How do openers contribute to student learning?

Main Article Content

Amber Zertuche Libby Gerard Marcia C Linn


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.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ZERTUCHE, Amber; GERARD, Libby; LINN, Marcia C. How do openers contribute to student learning?. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 79-92, july 2017. ISSN 1307-9298. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 12 july 2020.


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