. Constructivism to constructionism in five units
PbS is one model for how to structure for constructivism that
allows content standards to be addressed. The PbS curriculum is
aligned with the United States Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) with a focus on NGSS ‘‘crosscutting concepts’’. In addition,
more twenty first century learning goals can be addressed, such as
creative confidence and designing solutions for the common good.
In an effort to make science literacy as authentic and rewarding
 C. Flores / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction ( ) – 3

for diverse learners as possible, PbS was structured using antidis-

ciplinary units or overarching themes. Themes can be applied to a
curriculum in English, math, history or science class. In Problem-
based Science, learners are exposed to specific scientific and math-
ematical content knowledge through five units: Materials, Pat-
terns, Structures, Systems and Problems. To teach science literacy
and problem solving in a makerspace, an overarching framework of
Problems (design) and Patterns (math and computational thinking)
was employed. Big ideas in engineering were addressed using three
more units, Materials (material science), Structures (physics and
engineering) and Systems (interdisciplinary science).
Overarching frameworks are so general, they can help teachers
facilitate interdisciplinary projects or units, applied to traditional
STEM topics at any age/grade level and in collaboration with the
humanities, math and the arts. Instead of specific content, such
as rocks, the human body, density, etc., the units are open-ended
enough to invite individual curiosity and passion and hone in on
skills and problems that allow students to construct their own
knowledge in specific fields or domains of science. To make a Image 1. (Battle): Not giving explicit instructions, allows for students to discover
unit more interdisciplinary, the facilitator can add a prompt to science content through a play like atmosphere. The role of teacher is to listen, and
encourage historical research, interviewing, artwork or writing. notice what questions students engage with, document those moments and reflect
with learners what they now know.

1.4. Picking problems

When children face problems they want to solve, these prob-
lems may be within their skill set and imagination to solve, or far
outside of their abilities to solve alone. At times learners will run
into problems that they can solve quickly, with simple tools and
in relative isolation. At other times a learner will face something
novel that causes her to be stuck, she needs a clear tutorial or
mentor (peer or teacher) to get her to the next step. This is when
the tools of the internet, outside experts and antidisciplinary col-
laboration are required. In essence the walls of the classroom have
to be removed for real problems to be addressed.
The PbS curriculum is structured in such a way that students
encounter a range of problems in each unit. We use levels, from one
to three, to describe both the problems students chose, and those
they encounter along the way. This leveling of problems pairs well
with the concepts of social constructivism and the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD), invented by Lev Vygotsky (see Diagram 1).
Vygotsky defines the ZPD as ’’the distance between the actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with
more capable peers’’ [6]. Materials and patterns are designed to be
open-ended enough to allow choice and early (but safe) exposure
to different kinds of problems. When a student decides what he
wants to make, he may chose a task that is fraught with problems
and dead ends or he may chose to stay in a safe zone.
As mentioned, some problems require the aid of another men-
tor or adult in the lab besides the facilitator. Edith Ackermann
predicted that ‘‘To be viable our schools will need to be ‘‘edgeless’’
but they cannot be place-less!’’ [7]. The role of facilitator then, is to
leverage her/his local and not so local (Skype works well) network
for potential mentors to connect to learners. The facilitator does
not have to know all of the answers. A more exciting learning space
transpires when the facilitator does not have the best solution to a
given problem, but instead engages with learners in the pursuit of
new knowledge and experimentation. Knowing who to ask, where
to ask, or how to ask a question, can be the facilitators three best
tools.
2. Discussion
The use of a makerspace as a flexible, student owned interface
– where the learner connects with the real world and real prob-
lems in a safe zone – changed our understanding of learning and
teaching. This section describes the implications of PbS as a model
for science literacy in a makerspace in three areas, assessment of
student learning, inclusivity in the STEM classroom, and scientific-
innovative mindsets and habits.
2.1. Assessment

1.5. The teacher’s role
The teacher’s role is to facilitate, or support the students in
their inquiry, and keep them working towards their goals. This
part of the role is about observation and communication. Learners
are asked for drawings, blueprints, explanations, and long lists
of brainstorming exercises, all to get them thinking about their
own thinking. Checking in with learners can be done through
a series of ‘‘just in time’’ mini-lessons, offering clues to move
research forward, and daily agenda feedback to see and hear a
team’s progress. As students work, the teacher looks for evidence
of their understanding, encourages different types of thinking,
and supplies collegial support by working as a co-learner. The
facilitator is essentially cultivating a garden of learners in a rich
learning environment designed for creativity and collaboration
(see Image 1).
If only measuring success academically, PbS often promotes
students learning above ‘‘grade level’’ content in math, science, free
content literacy, and reading and writing. PbS allows students as
young as ten to work on problems that were once reserved for
college students. Through the use of portfolios and argumenta-
tive essays, assessment of learning for a grade is possible using
a problem based approach, but it should not be the end goal.
Measuring success non-academically can be done using collected
anecdotal student stories and entrance/exit surveys of student
attitudes around creativity, making and fixing things. If a learning
environment is willing to share focus on content with goals for
student agency and access to ideas and tools, than PbS is one con-
structionist model that can be used. Curriculum design geared to
foster learner curiosity, communication, community, agency and
argument creation, is stronger when paired with a constructivist
and constructionist approach to science literacy.

Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.
4 C. Flores / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
Diagram 1. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development model applied to the PbS Level 1–2–3 problem model.
2.2. Inclusivity of learning styles and passions
In comparison to a one-size-fits-all teacher-driven curriculum,
PbS reunites students with the complexity, richness and fun of
science by putting them in the driver’s seat. Due to this level of
individualization, PbS encourages students to gain, or retain, a
love of scientific thinking, applied math, and the creative use of
technology, while learning through the lenses of invention, design,
fixing and tinkering. With open-ended problem solving, everyone
is a potential leader. Strong leadership skill practicing in female
members of class was clear in both fifth and sixth grade students. In
general, more students act as experts and leaders in a makerspace
setting, regardless of their success in a more traditional classroom.
2.3. Mindsets and habits
Problem-based Science emphasizes practicing the kinds of
mindsets and habits that real engineers and scientists use, such
as working collaboratively, in a self-directed manner to solve real
problems. PbS is not designed to deliver standardized content, but
rather to structure the learning environment to encourage self-
discovery of concepts that are important to the world of engineer-
ing and design. Students apply knowledge they already know and
gain new knowledge in the context of solving a problem. During
this time students are practicing mindsets and habits that feel like
doing real science and engineering, scaled down to the middle
school level.
To better understand what students learned using a construc-
tivist/constructionist approach to science in a makerspace, stu-
dents were given entrance and exit surveys beginning in the Fall
of 2012 and ending in Spring of 2014. Table 1 is a list of mind-
sets and habits revealed by surveys, classroom observations of
students making and learning science full time in a makerspace.
These mindsets and habits have been organized by the benefits
they confer upon the constructivist learner in science. In addition
to the individualized content knowledge a student in PbS gains,
Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.
) –
there are many non-academic benefits, including gaining a sense
of agency, creative and cognitive growth, constructive autonomy,
and building a supportive learning community.
3. Conclusion — Implications for a middle school curriculum
Using constructionism and problem solving as a learning theory
in a science classroom is a rich and complex approach that stands
to upend the long term efficacy of more traditional, 100% teacher
driven models. The efficacy of design or problem-based models
have been discussed for some time, as noted by Puntambekar and
Kolodner, ‘‘Design problems motivate students to learn science
content, and as they engage in cycles of designing, evaluating,
and redesigning, they confront their understanding and misunder-
standing of science concepts’’ [8]. With the resurgence of these
ideas, in part due to the Maker Movement, the PbS model is finding
new fertile ground to be studied and implemented.
Allowing learners to recognize opportunity in their environ-
ment to help, fix and improve is a powerfully motivating approach
to literacy in science and beyond. To see the long-term effects of
spending a year or more in a problem-based setting, longitudinal
surveys need to be collected on the participating students of this
study. For example, as of the date of this paper, two students of this
study have gone on to extend work they began as a 6th grade PbS
science to found their own entrepreneurial efforts. See this video
by now 10th grade student Alex Nickel.
Simply put, students who engage with science literacy through
the lens of inventing and solving problems, are more confident
and ready to see the world through what Agency by Design terms
Maker empowerment: a sensitivity to the designed dimension of
objects and systems, along with the inclination and capacity to
shape one’s world through building, tinkering, re/designing, or
hacking [9]. Thanks to modern technologies, access to content
knowledge is at the tip of our fingers, yet most science classes
lack dedicated time to truly apply knowledge and curiosity about
science, math, technology and engineering. Using a problem-based
 C. Flores / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
Table 1
Benefits to learner using the PbS model.
Habits ‘‘I practice. . . ’’
• Slow looking/observation of objects or systems, inductive reasoning
• Empathy, listening, diagnosis, interviewing
• Testing ideas and prototypes
• Measuring, calculating formulas
• Gaining literacy from various available sources
• Learning new skills, tools, sharing ideas, showing leadership (earning
new badges)
• Setting learning goals, making agendas, making process maps
• Exercising resilience and determination
• Balancing external with internal reward
• Mentoring
• Giving credit where credit is due
• Sharing work
• Assertively questioning accepted ideas and offering critical feedback
to old models
• Brainstorming
• Improving on ideas, designs and solutions based on feedback,
research and testing
•Drawing, mapping, blueprints
• Making data visualizations and models to explain an idea
• Recognizing the relatedness between disparate ideas
• Analyzing data for patterns and anomalies
• Forming claims and conclusions based on evidence
• Making, building, tinkering, assembling, disassembling
• Making patterns, Coding, programming, composing
• Questioning the fairness of tests, the efficacy of models
• Documentation of work, self-reflection
• Giving and receiving feedback
• Data collection
Image 2. (Flores): Designing solutions for and with others is a fun and empowering
form of inquiry that can begin as early as three years of age. Here preschoolers share
their designs for a tool based off of the prompt: Make something to help mom or
dad clean up.
model for science literacy fosters a deeper kind of science literacy
in even the youngest of learners (see Image 2). Through invention
and empathy, learners gain the knowledge, tools, skills, habits and
mindsets of real engineers and scientists.
Through the use of carefully curated open-ended prompts,
problem solving can be ‘‘taught’’ to even the youngest of learners.
When there is no one right answer, there is also no one person
Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.
) – 5
Mindsets Benefits
See complexity in materials, structures and systems
See problems that can be fixed and needs that can be met
Agency
Ask questions and Explore
Take risks
Self-direct my learning and work Constructive Autonomy
Be better together Community
Consider multiple solutions
Think visibly
Connect the dots Creativity & Cognition
Think with my hands, head and heart
Use assessment and feedback as part of learning
in charge of knowledge and learning. More in line with the Reg-
gio Emilia model, facilitating science in a makerspace shifts the
traditional model of sage on the stage teaching to a collaborative
learning community model. In turn, this new dynamic creates a
more democratic, inclusive and welcoming space for STEM learn-
ing to thrive. When learners work, think, and communicate like
real scientists, especially in middle school, they are better able
to form identities that lead to life long engagement with STEM
topics.
More work of this nature needs to be focused on applied design
and problem-based work in schools in close collaboration between
practitioners (teachers, administration, students, mentors) and re-
searchers in education. Previous work of this kind has been studied
with older students, but there is room to grow in terms of research
in Pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade learning environments as
well. This paper hopes to highlight the potential for using PbS
in middle school and beyond, but does not claim to be vetted or
assessed on the grounds of quantitative data, I.E. the effects of PbS
on standardized test scores.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Hillbrook School for supporting this
experiment and for the creation of the Hillbrook iLab. Support of
risk taking in teaching and learning at the Hillbrook School allowed
us to observe science from a learner centered, constructionist ap-
proach. Special thanks to Professor Paulo Blikstein and the Stanford
FabLearn Fellowship for being a constant source of knowledge and
inspiration for the documentation and the pedagogical foundation
for this work. Thank you to Ilsa Dohmen and Tim Springer of HERO
inc, for helping to measure outcomes in the iLab in its first year.
Thank you to science teacher Brian Ravissa for filming the exit
interviews of the eighth grade class of 2016 after their second
full academic year of PbS. Thank you to Amy Atkins for her film
documentation of the PbS spring hard problem of the class of 2018.
6 C. Flores / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction ( ) –

References
[1] J. Piaget, The Construction of Reality in the Child, Vol. 82, Routledge, 2013.
[2] S. Papert, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Constructionism: A New Op-
portunity for Elementary Science Education, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group, Massachusetts,
1986.
[3] Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church, Karin Morrison, Making Thinking Visible: How
To Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2011.
[4] David N. Perkins, Making Thinking Visible: How To Promote Engagement,
Understanding, and Independence for All Learners, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA, 2009.
[5] E.L. Deci, R.M. Ryan, The ’’what’’ and ’’why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior, Psychol. Inq. 11 (4) (2000) 227–268.
[6] L. Vygotsky, Zone of Proximal Development. Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes, 1987, p. 5291.
[7] Edith Ackerman, Oh the Places We’Ll Go! [Part 1] Rethinking Education in the
Digital Age, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and
Harvard School of Design, 2013, p. 7.
[8] N.S. Puntambekar, J.L. Kolodner, Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn
in a ‘learning by design’environment, Sadhana 6269 (2004) 1.
[9] E.P. Clapp, J. Ross, J.O. Ryan, S. Tishman, Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering
Young People To Shape their Worlds, John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Please cite this article in press as: C. Flores, Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school, International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001.