In recent years there has been an increased interest in how computer-based inquiry environment can support students‟ learning. This thesis is about a computer-based inquiry environment called SCY-Lab. The data is collected from a design experiment, where SCY-Lab is tested out in a high school near Oslo. Twenty students are selected for a project where they are supposed to design a CO2 friendly house with the help of SCY-Lab and other resources. This thesis follows two target groups throughout the project.Students‟ meaning making is explored while they engage with SCY-Lab and other structuring resources in school science. A sociocultural perspective is taken where I focus on their information sharing. When students share information they give access to each other‟s interpretations and they share their cognitive effort, as part of the meaning making process. Three aspects of their meaning making are in focus; First, how they are oriented when they talk and communicate, second, the use of SCY-Lab and other resources, and third, institutional norms and practices. Similarities and differences between the two groups are discussed during the project trajectory. By analyzing extracts throughout the project it is possible to look at moment-to-moment interactions, and at the same time take into account the relation between situations. The extracts will be analyzed and discussed based on the three aspects of their meaning making that are in focus.The findings indicates that students need different level and different kind of support when it comes to solving project tasks and the students need to understand what is expected of them. This is based on that students interpret what is expected of them differently and this leads to differences in how they are oriented and how they make use of the technology. One group discusses, argue for their choices and do research, more than the other. Expectations and requirements set, seems clearer when they are presenting their end product. Here both groups are oriented towards explaining and arguing for their choices. This means that the group that originally did not have this orientation, mange to change orientation so that both groups delivered similar presentations that both are evaluated to a top grade. One reason for this change in orientation might be that the evaluators did not really ask for understanding of scientific concepts.