As stated earlier in my blog, I am experimenting with using “non-metacognitive” and metacognitive approaches to student learning within my class’ Cool Runnings film study. Last week I gave them a worksheet to complete with a “chalk and talk” approach to its requirements. Yesterday, students submitted their responses to this handout. When marking their work, what I was looking for was evidence of deeper analysis (a move beyond the “description” type of answer).
Here is what I got:
15 students (still waiting on some submissions due to absence or tardiness!)
3 students displayed analysis skills significantlybeyond what is expected of their Year level. This means they were not only able to explain the event in the film, but make multiple links to the character’s motivation and, explain why this was the case.
3 students displayed analysis skills in their answers. This meant they could explain the event in the film, make links to the character’s motivation and generally explain why this was the case.
7 students used some analyis in their answers. However, this was inconsistent and their explanation of “why” required more depth to move beyond a generally descriptive tone.
2 students, whilst displaying a good knowledge of the film’s plot, did not demonstrate developed analysis skills. Their answers remained descriptive.
Interesting. I will update these details after I have received all students’ work.
Conclusion: Was I surprised? For some students, yes… I had thought they would demonstrate more developed analytical skills than they did. However, contributing to these figures could be the fact that my approach was “boring”, which in turn, would arguably impact on motivation levels.