THE METAFORA PLATFORM TOOLS AND LEARNING
TO LEARN SCIENCE TOGETHER
Z. Smyrnaiou and R. Evripidou
Educational Technology Lab, School of Philosophy, Department of Pedagogy,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Keywords: Learning to Learn Together (L2L2), Inquiry-based Learning, Modeling, Science, Constructionist Learning,
Visual Language.
Abstract: As Science and Mathematics teaching and learning in Europe decays, the Metafora project offers a proposal
for the promotion of a new pedagogy based on online social learning through the use of the platform’s tools.
Our Pilot study aimed at exploring how students can enhance their science learning by engaging in meaning
generation processes using the Metafora tools. These processes include making sense of motion in
Newtonian space using one of the tools, the 3D Juggler Microworld. The students also engaged in group
discussion and argumentation using Lasad and collaborative planning of actions using the Planning tool of
the Metafora platform. The role of the tools is promising in enhancing students’ scientific meaning making.
Yet, further research is needed in exploitting the tools’ potential to contribute in collaborative, social
learning and enhance the learning climate with an emphasis on togetherness which seems to be missing
from our schools.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper presents data collected in Greece during
our Pilot Study in the framework of Metafora – a
European project- which incorporates inquiry-based,
modeling, and constructionist processes for science
learning.
Using the Metafora platform’s tools mentioned
above (3D Juggler Microworld, Lasad, and Planning
tool) students at the 2nd high school grade, with
very limited prior knowledge of Physics, were asked
to solve an open-ended challenge in Physics in
teaching and learning physical concepts.
Students worked collaboratively having the
chance to interact face to face (among the in
subgroup members) or using the Metafora
argumentation tool Lasad (the only means of
comunication among subgroups). In this
argumentation and discussion workspace the
students gathered their findings and arrived at an
agreed solution. Lasad played the role of a Web 2.0
tool which helped them organise their learning and
disseminate educational content.
They had to explore and build models of 2d and
3d motions and collisions in the 3d Newtonian space
of the 3D Juggler microworld of the platform. As
most 3d gaming environments, known for their
success with young people, 3D Juggler gave
students the chance to operate in a complex, fun and
engaging domain while at the same time they
collaborated to address the challenge developing
communication, strategic thinking and problem
solving skills. Finally, the students had to present
their plan of actions in order to address the
challenges using the Planning Tool of the platform.
Although our findings are encouraging as regards
the role of the tools in helping students engage in
scientific meaning making, we do believe that the
students did not take full advantage of the tools’s
potential for the enhancement of their collaborative,
social skills. This is partly due to the complexity and
the confusingly great number of alternatives given
by the cards especially in the Planning tool. The
limited time for familiarization also played a
negative role as did the lack of a deeper culture of
collaboration in our schools.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The role of modeling as an inquiry-based learning
process has proven to be of great importance in
200
Smyrnaiou Z. and Evripidou R..
THE METAFORA PLATFORM TOOLS AND LEARNING TO LEARN SCIENCE TOGETHER.
DOI: 10.5220/0003921602000205
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 200-205
ISBN: 978-989-8565-06-8
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
helping students to better their reasoning and
understanding of scientific concepts. This process is
further enhanced when technology-based
educational tools are used Moreover, the process of
exploring, designing and building personally
meaningful computer models, which can be shared,
allows students to realize their own
conceptualizations and ideas regarding the scientific
quantities and concepts. As they study these
concepts it gives them the chance to test these ideas
using their models in accordance with the
constructionist approach. When these models are
created in collaboration with their peers, they
become subjects of discussion and reflection thus
leading them to deeper understanding of the
scientific phenomena behind them
At this time and age, when computer gaming is
part of the students’ interests and daily reality, game
microworlds, specially designed to engage them in
the study of academic subjects, offer them the
opportunity to learn in a way they are familiar with.
Incomplete by design, half–baked microworlds
(Kynigos, 2007) as the one the students worked with
during our study, namely 3D Juggler, can work as
idea generators and vehicles of scientific meaning
making. At the same time, the students working with
them have the chance to explore, (de)construct them
according to their understanding.
In addition to our claim that in Sciences planning
may be associated with the process of problem
solving, Planning has been addressed as an element,
among others, of self-regulated learning (SRL) or as
one of the three phases of cognitive regulation
(along with monitoring and evaluation) and it has
been described as a general domain metacogitive
skill (Schraw 2007). Numerous research studies
have examined the self-regulated learning in a
cognitive and social cognitive perspective. Self-
regulated learning is a process whereby learners
think about their thinking (metacognitive process),
act in a strategic way (plan, monitor, evaluate
personal progress) and they are motivated to learn).
For some researchers what has particular
significance is the emergent planning in the context
of constructionistic environments. For others, as a
key tool that guides them to find strategic solutions
to solve complex problems. The majority agree that
it may be a means of representation, reflection,
expression, communication and self-regulation.
Apart from problem solving, in Physics we are
interested in what they learn about the scientific
content and the scientific language. As far as the
former is concerned, we know from relevant
research that the creation of scientific meanings
starts from the intuitions, the initial representations
of students the phenomenological descriptions, the
descriptions of actions or events perceived as
scientific concepts and relationships between
concepts (Smyrnaiou & Weil-Barais, 2005).
3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study examined the following research
questions:
What is the impact of the Metafora
Platform/learning on students’ ability to
conduct science inquiry & constructionism and
overall, modelling and to use the inquiry skills
of questioning, planning, implementing,
constructing a model, concluding, arguing and
reporting?
What is the impact of the Metafora tools in
orchestrating learning to learn together (L2L2)
meaning generation processes and, more
specifically, Physical concepts and scientific
methods?
4 RESEARCH METHOD AND
PROCEDURE
4.1 Use of the Metafora Tools
Before dividing the students to subgroups we made a
short presentation of each of the tools they would
work with, namely the 3d Juggler Microworld (J),
Lasad (L) and Planning tool (P) of the Metafora
platform (See Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: The 3D Juggler microworld.
THEMETAFORAPLATFORMTOOLSANDLEARNINGTOLEARNSCIENCETOGETHER
201
In this short presentation we told them that they
would “play” in the 3d juggler microworld in the
same way as they do with any other computer game,
in order to deal with a certain challenge. We also
told them that they could use Lasad as a Web2
discussion and communication tool. Using it they
could discuss any issues needed in order to solve the
challenge together. We briefly presented the
discussion cards included in it. We emphasized that
their ultimate mission was to work together on the
Planning tool so as to present the plan they followed
in order to solve the challenge and showed them the
different cards they could use in it to make their
plan.
Next, our students were given the Research
Protocol (worksheet) with a simple warm-up
challenge they had to address in order to familiarize
themselves with the tools and the main challenge
later.
Warm up: “Keeping the blue and the green
balls still, shoot the red ball vertically
upwards”.
Main Challenge: “The balls should hit each
other’s base in a circular manner” (e.g. the red
ball should hit the blue ball’s base etc.)
4.2 Data Collection
A screen-capture software, was used to record the
students’ interactions both with the digital tool and
their verbal ones with each other.. Voice recorders,
the researchers’ field notes, the students’ answers to
the Research Protocol, as well as their maps in
LASAD and in the Planning Tool complete the
corpus of data.
4.3 Description of the Setting and
Participants in the Pilot Study
The pilot study took place in one of the Public
Junior High Schools in Athens (2
nd
Experimental
Junior High School of Ambelokipi).
The four teachers/researchers offered a short
presentation of the tools before the activity started.
We tried to limit our intervention and let students
work independently but we often had to remind
them to use the discussion tool to keep the other
subgroup posted about their progress or planned
moves. Our intention was to let them discover for
themselves how they should manipulate the
microworld objects and variables and build their
communication and planning without any external
influence. Nevertheless, there were instances when
our intervention was more obvious. One such case
has to do with our effort to turn their attention to the
guidelines given in the Research Protocol which
they seemed not to read or pay attention to.
The students who took part in this pilot study
were in the second junior high school grade (13
years of age), had very limited knowledge of Physics
and had not been taught kinematics or projectile
motion yet. Nevertheless, they worked with
quantities such as “shot Azimuth” and managed to
work out what they represented and their role for the
solution of the challenges.
Each subgroup of two students worked on one
computer and the collaboration between the
subgroups was only possible through the Metafora
platform tools (Lasad discussion maps –the chat
feature was not enabled-and Planning tool). The face
to face collaboration was possible between the two
members of the same subgroup only.
5 RESULTS
The students had to work with the physical
properties and concepts in their effort to succeed in
manipulating the microworld’s objects to solve the
challenges, although they did so rather
unconsciously. To be more specific, they, for
example, decided to “play” with the value of
“gravity pull” (gravitational acceleration) in order to
make the blue and green balls stay still, which is
rather surprising as one would have expected them
to zero these objects’ initial velocity instead by
zeroing “power”. Another such example is also the
fact that they wanted to use “wind speed” and “wind
direction” in order to help carry the red ball where
they wanted.
The following flow chart is cited to demonstrate
what was done and discussed in the real activity
while addressing the main challenge, using the three
tools (table 1).
The results show that the students still have not
clarified the difference between the Shot Altitude
and the Shot Azimuth. We assume that they are
confused by the fact that both are measured in angle
degrees. Students do not realize that in order to
comprehend what each of the variable does, they
need to isolate them. After several efforts and
disagreements, they finally manage to isolate the
Shot Azimuth and to give the right value to it, so as
to direct the red ball to the blue ball’s base. Students
altered the values of the Power and of the Shot
Altitude simultaneously so as to achieve the right
combination. We also observe that they changed the
mass of the ball, perhaps because they believed that
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
202
Table 1: The flow chart represents what is done and
discussed in the real activity.
SUBGROUP A SUBGROUP B
Experiment with “shot altitude” and
“shot azimuth”. Disagree on the role
of “power” (J)
Reflect on the guidelines.
Follow them to set the
variable values (J)
Experiment with “gravity pull” and
wind ignoring the guidelines (J)
Experiment with the key
variables “Shot Azimuth’
and “Shot Altitude” (J)
Fail to realize how to isolate the
variables (J)
Disregard (probably
unintentionally) the given
instructions and experiment
with “wind direction” (J)
Isolate the “shot azimuth” variable
and start to realize its key role for the
direction of motion on the horizontal
level (J)
Experiment with the key
variables “Shot Azimuth’
“Shot Altitude” and
“power” but fail to isolate
them (J)
Disagree on the value “shot azimuth”
should take in order for the red ball to
hit the blue ball’s base (J)
Experiment with “mass”
Before they can draw a
conclusion they give up (J)
Experiment in order to solve their
disagreement (J)
(with help by the
researchers) isolate
variables. Realize how
azimuth affects the ball’s
direction (J)
Solve the challenge creating a linear
motion model (“shot altitude”=0
0
) (J)
Experiment with “power”
and “shot Altitude” and get
close to their goal (J)
Reflect on the role of “shot azimuth”
(J)
Communicate their findings
so far with subgroup A
through a“Microworld
Idea” card in Lasad (L)
Refine their solution (J) By trial and error manage
to solve the challenge (J)
Communicate their findings with
subgroup B through a Lasad
“Comment” card (L)
Evaluate solution and refine it by
turning the linear motion of the shot
into a projectile (J)
Experiment with “power” to modify
height but affect range instead (J)
Fail to “fix” the ball’s Range by
experimenting with mass (J)
Go to Lasad and get help from
subgroup’s B “microworld Idea” card
(L)
Share their findings with
subgroup A by a
“Microworld Idea” Lasad
card. (L)
Evaluate subgroup B’s solution by
experimenting with the specific values
for the variables (J)
Reflect on their
moves and start creating the
plan using two Planning
tool cards: “Find hypothesis
and “Experiment”
Table 1: The flow chart represents what is done and
discussed in the real activity.(cont.)
Reflect on their moves and start
creating the plan using an
“experiment” card to report on their
experimentations with “angle
degrees” (P)
Check the values they gave
the variables (J)
Reflect on the role of the “shot
Azimuth” for the ball’s direction on a
“Make Predictions” card (P)
Unsure of the role of mass,
they start experimenting
with it. Conclude mass does
not affect the Range or
direction of the ball (J)
Ask subgroup B to complete their
Plan. Tool “Draw Conclusions card
through a Lasad “Comment” card (L)
Read subgroup’s B “Find hypothesis”
card (P)
See subgroup A’s
“comment” card. Choose a
“Microworld Idea” card to
write an answer in but leave
it blank (L)
React to subgroup’s B “Find
Hypothesis” card” warning them on
their “Comment” Lasad card and
reminding them to fill out the “Draw
conlusions”with text (L)
Connect the Planning Tool
cards (P)
Intrude subgroup’s B “find
Hypothesis” card to erase their text
and rephrase it to sound like a
hypothesis (P)
Report their success to
solve the challenge on their
“microworld idea” Lasad
(L)
Reconsider their “experiment”
Planning tool card and correct it so as
to make sense (P)
Add text on their
“DrawConclusions” card
reflecting on the role of
S.Altitude, Azimuth for the
shot (P)
Give subgroup B instructions how to
write their “hypotheses” on Planning
tool without giving specific values (L)
Read A’s “comment” card
and ask for helping ideas
to improve their“ Draw
Conclusion” card (L)
this affects the range. We assume that they think that
the lighter ball can move easier and reach farther
than a heavier ball.
Subsequently, students communicated through
Lasad and they started to construct a joint plan with
the moves that led to the solution of the challenge in
the Planning tool. From the comments that students
recorded on the cards of the Planning Tool, we
realize that they have comprehended the fact that the
Shot Azimuth is the one that defines the direction to
which the ball will move on the horizontal level. In
addition, they understood that the combination of the
Shot Altitude and the Power is the one that defines
the range the ball can reach. Lastly, the cards
students chose to construct their plan as well as the
order with which they placed them, leads to the
assumption that they have approached the scientific
method (observe, hypothetize, experiment, e.t.c.).
At first subgroup B ignores subgroup’s A
THEMETAFORAPLATFORMTOOLSANDLEARNINGTOLEARNSCIENCETOGETHER
203
comments. Later however, subgroup B responds and
the two subgroups manage to cooperate. On the
other hand, we notice that whereas subgroup A
started the discussion and the cooperation, we
realize that they expect subgroup B to announce
specific results (with numbers), while subgroup A
just announces the fact that they have resolved the
challenge.
6 CONCLUSIONS / DISCUSSION
The physical concepts and quantities the students
had to work with and understand deeper while
addressing the challenges, are those which have to
do with projectile motion in a Newtonian space. The
fact that the microworld was a 3D environment gave
them the chance to generate meanings about not
only simple Physical concepts and quantities e. g
speed, power but also complex ones e. g Azimuth.
The activities succeeded in engaging the students in
the (de)construction of the microworld while at the
same time offered them an open-ended challenge.
They approached the challenge in a creative and
alternative way. One of the subgroups e.g. managed
to address the challenge and make the red ball hit the
blue ball’s base following linear motion on the
horizontal level. Yet, they decided to reject it as not
spectacular enough and looked for a way to make it
“fly” towards the target (projectile motion) which
they eventually accomplished
There was a point at which the two subgroups
erased each other’s cards on their Planning tool map
and destroyed the whole map. This though, led them
to reconciliation and collaboration since they had to
rebuild their plan together from scratch.
In any case, they needed to understand what their
classmates said to the group and to express their own
opinion
They had the chance, and took full advantage of
it, to “play” with the physical quantities of the
microworld and see how they affected the objects’
motion thus starting to form mental representations
about them. They had no previous idea of what e.g.
“Shot Azimuth” might mean but they figured it out
quite easily while they seemed engrossed and
enthusiastic in the process (Figure 2). The students
gained deeper understanding of scientific concepts
and the relations between them by experimenting
with motion in Newtonian space.
Consequently, they had the chance to Learn to
Learn Together (L2L2): how to collaborate, how to
plan their moves, how to argue, scientific concepts
and physical quantities, scientific methods and
approaches.
Figure 2: The role of the “Shot Altitude” and “Shot
Azimuth” angles (70 and 15 degrees respectively in the
drawing below) for the direction of the ball.
The following findings pose questions and
considerations as regards possible changes and
improvements to be employed in the future main
study:
The students seemed reluctant and unwilling to
post their findings and share with the other
subgroup. In most cases they did so after the
researchers persistently asked them to. They seemed
confused about how to construct a plan using the-
admittedly too many- planning cards. They could
not make a plan before experimenting and knowing
how to address the challenges first. They resorted to
the same cards again and again to add text which, at
times, was irrelevant to the card’s label. Therefore,
we conclude that in the future main study, we will
have to allocate more time for the familiarization
session. In the familiarization session we will have
to give students ready made sample models of both
argumentative discussions and plans in Lasad and
Planning Tool respectively so as to help them realize
the use of each card in them. The issue of
collaboration and feeling comfortable with sharing
questions, findings etc. with others may also have to
do with the lack of a school culture of collaboration.
Admittedly, our schools encourage competitiveness
more than collaboration. This fact makes it even
more necessary and urgent to introduce such tools as
the ones our study presents, in order to help
emphasize the need for collaboration and
togetherness in learning.
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.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
204
REFERENCES
Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L., 2005. Self-Regulation in the
Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and
Intervention, Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199-231.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985).
Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Driver, R., 1989. Students' Conceptions and the Learning
of Science, International Journal of Science
Education, vol. 11, p.481-490.
Fischbein, E., 2002. Intuition in Science and Mathematics:
An Educational Approach.Springer.
Harel, I. and Papert, S., 1991. Constructionism, Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Higham, R, Freathy, R, Wegerif, R., 2010. Developing
responsible leadership through a 'pedagogy of
challenge': an investigation into leadership education
for teenagers. School Leadership and Management.
30(5), 419-434.
Johnson, Laurence F.; Smith, Rachel S.; Smythe, J. Troy;
Varon, Rachel K. (2009). Challenge-Based Learning:
An approach for Our Time. Austin, Texas: The New
Media Consortium.
Kafai, Y. B. and Resnick, M., Eds., 1996. Constructionism
in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a
Digital World, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
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.
Schraw G. (2007). The use of computer-based
environments for understanding and improving self-
regulation. In Metacognition and Learning, 2 (2-3),
169 – 176.
Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R., 2006. ‘Exploring the
mathematics of motion through construction and
collaboration’, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 22, pp. 114–136.
Smyrnaiou Z., Moustaki F., Kynigos C. (2011).
METAFORA Learning Approach Processes
Contributing To Students’ Meaning Generation In
Science Learning. 5th European Conference on Games
Based Learning - ECGBL 2011. Athens, Greece, 20-
21 October (paper submitted).
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.
Wilensky, U., 1999. NetLogo [computer software]. Center
for Connected Learning and Computer-Based
Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-
regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yiannoutou N., Smyrnaiou Z., Daskolia M., Moustaki F.,
Kynigos C., 2011. 14th Biennial EARLI Conference
for Research on Learning and Instruction, “Education
for a Global Networked Society”. Exeter, United
Kingdom, 30 August - 03 September.
Zacharia, Z. (2006). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions of
Science Teachers Regarding the Educational Use of
Computer Simulations and Inquiry-based Experiments
in Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
40: 792-823.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: An overview. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 3-17.
THEMETAFORAPLATFORMTOOLSANDLEARNINGTOLEARNSCIENCETOGETHER
205
