# data[].attributes.body
Discussed data, key results, major ideas and findings.

Discussed the findings in their application to learning and teaching practice in response to the research question.

Discussed the findings in relationship to other academic literature.

Justified the interpretation of the data, with possible inclusion of alternative views and multiple perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Presented the data with clarity.

Identified, described and synthesised the findings from the research project

Analysed the data, using appropriate techniques, which allowed for depth of evaluation of results.

Identified and described anomalies, outliers, points of high influence.

# data[].attributes.body
Summarised the project and articulated potential benefits and limitations of the enquiry project.

# data[].attributes.body
Justified the research process, outlining decision-making in relation to paradigms, methodologies and methods.

Applied the selected research methodology to planning the pedagogical enquiry.

Explained procedures for collecting, presenting and analysing credible data relevant to the research question. Ethical procedures addressed.

# data[].attributes.body
Identified a theoretical framing for the project from relevant literature sources that have been selected and reviewed.

Synthesised the selected literature into a critical analytical discussion of the application of research findings to their own pedagogical enquiry.

Formulated a research question that is justified in reference to the literature and relating to the selected context and personal teaching practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Identified and described the context identified for the enquiry project.

# data[].attributes.body
Identified and described components of research into a summary:

Purpose

Research method

Findings

Main conclusions

Recommendations

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Notes: The discussion spent a lot of time on an insight the author had about language in the classroom, and less about the thinking routines themselves. Whilst it is valid for a teacher to reflect like this, the author could have spent more time discussing the actual data they collected.

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Notes: Explanation of the findings was limited. The author did not explain the KU1, PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4 - are these assessment tasks that are spread out across the semester??

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Notes: Messy and missing references. Confusing order for discussing the intervention, its purpose and exactly what it is. It is unclear how students’ work was assessed to determine improvement in metacognition… and how figure 1 helped categorise the work… No discussion of ethical concerns / considerations at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Articulates the projects summary well and links to benefits not only for the students in the study, but the uses for junior science classes they may teach. Lists limitation of sample size but does not explore this further. 

# data[].attributes.body
Discusses data, links to effectiveness of each intervention used, and explores findings of the data on assessment data types (formative did better than summative – interesting!) – Higher stakes link in is good. Linked to other academic literature here.

Addresses key takeaways from each cycle that apply to their future pedagogy. Links cycle findings that are similar together (good!)

Justifies interpretations through agreeable literature. Includes an alternative viewpoint on Microsoft word usage and justifies it being omitted based on sound logical reasoning (tier 3 language usage over spell check)

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst the author did identify and discuss a theoretical framing that was clearly referencing relevant sources in the literature, the section was not an easy read. There was also no statement or discussion of a research question.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong results with attached student examples that show strengthened understanding of tier 3 language usage and higher order thinking skills. Guttman analysis is a strong analysis tool here. Linking to flowchart also is a strong visual representation. 

# data[].attributes.body
Good introduction although it was very heavy on the school context and not the relationship between the question and the school. Although, I wasn't sure as to the question.

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Notes: Used SACE as an acronym before clarifying what it actually stood for. Confusing description of semesters and Creative Art - sometimes the author is describing the actual course, whilst others just art in general…

Some bold statements without any ‘evidence’ “Yet attempting to divorce thinking from its context and purpose in order to improve it, doesn’t work. “

The intro is very long, and tends to restate things over and over again.

Three quarters of the way through the intro the author discusses the idea of this class actually completing their work in a computer lab doing the art digitally - this should have been mentioned at the start and possibly included in the abstract, or even in the title of the paper itself!!

Inappropriate and inconsistent usages of capitals at certain points, and others when capitals should have been used.

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and concise abstract.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, there is limited justification provided in the methodology for choices made, with vague statements like ‘the refined focus was now to provide students with examples of…’ Ok. Why?

No justification for chosen paradigm present, reference to taught ethics unit as point – no particular addressing of the procedures followed here.

Establishes cycles of the methodology, and duration, including the focus within each. Again makes assertions without direct references to literature.

Provides mapping for each cycle (good idea!)

Creation of developmental rubric – brief justification for why you based it off of an English one?

Provided TLS with highlighted points for the intervention within a unit.

Outlining of data usage is decent and guides the reader to how it was used in each cycle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Establishes alignment with focus immediately with cited paper, linking to increased international students in STEM classrooms.Focuses into question with 2 sub-branches for higher order thinking that enables synthesis of information. Identified teaching and learning cycle for use in teaching literacy with references to literature for practices within the cycle. Following introduction of key practices, sub-literary practices that were used are discussed with referencing.Vague referencing to framing of the project, with references literature with practices used but no guiding framework outside of the TLS.

# data[].attributes.subject
Establishes alignment with focus immediately with cited paper, linking to increased international students in STEM classrooms.Focuses into question with 2 sub-branches for higher order thinking that enables synthesis of information. Identified teaching and learning cycle for use in teaching literacy with references to literature for practices within the cycle. Following introduction of key practices, sub-literary practices that were used are discussed with referencing.Vague referencing to framing of the project, with references literature with practices used but no guiding framework outside of the TLS.

# data[].attributes.headline
Established low  socio-economic area disproportionately, draws from curriculum and relates it to the class used. Established a baseline regarding the focus of the enquiry and what is required to successfully demonstrate the focus (key skills, literacy). Lack of references is concerning for asserted ‘facts’

# data[].attributes.subject
Established low  socio-economic area disproportionately, draws from curriculum and relates it to the class used. Established a baseline regarding the focus of the enquiry and what is required to successfully demonstrate the focus (key skills, literacy). Lack of references is concerning for asserted ‘facts’

# data[].attributes.body
Described initial observations for baseline idea of where students were and related information, bringing in their previous English scores to link with literacy (great!). Information could be more visually appealing to reduce confusion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Metacognitive Skills in the Art Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
The author described the purpose clearly, and mentioned the research method (action research). Their findings and conclusions were combined into one comment - “This implementation saw a general increase in students’ participation in reflection and their ability to identify thinking strategies they used to learn”. The author made no particular recommendations, but mentioned that their findings encouraged them to use metacognitive strategies further.

# data[].attributes.headline
Strong summary of the conducted project, establishing the context it was conducted in (including class, students, what it was on) and stating the findings of the conducted action research.

# data[].attributes.subject
Strong summary of the conducted project, establishing the context it was conducted in (including class, students, what it was on) and stating the findings of the conducted action research.

# data[].attributes.body
Concise abstract, however, not overly direct in its narative.

# data[].attributes.body
A clear summary of benefits and limitations provided.

# data[].attributes.body
Some links with literature to explain unusual or interesting findings. Discussion of qualitative data here to support findings ... not sure about placement of this? Considered effect of extraneous factors (e.g. verbal reporting) on results - some level of critical discussion here. Not sure that discussion was tightly linked to the research question overall, however.

# data[].attributes.body
The graphs were clearly presented. The pattern of results was clear. Anomalies were identified and discussed. Students at the top and bottom range of performance were examined with greater detail. Not sure about depth of evaluation ... it would have been good to see some reporting of the qualitative data that was collected?

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics definitely addressed. I expected more info around methodology - the intervention itself (as well as its data analysis) was quite simplistic (though perhaps this is how it was meant to be). I'm not sure if it needs to be more detailed or more complex than this. I'm not convinced that 'justification' has occurred.

# data[].attributes.body
Interspersed discussion of relation to own research project ... appropriate? Genuinely unsure.

Is there review of studies? Studies are certainly linked together and findings articulated, but no review of relevant interventions or efficacy of pedagogical practices? Very theoretical ...

# data[].attributes.body
Clearly outlines the broad rationale for the project, narrowing first to the school context then to the classroom context. Outlines purpose of the study succintly.

# data[].attributes.body
Purpose and rationale are well-explained - potentially too many words here. Explanation of research method is limited. Some reference to 'experimental', but limited indication as to what was actually done. Mention of a 'significant increase' to the average number of words written by students across the ten week period, however might have been strengthened by some reference to actual figures. Conclusions match purpose and findings. Recommendations are present, though potentially vague.