The researcher-designed Opener produced a higher revision rate than the teacher-designed Opener, but no difference in learning gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students in the researcher-designed Opener were significantly more likely to revise their work (M = .75) than students in the teacher-designed Opener (M = .56), with no significant difference in learning gains between the two conditions. → Zertuche 2012

Evidence¶

Zertuche 2012¶

Zertuche, A., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2012). How do Openers Contribute to Student Learning? International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(1), 79-92. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070484

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of the two Opener designs on revision of the embedded assessment. The researcher-designed Opener added distinguishing and integrating ideas components and ran about 20 minutes versus about 10 minutes for the teacher-designed Opener.

"Students who participated in the researcher-designed Opener were significantly more likely to revise their work on the embedded assessment ( M = .75, SD = .44) compared to students who participated in the teacher-designed Opener ( M = .56, SD = .50), t(101) = -1.98, p < 0.05 (Table 8). There was no significant difference in learning gains between the two conditions (Table 9)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students who participate in an Opener are significantly more likely to revisit and revise their embedded-assessment work than students with no Opener — a broader claim this one bears on