Orchestrating Inquiry-Based Learning Spaces: An Analysis of Teacher Needs

  • María Jesús Rodríguez-TrianaEmail author
  • Adrian Holzer
  • Andrii Vozniuk
  • Denis Gillet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9412)


The European Go-Lab project offers Inquiry Learning Spaces (ILSs) as open educational resources to support Inquiry-based Learning (IBL). To successfully exploit ILSs and implement IBL, proper support for orchestration is needed. Researchers have highlighted the complexity of orchestrating Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) scenarios and the need for supporting participants in this endeavour. In this paper, we address this issue by analyzing the teacher needs when orchestrating IBL and relying on ILSs. Concretely, we have carried out a survey-based study with 23 expert teachers in IBL and four in-depth case studies in authentic classroom scenarios with 2 teachers. The results lead us to a set of needs to be covered regarding the design of the ILS, the learning process and the learning outcomes.


Orchestration Inquiry-based learning Teachers 



This research is partially funded by the European Union in the context of the Go-Lab project (Grant Agreement no. 317601). This document does not represent the opinion of the European Union and it is not responsible for any usage made of its content.


  1. 1.
    Barab, S., Squire, K.: Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J. Learn. Sci. 13(1), 1–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, A.L.: Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J. Learn. Sci. 2(2), 141–178 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Jong, T., Van Joolingen, W.R., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J.: Learning by creating and exchanging objects: the SCY experience. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41(6), 909–921 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., Bonnard, Q., Cuendet, S., Kaplan, F.: Classroom orchestration: the third circle of usability. In: International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 1, pp. 510–517. ISLS, Hong Kong (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyckhoff, A.L., Lukarov, V., Muslim, A., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U.: Supporting action research with learning analytics. In: International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 220–228. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Häkkinen, P.: Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33(4), 461–469 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C.: Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340(6130), 305–308 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Jong, T., Sotirou, S., Gillet, D.: Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learn. Environ. 1(3), 1–16 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linn, M.C., Clark, D., Slotta, J.D.: Wise design for knowledge integration. Sci. Educ. 87(4), 517–538 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M. (eds.): Orchestrating Inquiry Learning. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mikroyannidis, A., Okada, A., Scott, P., Rusman, E., Specht, M., Stefanov, K., Chaimala, F.: weSPOT: a personal and social approach to inquiry-based learning. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 19(14), 2093–2111 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mulholland, P., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Feisst, M., Gaved, M., Kerawalla, L.: nQuire: technological support for personal inquiry learning. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 5(2), 157–169 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prieto, L.P., Holenko Dlab, M., Gutiérrez, I., Abdulwahed, M., Balid, B.: Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: a literature review and a conceptual framework. Int. J. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 3(6), 583–598 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., Hoppe, U.: Classroom orchestration: synthesis. Comput. Educ. 69, 523–526 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seol, S., Sharp, A., Kim, P.: Stanford mobile inquiry-based learning environment (SMILE). World Congress in Computer Science. Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing, pp. 270–276. CSREA Press, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharples, M., Anastopoulou, S.: Designing orchestration for inquiry learning. In: Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M. (eds.) Orchestrating Inquiry Learning, pp. 69–85. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slotta, J.D., Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M.: Orchestrating of complex inquiry: three roles for learning analytics in a smart classroom infrastructure. In: International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 270–274. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutherland, R., Eagle, S., Joubert, M.: A vision and strategy for Technology Enhanced Learning. Report from the STELLAR Network of Excellence (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valdes, C., Ferreirae, M., Feng, T., Wang, H., Tempel, K., Liu, S., Shaer, O.: A collaborative environment for engaging novices in scientific inquiry. In: ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 109–118. ACM (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adrian Holzer
    • 1
  • Andrii Vozniuk
    • 1
  • Denis Gillet
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations