One solution would be to start posting friendly comments explaining the closure when you vote to close, or when you see a question closed as "not-constructive" with no comment left for the OP to explain why it was closed and what they can do to get their question reopened.
I was actually reading this answer earlier today and thought it might be related. To quote parts of it (emphasis mine):
"Not constructive" is already extremely broad in what it covers, to
the point where it's almost too easy to apply it in cases where the
closer should really just be editing to clarify instead. It's also
one of the hardest reasons to explain to the author of the post being
closed - the description is pretty good, and links to the FAQ which
elaborates... But at first glance, it's already too close to "we
don't like your question, kthanksbye".
Finally, the core problem with your two examples is that there's no
clear explanation of the specific problems in the comments; there is a
decent meta discussion, but the confusion could have been mitigated
more easily if the close-voters had simply been more clear as to what
they found troublesome about these questions. Because of the breadth
of scope (see above), Not Constructive tends to require more of this
than, say, "Not a real question" or "Exact Duplicate". The alternative
solution would be to break it up into multiple close reasons... But
we've seen this cause problems in the past; encouraging closers to
explain their rationale tends to produce more thoughtful closing
So I'd encourage users who vote to close as not-constructive to leave a friendly and helpful comment explaining what makes the question not-constructive, and explain what needs to be done to get it reopened (if such a comment doesn't already exist of course). You don't need to be the close-voter to leave helpful comments like that either.
Personally when I first started with the SE sites, I got upset with some question closures as well. Having an actual person (instead of an extremely broad auto-generated closure message) point out the flaws of the questions to me, and explain what needed to be done to get the question reopened is probably part of the reason why I'm still participating in SE sites today.