![](bg4.png)
common plan in the Planning Tool.
Concretely, for the students of our study,
LASAD was used in order to ask questions, express
agreement or disagreement and report the values that
were given to the variables to resolve the challenge.
Even though in the stage of the warm-up,
LASAD was not used appropriately in exposing
students’ ideas of the one subgroup, in the stage of
the main challenge, LASAD was exploited in a more
substantial degree, since it was observed that both
subgroups contributed with their ideas for resolving
the common challenge by exposing their ideas.
However, this did not happen in the stage of
constructing the plan, since they did not use it as
means to communicate.
The use of the Planning Tool has been made
exclusively for the construction of a common plan
by the students of the two subgroups in which their
moves were recorded on how they eventually
reached the solution of the challenge. Also, the cards
they used and the order they chose, reveal that they
have approached properly the scientific method and
through planning tool they were led to the creation
of scientific meanings. This conclusion is not
apparent for LASAD.
Overall we argue that initially the two subgroups
did not have effective cooperation but then, they
seem to cooperate.
Additionally, students became, in a greater
depth, able to plan procedures for investigation,
build models using technology-based learning
environment, record results and draw conclusions.
The largest gains were obtained for the skills of
planning, modelling and drawing a conclusion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Metafora: “Learning to learn together: A visual
language for social orchestration of educational
activities”. EC - FP7-ICT-2009-5, Technology-
enhanced Learning, No. 257872.
REFERENCES
De Jong, T., 2006. "Scaffolds for scientific discovery
learning." Handling complexity in learning
environments: Theory and research: 107–128.
Grandy, and Duschl, R., 2007. Role of inquiry in school
science, Science & Education.
Hakkarainen, K., 2010. "Learning Communities in the
Classroom." International Handbook of Psychology in
Education: 177.
Kynigos, C., 2007. ‘Half–Baked Logo Microworlds as
Boundary Objects in Integrated Design’, Informatics
in Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 335–359.
Kynigos, C., Smyrnaiou, Z. & Roussou, M., 2010.
Exploring the generation of meanings in mathematics
and science with collaborative full-body games. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Interaction Design and Children , Barcelona, Spain,
pp. 222-225.
Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C., 2003. Reflective inquiry:
What it is and how can software scaffolds help. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL.
Llewelyn, D., 2002. Inquire Within (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press).
Psillos, D., Niedderer, H., 2002. Teaching and learning in
the science laboratory: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J., 1999.
Toward the development of flexibility adaptive
instructional design. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 183–
214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., Mulholland,
P. (in press). How technology resources can be used to
represent personal inquiry and support students'
understanding of it across contexts. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00414.x
Scheur, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. & Mclaren, B. M., 2010.
Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the
State of the Art. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning. 5(1).
Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y. Frederiksen J. R., 2002.
Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with
modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86
(2), 244 – 263.
Smyrnaiou Z. & Dimitracopoulou A., 2007. Ιnquiry
learning using a technology-based learning
environment. In (Ed) C. Constantinou & Z. Zacharia,
Computer Based Learning in Sciences, Proceedings of
8th International Conference on Computer Based
Learning (CBLIS), 31 June-6 July, Heraklion, Crete,
pp. 90-100.
Smyrnaiou, Z. & Weil-Barais, A., 2005. Évaluation
cognitive d’un logiciel de modélisation auprès
d’élèves de collège, Didaskalia, nº 27, Décembre, pp.
133-149.
Viennot, L., 1996. Raisonner en physique (la part du sens
commun) . Paris, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université.
Wegerif, R. & Yang, Y., 2011. “Visual Language for
Learning Processes”, Metafora Deliverable D2.1.
Zacharia, Z. and Anderson, O. R., 2003. The effects of an
interactive computer-based simulations prior to
performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiments on
students’ conceptual understanding of physics.
American Journal of Physics 71: 618-629.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
326