From Code to Concept: Rethinking Learning Through Hackathon-based Pedagogy

Written by: Shishu Ranjan

A group of three children in grade five from a government school in Maharashtra were participating in a State Hackathon (2025-26) organised by Leadership For Equity (LFE) in Pune last month, in March 2026. Their excitement was worth experiencing while explaining their project on the ‘smart bin’ – a dustbin equipped with a sensor, which opens itself when a person comes near the bin.

Another group in grade seven had constructed an automatic broom equipped with a sensor and an electric motor, collecting trash by simply moving the broom. Apart from them, there were 34 such groups from 34 districts of Maharashtra, from grades five to eight. Each group had different projects, such as a smart multi-sensory irrigation system equipped with a soil moisture sensor, smart glass for smart driving, smart fencing, smart electric poles, fake/original UPI QR detection, etc. All projects required basic coding skills.

While explaining their project, they demonstrated background knowledge of the need for specific innovation in society. They had conducted surveys and secondary research about local problems under the mentorship of their teachers and the LFE resource person.

In this context, this article explores the Constructivist learning theory behind these methods. The theory explains that the learner constructs their own learning by observation and understanding of the world, where the teacher creates a situation of learning (Arega & Hunde, 2025). It explains how Hackathons enhance 21st-century skills – critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and digital literacy – as conceived in the National Education Policy 2020. Ultimately, the aim is to rethink how constructivism applies to program implementation and development.

The Hackathon as a Living Lab: Beyond the Passive Classroom

Traditional education often follows what Paulo Freire termed the “banking model” of education in the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, where students are passive containers for teacher-deposited knowledge (Freire, 2000, p. 71). The LFE’s State Hackathon 2025-26 flipped this script by focusing on ‘real-world problems’. The program transformed the learning environment into a living learning laboratory.

In this setting, the ‘code’ – technical programming of the sensor – is inseparable from the ‘concept’, such as sanitation and public health, irrigation, fencing, etc. Children were presenting their projects based on local problems by creating a solution using coding and electronic equipment. It was interesting when a middle school child identified that touching the dustbin lids may lead to hygiene and sanitation issues; the coding of an ultrasonic sensor becomes a tool rather than an abstract understanding. This alignment of technical skill with social empathy becomes the hallmark of effective pedagogy and learning. This kind of education, Freire terms as ‘problem-posing education’ (Freire, 2000, p. 79).

Constructionism and Constructivism in Action: Learning by Making

Jean Piaget’s constructivism suggests that individuals construct knowledge from their experiences with their surroundings, whereas Seymour Papert, in his book “Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas”, advances this knowledge by arguing that learning happens most effectively when children actively engage in creating tangible objects (Papert, 1980, p. 23).

During the Hackathon, children were not just engaged in learning about technology and coding; they were engaged in learning through technology and coding by creating tangible objects, such as smart bins, smart irrigation systems, and so on, by engaging in mini-research. As Papert (1980) noted, the computer may serve as a tool to think with for searching solutions. Moreover, through these methods, children internalise the complex concepts of coding, mathematics, assembling, etc., which requires an interdisciplinary approach. When these science-related concepts are connected with day-to-day societal problems, the children are enabled to engage with the social sciences also. In addition, their explanation among their peers, judges, and audiences enables them to communicate well, improving their linguistic skills.

If we engage in understanding the process, it reflects the process of ‘learning by doing’ or ‘experiential learning’ – what John Dewey conceptualised in 1916 in his seminal work “Democracy and Education”.

Scaffolding Success: Rethinking the Role of the Teacher-Mentor

One of the most critical elements of the LFE model is the year-round mentorship of teachers with students in some places. This is related to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 84). The ZPD is the gap between what a learner can do alone and what they can do with the support of an adult (Gauvain, 2020; Shabani et al., 2010).

In the Hackathon, instead of providing the right code and process, they invoked curiosity among children by asking probing questions and filling the gap to achieve ZPD. For example, in many cases, the project prototypes were not working; here, either the teachers or the LFE mentors turned up by probing them on the possibility of existing issues. For instance, the probing question included: “Why isn’t the motor turning? What may go wrong? Think about the cell/battery or the connecting wire. Check the connectivity with the energy sources.” These prompts led the children to think about the process of assembling their equipment and the reasoning behind the work of each piece of equipment.

The whole process involved a shift of teachers from being the “sage on stage” to the “mentor/guide on the side” (King, 1993). This transition is vital for developing independent problem solvers. In many ways, this pedagogical practice aligns with Paulo Freire’s concept of problem-posing education, which emphasises dialogue between teachers and students as a means of fostering critical thinking and collaborative learning.

Decoding the 21st-Century Toolkit: The 4Cs in the Pits

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 put a significant emphasis on the ‘4Cs’ and digital literacy. The Hackathon environment serves as a space for developing all the skills together. For example; first, critical thinking is developed by analysing survey data from the community and engage critically with the problem; second, engaging in creative solution with the problem by repurposing electric motors and sensors to create either an ‘automatic broom’ or a ‘smart bin’; third, collaborating with their peers and teachers, navigating the team dynamics, delegating tasks, and merging different ideas into one prototype; fourth, communication by pitching their ideas among the audience, judges and peers by translating technical ‘code’ into social concepts of issues. And most importantly, digital literacy is attained through this process of learning.

Democratising Innovation: The Equity Lens

The most significant aspect of this Hackathon is its focus on the government schools, which often lack basic amenities, while innovation is mistakenly considered to be the domain of elite, private institutions with high-quality labs. However, the Hackathon dismantles this misconception. It is clear from the event and the prototypes the children presented that if they were provided with the right mentorship and pedagogy, children from any background will thrive to be innovators to solve their local problems with digital scientific solutions. This is what philosophers and psychologists like John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget conceptualised for child learning development.

This also aligns with NEP 2020’s goal of equitable and inclusive education, ensuring that digital literacy, coding, and innovation are not a privilege but a fundamental skill to be developed; however, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds should be provided with resources, opportunities, and mentorship. By using low-cost sensors and motors to solve local community issues, these students demonstrated that they are not just spectators and consumers of technology, but can become creators of it in the long run, provided they have the opportunities and resources with proper mentorship.

Conclusion: From Competition to Pedagogy

If we think critically about the Hackathon, it is a pedagogical tool to engage students and requires project-based learning. This kind of event should not be restricted to a three-day event. Instead, the inherent principles of constructivism, constructinism, and scaffolding should be integrated into the daily curriculum along with project-based learning. And most importantly, the local issues should be the aim to be solved using young, innovative and creative minds.

The journey from Code to Concept shows that when children are empowered to solve problems they care about, learning becomes an act of discovery. As these middle-school children showed us, the future of education is about the act of innovation to make the world a better place.

References:

1. Arega, N. T., & Hunde, T. S. (2025). Constructivist instructional approaches: A systematic review of evaluation‐based evidence for effectiveness. Review of Education, 13(1), e70040. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70040 

2. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed). Continuum. 

3. Gauvain, M. (2020). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. In Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (pp. 446–454). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.23569-4 

4. King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. 

5. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. 

6. Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers’ Professional Development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), p237. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237 

7. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.