# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

Student Outline Form

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

Development of Line of Inquiry

Drafts of the HL Essay

Metacognition after draft submission

Metacognition after final submitted

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

Notes on language and structure

Notes on text types

Notes on peer presentations on texts

Notes on literary devices

Grade 11 speech paper 1 and metacognition

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

Notes on significant events in play

Post-reading notes on relationships between characters, stage directions and symbolism

# data[].attributes.body
Document Contains:

FOI exploration

Process of defining GI statement

Annotations

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

General reading notes

Notes on FOIs

Group Work/discussion

# data[].attributes.body
Contains

Notes on text types

In class analysis activities

Draft metacognition for diagnostic paper one (infographics)

# data[].attributes.headline
Notes for Where the Blood Mixes and A Doll's House

# data[].attributes.subject
Notes for Where the Blood Mixes and A Doll's House

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

Jot note answers/ideas for answering various paper 2 prompts

General theme/idea comparison and contrast

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

In-class work with peers

Notes from presentations of classmates

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition

Before writing the paper I felt somewhat prepared, as I had been able to review some of my notes and key themes in both texts. However, while writing, I felt like the prompt I picked was the best out of the given options, however, I was not able to fully engage with it. During the introduction of the essay, I felt like I needed to better define alienation.Something I need to improve/reinforce is the structure of the essay, as I divided the paragraphs differently (as I felt like they were getting too long) rather than following the structure of the compare/contrast essay. For the exam, I'll keep the structure of the essay in mind.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

From this Paper 1, I learned that I should organize my analysis by element (e.g. colour, text/literary element) and make it more focused. I did not struggle with identifying various elements in the text, however, I did not annotate or outline. For the next assessment, I will work on better organizing my response by grouping similar evidence pieces in paragraphs and also make an outline before writing out the full response.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition

After completing this assignment, I learnt that I needed to better describe the evidence from the texts I was learning about and also make my compare/contrast section longer. Initially, while filling out the planner, I though that the contrast section was rather short and wrote accordingly. However, I will work to make the contrast between the texts more evident as well as make the evidence more specific. I decided to do this by reviewing my notes, and making sure I write down full quotes/specific instances and their page numbers.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

I implemented the advice from the prior Paper 1 to make an outline before writing my response and it helped me write a more organized Paper 1. As seen in this paper 1, I was adept at finding elements that I could use to support my point, however I was lacking in the connection back to the purpose. Next time, when doing a paper 1 for appeals, I will make the connection to my thesis more evident and ensure I explain why my evidence is significant.

# data[].attributes.body
Contains:

FOI chart notes text

General notes on text

# data[].attributes.headline
2023  Mock Paper 1 Vignettes (Trevor Noah) & Metacognition

# data[].attributes.subject
2023  Mock Paper 1 Vignettes (Trevor Noah) & Metacognition

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

During this Paper 1, I was not fully prepared for analysing this different type of text, as I struggled with finding the purpose of the excerpt and how certain elements were significant. I wasn't able to fully finished writing down my answers, thus the response wasn't as well supported as I would have liked. Although I was able to identify elements properly, I had challenges connecting it to the prompt. I believe I need to review sample answers to Paper 1 questions, as connecting elements to the prompt seem to be a consistent issue. By reviewing samples, I will also be able to write the responses quicker (due to increased familiarity), thus making it more organized. The general organization of my paper stayed relatively consistent as I always ensure to follow the PEEL structure. Overall, for next Paper 1, I will review relevant sample answers and try doing practice questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

During this paper 1, I found that I slightly struggled with finding convincing evidence for the prompt. Despite this, I felt that being able to organize my thoughts helped me develop a coherent argument. However, one thing I need to improve is better showing how aspects of the text, such as tone are developed. Initially, I thought that just having a quotation from the text would be sufficient in demonstrating the tone used, however, I now know that I would need to identify other elements that develop the tone.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

This Paper 1 was somewhat difficult as I was still developing my abilities at analyzing more literary texts. The prompt (How does the text build momentum?) was initially rather confusing for me, as I was not sure what momentum was referring to. A strategy I will employ next time for similar prompts is to define what the element is and centre my argument around it. Another thing I need to improve on is annotation of the texts. During this paper 1, I did not make any annotations on the paper (hence why it is not shown in the scans), as I was likely trying to think of literary devices/structural elements that would best fit the argument. Next time, I will try to identify elements already present in the text, before trying to find evidence for the prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

The results of this paper 1 reflected my ability and things I have learnt from my prior practice. The prompt given was relatively easy for me to deconstruct and I was able to find sound evidence for my argument. I believe my organization has significantly improved, through my practice and planning/outlining before writing. Something I need to improve on is better defining/identifying structural elements. This was something I struggled with earlier, however, this paper 1 does show a slight improvement. Next time, when looking at structural elements (e.g. like the subtitles), I will identify other elements (e.g. spacing, bolding) to better my argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Metacognition:

I felt rather confident in my Paper 1 abilities after this Paper 1. For both texts I was able to identify relevant elements and organize my responses accordingly through the outline I did before writing. Additionally, I believe that I was able to manage my time effectively on the exam. I spent around 10 minutes identifying elements in both texts and developing an outline, which I intend to do for my next assessments. The more literary text (blog article) and its prompt was more challenging for me as I did not see a strong connection between the images and the messaging, I did manage to balance my analysis of both elements, although I am uncertain of how strong my evidence/explanation was for the images. I felt that the second text was relatively easy, as I was better able to connect elements to the prompt. Overall, for next assessment, I will ensure I spend sufficient time outlining my response and try to annotate more.