How do Openers Contribute to Student Learning?


Amber ZERTUCHE, Libby GERARD, Marcia C. LINN


Abstract

Openers, or brief activities that initiate a class, routinely take up classroom time each day yet little is known about how to design these activities so they contribute to student learning. This study uses technology-enhanced learning environments to explore new opportunities to transform Openers from potentially busy work to knowledge generating activities. This study compares the impact of teacher-designed Openers, Opener designs based on recent research emphasizing knowledge integration, and no Opener for an 8th grade technology-enhanced inquiry science investigation. Results suggest that students who participate in a researcher-designed Opener are more likely to revisit and refine their work, and to make significant learning gains, than students who do not participate in an Opener. Students make the greatest gains when they revisit key evidence in the technology-enhanced curriculum unit prior to revision. Engaging students in processes that promote knowledge integration during the Opener motivate students to revise their ideas. The results suggest design principles for Openers in technology-enhanced instruction.


Keywords

Technology, Science Education, Teaching Practices, Classroom Assessment, Formative Assessment

Paper Details

Paper Details
Topic EU Education Programs
Pages 79 - 92
Issue IEJEE, Volume 5, Issue 1, Special Issue Learning and Instruction in the Natural Sciences
Date of acceptance 01 October 2012
Read (times) 513
Downloaded (times) 267

Author(s) Details

Amber ZERTUCHE

University of California, United States


Libby GERARD

University of California, United States


Marcia C. LINN

University of California, United States


References

Ardac, D. & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 41(4), 317-337.

Berland, L.K. & Reiser, B.J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216).

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Chiu, J. & Linn, M. (2012). The Role of Self-monitoring in Learning Chemistry with Dynamic Visualizations. In Metacognition in Science Education (pp. 133–163). Dordrecht: Springer.

diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eylon, B. & Linn, M. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.

Gerard, L.F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Teacher Use of Evidence to Customize Inquiry Science Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037-1063.

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.15-46). New York: MacMillan.

Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.

Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students' understandings of chemical concepts. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE Design for Knowledge Integration. Sci Ed, 87, 517-538

Linn, M.C. & Eylon, B.S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. New York: Routledge.

Linn, M. C. & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Linn, M.C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J.L. (2006). Teaching and Assessing Knowledge Integration in Science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.

Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge Books.

Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing the ontological nature of conceptual physics: A contrast of experts and novices. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373–400.

Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.

Tamin, R., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P., & Schmid, R. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.

White, B.Y. & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.

Williams, M., Linn, M. C., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to Teach Inquiry Science in a Technology-Based Environment: A Case Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.

Zhang, Z. & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can Generating Representations Enhance Learning with Dynamic Visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177-1198.