# data[].attributes.body
"SM EDI Science.pdf"

Using Explicit Direct Instruction to teach writing and conucting scientific investigations.
Used Action Research and Qualitative and Quantitative data analysis.

Abstract:
- Didn't meet all of the dot points in the rubric
- No conclusions or recommendations given

Introduction:
- Covered the points
- Showed baseline data including NAPLAN

Literature:
- Had enough relevant literature
- Identified a lot of potential limitations

Methods:
- Mostly good, lots of explanation on research paradigm
- Not very in-depth reagrding collection and analysis of data

Findings:
- Well presented, excellent visualisations
- Lots of analysis talk - statistical analysis used
- No real outliers to discuss

Discussion:
- Hit the dot points
- Echoed findings in literature

Conclusions:
- Well summarised
From Scott to Everyone:  11:28 AM
Using video prompts to improve writing

Intro: -School/class context
           -Strategies attempted during the year

Lit review: -comprehensive lit review
                  -Two hypotheses rather than one focussed research  question

Methods: -Mixed methods/transformative paradigm

Findings: -reported overall trends 
                -Presented data in clear graphs 

Discussion: -Linked findings to learning/teaching practice and relevant literature.

# data[].attributes.body
Extensive graphs and tables to show data progression
Student testing (on demand)

# data[].attributes.body
Planning vs action 
Lessons that may have altered the outcome
chart framing the pedagogical approach

# data[].attributes.body
Rooted in constructivism Relevant literature sources A vast range of sources

# data[].attributes.body
Identified the problem - English teachers face/ Learning barriers with regards literacy and learning a set text
The learning issue is that the broad spread of abilities combined with a set text makes engaging all students problematic. 
What the intention was to correct the problem 
Whole school data - NAPLAN
Demographic context
Class context

# data[].attributes.body
Meta cognition

# data[].attributes.body
- Student engagement and creativity increased.
- Mean score improved from 11.4 to 18.2.
- Improved quality of questioning.
- Improved Creativity
- Improved student enjoyment.

# data[].attributes.body
Action Research
Interpretative Paradigm (Multiple Truths)
Mixed Method
Marks from rubrics, observations on forms of expression and engagement. Surveys.

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Choice in Extension and Engagement

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Choice in Extension and Engagement

# data[].attributes.body
- Impact of Choice literature examined
- Engagement and autonomy in learning

# data[].attributes.body
-	Quotes from observational data tool
-	Key statistical measures
-	Tables of means
-	Graphs of means
-	Table of (de-identified) student grades

# data[].attributes.body
-	Qualitative data can be used to improve teaching practise and achievement levels
-	Quantitative data helps create evidence-based outcomes

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Choice in Extension and Engagement 

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Choice in Extension and Engagement 

# data[].attributes.body
- Identified issue that most classes pitch to middle of the cohort with limited scope for extension in reading response texts.
- Context: Year 9 High Achievers

# data[].attributes.body
- Type of school, location, year level, subject - ICESA value, EAL, indigenous students - Class demographics, literacy/numeracy, research focus ability - Data informed analysis – rationale/motivation for research project - Objective – synthesising research focus

# data[].attributes.body
Provided a summary of the research question, context, the methods and the results.

# data[].attributes.body
no theoretical framework 3 different focusses Research question not stated, only a hypothesis