POLÍTICAS PARA EL CONTROL DE ENERGÍA:

The teachers collaborated voluntarily with the researchers to design the context of the inquiry. The project, which lasted for 5 weeks –15 lessons of 60 minutes each– (No- vember ’16 - January ‘17), was carried out in parallel to the regular lessons from the MYP curriculum.

8.4.2.1 Preparation phase

In several sessions both authors and the teacher agreed on using an inquiry structure based on the Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, Krathwohl, & Masia, 1984) (see Table 22). Since DojoIBL gives the option to create a customized inquiry structure, the teacher decided to use the level of human cognition as the underlying structure for their in- quiry. Every inquiry phase began with an introductory activity that explained the pur- pose and goals of that particular phase.

Table 22: Distribution of activities of the inquiry process.

Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation 17th _{& 22}nd _{Nov. 23}rd _{November 24}th _{November 6}th _{December 7}th _{& 8}th _{Dec. 13}th _{& 14}th _Dec. Inquiry activities

1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 2. Distribute roles 2. A parable 2. Question

strand 1 2. Discuss the medium 2. Integration of content 2. Upload presentation 3. Prior knowledge 3. How to improve

listening 3. Plot diagram 3. Plan the medium 3. Conventions 3. Give feedback to the other group 4. You are the

teacher 4. How to improve reading 4. VR in the trenches 4. Design the presentation 4. Final reflection 5. Questions for the

other groups 5. Practice 5. Formative assessment 5. Task organization 6. Reflection 6. Task sheet 8.4.2.2 Runtime inquiry project

The learners began the inquiry project receiving a briefing both about the basic usage of DojoIBL and about the experiment in general. Right after, students were split in groups by the teacher. The first task for the groups was to define and to assign the roles of the group members. In this case, the authors/researchers opted for a variant of the scripted roles from Strijbos and Weinberger (2010). Instead of having the teach- er designing the roles, every student came up with his/her own role based on how they wanted to participate in the project. Table 23 shows the roles chosen by the students. According to the literature about roles the students mainly defined “roles as a task” and “roles as a pattern” (Strijbos & De Laat, 2010). The main difference between these two types of roles lies in the fact that while “role as a task” focuses on a specific task e.g. designer, researcher, data collector or writer, the “role as a pattern” is more ab- stract because it aims at the process e.g. checking the work, organizer and cheering up. Table 23: Roles selected by the students before the inquiry activity.

Group 1 Group 2

1. Designer 1. Keep all the work 2. Organizer 2. Cheering up 3. Check the work 3. Writing

4. Researcher 4. Checks if everything is fine

5. - 5. Researcher

Once the roles were distributed, the students began with the ‘knowledge’ phase. The learners needed to show a basic understanding of why reading and listening are im- portant in the language acquisition process. As part of the activities within this first phase, the students created a Venn Diagram, in which they illustrated their prior expe- riences of the skills and their goals by the end of the project.

In the ‘comprehension’ phase, they got acquainted with the concepts of reading and listening comprehension. They reflected about their own reading and listening processes and they were asked to look for strategies to improve listening and reading comprehension. As an activity to improve their listening comprehension, students participated in an interactive session with the researcher, in which they were told the parable about the six blind men and the elephant33_{. This parable tells a story that builds} up from six blind men touching the same thing/object. By describing what everyone sees, students realized how difficult is to collaborate and how complex is to compre- hend other’s reality and points of view when you do not have the exact same infor- mation.

The next phase, ‘application’, served to apply what the students learned in previous phases in the context of World War 1. In different activities such as: reading the War Horse novel, watching some parts of the movie or playing with a Virtual Reality game called VR in the trenches, students learned more about extracting main ideas, details and draw conclusions.

In the next phase, ‘analysis’ an extraordinary event took place during a couple of sessions. Two roles from group 1, ‘checks the work’ and ‘designer’, had a dispute about the content of presentation. While ‘checks the work’ argued in favour of using a short video with subtitles to show the benefits for listening comprehension, ‘designer’ argued against saying that even though the idea was good it would turn the thing into reading comprehension, which was the other’s group topic. The apparent disagreement that lasted for two days, will have its implications on the results section and on the practical guidelines.

In the next ‘synthesis’, students designed the presentation and discussed the con- tent for the presentations. In the final phase, ‘evaluation’, students pitched their work to the other group under the supervision of the teacher. Each group had to present one of the skills, and provided hints on how to get better as well as a small test to prove whether the explained concepts were clear enough.

8.4.2.3 Wrapping up

After the inquiry project, the researchers and the teacher interviewed the students individually to get more insights about their experiences. Additionally, a couple of sessions extra were organized to inform the teacher and the students about the results. Turned out to be a productive session, from which some of the practical guidelines portrait at the end of this manuscript were extracted.