DIALOGICAL INTERACTIONS CONCERNING THE
SCIENTIFIC CONTENT USING THE PLANNING TOOL, THE
ARGUMENTATION TOOL AND FACE TO FACE
COMMUNICATION
Z. Smyrnaiou, E.Varypati and E. Tsouma
Educational Technology Lab, School of Philosophy, Department of Pedagogy,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Keywords: Dialogical Interactions, Modern Learning Platform, Planning Tool, Argumentation Tool (LASAD), Physical
Sciences.
Abstract: This study is devoted to the qualitative analysis of dialogues conducted between students in a modern
learning platform in which students learn how to learn together, argue and construct plans to resolve
problems concerning scientific matters. The challenge-based scenario used in this research is related to the
“Shots”. We are interested in the way students interact when using two types of pedagogical tools (Planning
Tool, Argumentation Tool) in the Metafora Platform, as well as through Face to Face Communication.
Results of analysis demonstrate that verbal communication has a coherent structure, when groups try to
resolve the common challenge through the Argumentation Tool.
1 INTRODUCTION
Scientists acknowledge the necessity of exploring
the relation between the characteristics of the
dialogues and the impact of those on learning. In
particular, we are interested in the role dialogical
interactions play in learning new scientific concepts
as well as in the acquisition of skills.
The open problem of this research will not be
solved by each of the students (12 students) on their
own but in collaboration with other classmates and
in different situations (synchronous, asynchronous).
Students will, work in subgroups each one on their
own computer. The communication among the
subgroups will be synchronous through the Metafora
platform.
The objective of this paper is the study of how
Greek students of the 8
th
class (13-14 years old)
interact when using the planning tool that is based
on the theoretical structure of inquiry as well as the
argumentation tool that is based on the theoretical
structure of constructionism and of argumentation
theory. Both include visual language.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Lasad and Planning tool are based on inquiry based
learning. The scientific process or exploratory
learning is the modern theoretical framework that
attempts to describe the complex processes taking
place in the learning process but also the skills to be
acquired by students. There are various forms of
inquiry (Zacharia and Anderson, 2003), including:
reflective enquiry (Kyza & Edelson, 2003),
scientific inquiry-based learning context (de Jong,
2006), dialogical processes of enquiry (Grandy &
Duschl, 2007). In Metafora Learning, inquiry-based
learning has been described through 5 different
approaches (Wegerif & Yang, 2011): personal
inquiry framework (Scanlon et al. (In press), generic
inquiry cycle (Shimoda et al., 2002), case- ,
problem-, and project-based inquiry learning
(Schwartz et al., 1999), constructivist inquiry cycle
(Llewelyn, 2002) and progressive inquiry
(Hakkarainen, 2010). Challenge based, is embedded
in inquiry-based learning and so does modelling as a
process of thinking, reasoning and expression
(Smyrnaiou & Dimitracopoulou, 2007).
Challenge and modelling are both related to the
actions of students in the domain tool of Metafora,
323
Smyrnaiou Z., Varypati E. and Tsouma E..
DIALOGICAL INTERACTIONS CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC CONTENT USING THE PLANNING TOOL, THE ARGUMENTATION TOOL AND
FACE TO FACE COMMUNICATION.
DOI: 10.5220/0003917503230326
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 323-326
ISBN: 978-989-8565-06-8
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
the Physics microworld, 3d juggler. There, they will
select the objects, their attributes, and relationships
among them. They will construct and deconstruct
their microworlds, they will test them through visual
feedback (Kynigos, 2007). In Physics microworlds
modeling is a central cognitive process on the one
hand and a product of reasoning with flesh and
bones on the other, which at the same time is a
model (fabrication/artefact). In Metafora Learning,
the use of the Visual Language is suggested
(Wegerif & Yang, 2011).
Ιn Physics we are interested in what they learn
about the scientific content (Psillos & Niedderer,
2002). We know from relevant research that the
creation of scientific meanings starts from the
intuitions (Kynigos et al., 2010), the initial
representations of students (Viennot 1996), the
phenomenological descriptions, the descriptions of
actions or events perceived as scientific concepts
and relationships between concepts (Smyrnaiou &
Weil-Barais, 2005). Moreover, whether they use
arguments (Scheur et al., 2010) or not in their plans
since at the Metafora there is the argumentation tool
which affects the whole process and so do other
tools (scaffolding tools) as students enter and exit
the 3 tools throughout the process of solving the
challenge.
To understand collaborative learning experience,
it is useful to distinguish individual behavior and
group behavior, because different individuals
develop their different collaboration styles
throughout the collaborative project. We can
conduct a content analysis of the individual
discourse to characterize the topics and key words of
the messages and trace individual learning
trajectories in the group (Wegerif &Yang 2011).
Based on the theory of inquiry, of
constructionism as well as of dialogical interactions,
we created a framework to analyze our experimental
data.
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
There are not many surveys-as derived from our
search-concerning the dialogical interactions
between students when trying to construct a plan for
resolving a challenge and when trying to explain
with arguments the entire procedure to their
classmates in a shared screen of a platform as well
as through face to face communication.These issues
become more interesting when students use different
tools, like planning tool, argumentation tool and
constructionist tool to solve a challenge in the
Metafora platform. The mission of the two
subgroups is coping with a common challenge in the
3d juggler microworld. In order to communicate,
they use the Argumentation tool (LASAD) as well
as the Planning tool for the construction of the joint
plan. Both tools use cards that must be completed.
Some cards of Lasad were for instance “Comment”,
“Microworld idea”, “Claim”, while some cards of
Planning tool were “Define our assumptions”,
“Experiment”, Conclude”.
To familiarize the two subgroups with the tools
of the Metafora Platform, students have to cope with
a brief challenge (Warm-up). The students of both
subgroups were widely separated, so they had to
communicate through LASAD and aimed at the
construction of a common plan in the Planning tool
with the moves that led to the solution of the
challenge.
The study examined three research questions:
What is the role of dialogical interactions in
creating scientific meanings through Planning
tool and Argumentation tool?
What are the characteristics of the dialogues
emerged from the use of the tools?
What are the roles of the tools to stimulate and
sustain the dialogues?
Based on the theoretical framework discussed
earlier, we constructed a framework with which we
will analyze the plans that will be designed by the
students in the pilot study. So, we assume that their
discussions when they are trying to construct their
plans will be different and will contain data from
inquiry, constructionism, computer-supported
collaborative learning, scientific content,
argumentation.
4 RESEARCH
METHOD-PROCEDURE
The students who participated in the pilot study were
divided into subgroups of two, in order to cope with
a common challenge. To familiarize them with the
three tools: LASAD, Planning tool, 3d Juggler
Microworld of the Metafora Platform, they were
asked to navigate to them in order to comprehend
their functionalities. Then, they were given a warm-
up challenge, as presented below: “Keeping the blue
and the green balls still, shoot the red ball vertically
upwards”. After this, they were given the main
challenge, as presented below: “The red ball should
hit the blue ball’s base”.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
324
This study was implemented with 3 groups of 4
students but we focused on 1, because it was pilot
and we were interested in the detail of what was told
as well as done, in order to draw conclusions for the
design of the main study which will be carried out in
the next phase.
5 RESULTS
In the initial stage of the warm-up, we observe that
the two subgroups (subgroup A consisted of a boy
and a girl),(subgroup B consisted of two boys),
communicated with each other through LASAD in
order to resolve the challenge. Then, they transferred
to the Planning tool in order to construct a joint plan
with the moves that led to the solution of the
challenge and the dialogue that takes place in
LASAD relates to their moves in the Planning tool.
LASAD was necessary for the communication of the
two subgroups since they were far apart and had no
other means of communication. It furthermore
became obvious that subgroup A had disagreements
while subgroup B worked properly without any
disagreements.
We observe that even though subgroup A started
the dialogue, it was not so willing to share its ideas
with the other subgroup. In contrast, subgroup B
easily shared its ideas and informed subgroup A for
the changes in the variable values that led to the
solution of
the challenge. In addition, we notice that
subgroup A was trying to take a leading role in
constructing the plan in the Planning tool, assuming
that they work better than their classmates.
Subsequently, the two subgroups try to construct
a joint plan in the Planning tool with the moves that
lead to the solution of the challenge. As illustrated
by the continuity of the dialogue, the two subgroups
argue about the fact that each one of them changes
or puts in row the cards of the other subgroup.
Subgroup A seems to be more competitive in the
whole challenge, since it does not provide any
answer to the other subgroup.
Afterwards, though, it appears that they
cooperate very well, since the one subgroup
complements the other in order to create a joint plan.
From the cards that were chosen and the order in
which they were placed in the Planning tool, it
appears to have approached properly the scientific
method.
In the middle of the process, there was an
inability of understanding, so the students of
subgroup B deleted all the cards from the surface of
the Planning tool, assuming that subgroup A deleted
some of the cards that they had written. However,
there is again an attempt to consult and the two
subgroups start to construct the joint plan.
In the main challenge, we observe that the
cooperation between the two subgroups is evolving
quite well, since they discuss on the alterations of
the values in the variables that led to the solution of
the challenge. Subgroup A seems to initially
question the values that subgroup B gave to some
variables and suggests some others. In contrast,
subgroup B does not disagree but argues that the
values they also gave to the variables, can lead to the
same result.
Subsequently, we notice that the dialogue
between the two subgroups is related to the
completion of the cards in the Planning tool, where
they try together to construct a joint plan. Subgroup
A proceeds to comment concerning the content that
the other subgroup writes on the cards. Subgroup B
requests to contribute in the construction of that plan
too, with ideas about what they could note on each
card, indicating thus, that they seek cooperation with
the subgroup A.
Overall, we notice that the students of the two
subgroups try to record their assumptions
concerning the way in which they could resolve the
challenge. Initially, the two subgroups do not
cooperate well, since we discern that they chose
cards with the same title and they note different data.
They chose the same card and each subgroup wrote
its own ideas.
Afterwards, a new effort of collaboration begins
between them for the joint plan. Subgroup A
corrects the content of some cards and in the end
with the participation of both subgroups, they appear
to form the joint plan.
It is also worth mentioning that from the choices
students made concerning the cards and their order,
it seems that they have approached correctly the
scientific method. In addition, the cards of the
planning tool contributed to the construction of the
joint plan, while the wrong choices regarding the
cards of LASAD did not stimulate and sustain the
dialogues.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study demonstrate that inquiry-
based and modelling-based instruction promoted
effectively the communication.The use of LASAD
contributed to the exchange of views between the
two subgroups which was crucial for resolving the
challenge and subsequently for constructing a
DIALOGICALINTERACTIONSCONCERNINGTHESCIENTIFICCONTENTUSINGTHEPLANNINGTOOL,THE
ARGUMENTATIONTOOLANDFACETOFACECOMMUNICATION
325
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
