Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing". It comes from the root word "meta", meaning behind. It can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving. There are generally two components of metacognition: knowledge about cognition, and regulation of cognition.
Students who demonstrate a wide range of metacognitive skills perform better on exams and complete work more efficiently. They are self-regulated learners who utilize the "right tool for the job" and modify learning strategies and skills based on their awareness of effectiveness. Individuals with a high level of metacognitive knowledge and skill identify blocks to learning as early as possible and change "tools" or strategies to ensure goal attainment.
Today, take some time to reflect upon the Edline document (rubric) for our recent Midyear Exam's Question 2. Offer a concise (one paragraph) but careful metacognitive reflection of your own thinking, analysis, and writing. What do you know now that would equip you for similar tasks in the future?
28 comments:
One aspect of my metacognitive thinking in regards to my writing style, is one shared by numerous students. I always find myself first looking for individual devices throughout the text, and then examples representing those devices before anything else. I now realize that I should not concentrate so much on the amount of devices that can be identified, but the quality of those that can be identified. I mean by this, that it is near pointless to identify a single, weak example of imagery, when the analysis could instead be used to exemplify a more in depth analysis of a much more prominent, and important device present in the text. One can write an entire analysis based solely on a single fantastic device, given that the analysis and examples are accurate, and the importance of said device is understood.
Sam Carignan
Reflection on Question 2
After reading the scoring guidelines, I realized that I understood some of the more minor aspects of the piece, but the larger meanings and devices of the prose were not mentioned in my response. Even though I reached the same main idea as the guideline suggests, the way that I got there differed from how most people set it up. I did realize that it was satiric, but the underlying irony was not noticed by me. Most of the stylistic parts of the piece, such as diction and tone, I did mention and was thorough on. Most of my supportive paragraphs did not have a very strong connection to the overall idea; however they did support my thesis which in turn mentioned the universal idea.
My thought process during the exam was efficient, however on the question two, my close reading led to minor misinterpretations. I disregarded the satirical purposes of the passage but instead focused on the surface of the irony. By digging deeper, I may have been able to access the purpose behind the satire. The tools I chose as devices simply included irony and diction, barely touching upon imagery. If my understanding of the passage was more on point, I may have recognized the importance of tone, imagery and point of view. I had a difficult time processing the universal idea behind the passage and the question. Also, the timing of the exam, the last class on a Friday morning, may have distracted me.
During the exam and my analysis of Question 2, I wrote some okay material that could be improved.
During the exam and my analysis of Question 2, I wrote some okay material that could be improved.
Looking at the rubric scoring guidelines I am now able to determine exactly where I lost points. I was able to analyze the irony and satire within the piece however, I did not specifically link it to the emotion scorn and instead linked it to the actual people. After looking at this I now know that I need to analyze the text a little deeper to make sure I touch upon every aspect of the device I use.
I was able to identify devices the rubric suggested (imagery and tone). I understood mid-way through my essay that the piece was satirical, which unfortunately meant I could not fully delve into this mocking tone. I should spend more time planning out what I am going to write because usually right after I define the devices I am going to use, I start writing. It would benefit me to take more time to develop my thoughts about the piece so I could pick up on the subtle nuances instead of solely the larger ideas of the piece. I did not pick up on the class to which the narrator belonged, believing he was of the same upper class as the idle folk instead of being a servant that has to deal with the after-effects of scientific experimentation. I understood the main ideas of the prompt, but I need to dissect them more in order to discover the finer aspects of the narrator's tone and purpose.
Reviewing my past attempt at the Question 2 prompt from the mid year exam I have come to realize a few things I should change about my writing process. Due to the time constraint I found myself in a bit of a rush and therefore only focused on the most obvious meaning of the text. If I had taken the time to slow my thoughts and think about it more I could have gone into more depth about the hyperbolic scorn rather than the stylistic elements alone. If I take a little more time to analyze what I am ready my work could have been a little more convincing.
Sara Silva
The Midyear exam interpreted poems that we have come in contact with and had previously analyzed, which was impacted in a good way. I personally believe that I would fit in between the 5 and 6 categories. I believe I expressed my ideas clearly but I lacked in the development as a whole in my essay. Overall my passage was probably portrayed as less convincing but touched upon the speaker’s attitudes. The question 2 analysis could have portrayed more clarity and precision throughout the thesis statement, and in depth with the whole body paragraph.
In my essay I tried to shorten my thoughts when I wrote so I missed some points. I should have explained myself more thoroughly. I missed the irony in the passage also and tried to follow the stylistic trends of the author. I noticed the attitude of the author but decided to bypass it as an obvious trait when I should have used it to explain his writing style. In the future I should definitely use the suggestions of the prompt and look out of the box for elements of the prose that reveal the universal idea.
After going through the rubric, I realized I had failed to include some major elements of the poem in my essay. Even though I noticed the satiric and ironic elements, I was too focused on looking for as many devices as possible, and ended up choosing diction and tone. I didn't take the time to think about which devices would lead me to a stronger essay. My essay was cohesive and stayed on point, but I didn't emphasize the main idea of the passage as much as I should have.
Overall, I feel that my exam essay could have been strengthened in a variety of ways. While I looked for examples of devices to organize my essay with, I failed to reach beyond the text to find distinctions and deeper meanings within the examples. Also, in concluding my essays, I deviated toward a mere summary, rather than developing new ideas and tying the story as a whole back to the universal idea. Additionally, while I established a universal idea, I often avoided relating my examples back to this deeper meaning, and sometimes this establishment became a bit unclear in my essay. Further, I did not focus on how the examples I pinpointed effected the piece as a whole, and their overall purpose for the prose. Next time, I should try analyzing deviations more frequently, and expanding my vocabulary and overall syntax to create a more well-written piece. In reading the second prompt, I hurriedly skimmed the passage and quickly narrowed down devices for use without efficiently analyzing the text on a deeper level. My time management, though slightly improved, still hindered my execution of the assignment, as I found myself rushing to finish both parts of the exam. However, I was genuinely shocked and content with my grade.
Metacognitive Exam Reflection
In my writing for Question 2 on the midyear exam, I believe I would have scored around a 6 or 7. I did not cite the satiric purpose of the passage. I understood the stylistic elements, but did not connect them to a deeper meaning until the end of my essay. I developed an understanding of the narrator’s attitude, but did not recognize the irony or humor surrounding his ideas. Rather, I concentrated on the narrator’s disdain for the upper class people with idle hands (the obvious). Through this metacognitive reflection, I learned that in order to score a 9 on the AP exam, I must delve into deeper meaning. I must connect the deeper meaning to every point I make in my essay. I must also look past the obvious feelings of the speaker, and explore what may be ironic or satirical about a piece. Now I know to focus on these things in order to be well equipped for future AP English prose essays.
AM
The scoring guidelines for a score of 8-9 applied to my essay in nearly every way. I addressed every part of the prompt with precision and analyzed his stylistic tone and diction that the author used. As i read the prompt i quickly realized the exact attitude of the author and his satiric intentions of advertising the fact that science is in fact important and those who do not accept this fact are ignorant and unintelligent. Knowing this I analyzed his abusive diction and critical tone and used these devises to reveal his negative attitude towards those who disregard the importance of science. However, in my rush to complete the essay on time i failed to delve deeper into the satiric nature of the prompt and with this my analysis could have been much stronger.
I was able to identify from what point of view the narrator was coming from, but offered little analysis of this fact. Although I was able to realize what the narrator was trying to say I did not pick up on his sarcastic/ hyperbolic tone. I was thinking too hard about how the author used specific devices to present his universal ideas when I should have been thinking about broader devices such as tone and point of view. I now know that I have to take a step back sometimes and actually pay attention to what the narrator is saying.
Meta-cognitive Exam Reflection
As I read the piece during the exam, I immediately picked up on the sarcastic tones of the passage. I also picked up on the overuse of sarcasm and how that the work might be satiric in nature. However as I wrote my response, I focused purely on the obvious sarcastic tone and did not mention at all how the author might have been using the heavy sarcasm for satire. I consciously chose to play it safe instead of delving into an area I recognized but was not fully comfortable with. After viewing the rubric and what is required and expected for an 8-9 score, I see that they readers wanted students to pick up on and write about the humor and satiric elements to the piece. Of the other elements that writers wished to see included by students, I included all but the point of view element. Writing about point of view was simply an option, not a necessary element in getting a high score. I see now how useful analyzing point of view could have been in writing my essay and answering the prompt thoughtfully however. While writing, I chose devices that I often use in writing essays and simply adapted them to the piece and the prompt. In the future, I could look for devices that I do not usually use, which could help me become a better writer and possibly even answer prompts more effectively. The same devices do not apply to all pieces, and by trying to fit my go-to devices into the essay I wasted time thinking too hard about one area instead of seeing the obvious and important devices used in the passage, such as point of view, that could have helped my essay be better.
While writing this essay, my first thought was to find literary devices and examples for each device. One literary device I noticed, but I didn’t really touch upon in my essay was the irony in the passage. Also, I didn’t pick up on the sarcastic tone of the passage. Some devices I picked up on that I wrote about were imagery and diction. Next time I am assigned something similar to this, I would read the passage once and then again with the intent of finding literary devices I missed the first time. During this essay I only read the passage once because I was worried about running out of time.
As I analyzed Question 2 during the exam, I focused on the author's attitude towards his subject and the satire he employed to convey his universal idea. I found literary devices that showed his intentions and backed them up with specific quotes from the text. However, after reviewing the essay rubric, I feel as though I did not completely explain how the quotes were significant and why the author used them as well as I could have. I could have backed them up further and have gone more in-depth while analyzing their purposes. I still think that I did a fair job addressing all aspects of the prompt and analyzing the author's intent. My essay most likely suffered from lack of structure and somewhat shallow analysis of the passage, which I can improve upon by focusing more on specific aspects of the passage.
The biggest problem that I faced when writing this essay was time management. I identified the irony but by the time I got to analyzing it I had to conclude my essay. I need to work on getting the most important paragraphs done first so that my best ideas are sure to be conveyed. I also need to explain my ideas more coherently instead of saying the same thing in different ways multiple times throughout the same paragraph. I believe that I need to rethink my process of writing essays to make sure I get all of my best ideas into my response. This is probably one of the most common issues that students are having with essay writing and it can easily be fixed with practice.
Meghan Burgess
I believe that I wrote a very good essay based on the rubric. I feel as though I wrote a strong essay with many good ideas and I had many examples to back up those ideas. I covered many of the topics that were covered in the example essays, but not all of them. I thought of many of the more advanced examples after I had finished my essay. Next time, I will not be so concerned with the time constraints and focus more on writing a complete essay including all of the necessary details.
Throughout the course of the writing process, most of my attention and conscious thoughts were centralized upon the temporal constrictions of the assigned ninety minute class period. Additionally, upon reflection, I recognized a mental discontinuity throughout the entirety of the examination process as my mindset continued to drift away from the assigned prompt and linguistic analysis and towards other aspects of my life. By ameliorating these issues and focusing more so upon a detailed analysis of the assigned work, I believe that I could have been able to better express a holistic review of the piece. Furthermore, most of my analytic thought process while responding to Question 2 was fixated upon the necessity to identify and elaborate upon specific literary tools used throughout the prose. Working in such a manner, I feel that I ultimately failed to recognize the universal idea in a timely and efficient manner; during future endeavors, I should attempt to better understand the poem as a whole work. Additionally, as I reviewed the grading rubric posted on Edline, I noted that I failed to overtly state the ironic and hyperbolic tendencies of the prose piece. Though my analysis touched upon these elements in a generalized manner, I feel that stating each of these techniques – ultimately, applying a word with the stated definition – would allow me to better expand upon my ideas about the piece itself and the author’s intentions throughout it.
I believe I scored a 6-7 on the prompt. While I completely missed the satirical tone of the passage, I believe my analysis was strong otherwise, and the rubric indicated that recognition of the satire was not necessary for a fairly high score. My analysis and devices may not have dug deep enough to secure a higher grade. It is also a habitual concern of mine that I make strong assertions but do not provide enough support. In the future, I should continue to work on providing more evidence for my ideas.
In my own thinking and writing for Question 2 on the midyear exam, I believe there are many points I could have improved upon. I think I may have scored a 6 or a 7 but I think small details that I did not include could have raised my score to an 8 or 9. I did not seem to focus on the persuasive irony of the passage as much as I should have. I recognized this style, but did not give it as important of a role in my essay as I should have. However, I did give an understanding of the speaker’s attitude and opinion of the subject. I think I used examples well, by siting the narrator and the different points made throughout the passage. I need to get better at focusing on the “how” of the prompt and really understanding that aspect. I made specific points about imagery and tone several times throughout my writing. I did not focus on the elements of diction and point of view, making my essay lack these important qualities. Making these small adjustments to my writing may have significantly improved my score.
Making use of the rubric given, it is clear that I had made several errors in my ways of analysing the documents use of irony and tone in particular, however I can also see that I was on the right track in the overall meaning of the work in my writing. I need to more clearly try to detect the subtlety with the work and have a better detection of irony, reading more carefully and staking doubt in my mind will help this matter. The strengths of my essay lay in my analysis in the actual diction and language of the work and how the speaker creates a persuasive argument. In conclusion I need to focus looking beyond the concrete of the work and look more carefully before diving in to my essay.
~Tyler Fairbairn
Oftentimes in my writing I will stray from the main point without noticing. Thus, it is important for me to carefully review the prompt constantly throughout my writing process. During the exam, I successfully remembered what worked well for me, and I used this to my advantage. Having all the important details of the prompt at the forefront of my mind kept me from straying away from the main objective of my writing. One thing I need to do in order to improve my writing is to look at literature more critically. This would aid in identifying devices such as irony and sarcasm, which is harder for me to pick up on while reading older pieces. Something else I've noticed that enhances my writing that I don't do enough of is outlining my essay. Rather than nearly writing "freestyle", I believe a proper outline of my essay would help me achieve higher scores.
By delving deep into the satirical and ironic aspects of the piece, I thought that I efficiently accomplished the task of analyzing the author's opinion of the gentlefolk. However, I did not realize all of the satirical purposes of the piece until I was about half way done writing due to my flawed method of essay writing. What I tend to do is start writing soon after I read it and do not read more than once. This way, I cannot understand the full meaning until I read it again later looking for quotes. This caused the first half of my essay to be stating slightly opposing ideas to the second. I made up for this by analyzing the satirical and ironic aspects more deepy later in the essay. This way, I was able to overpower the first half and keep my analysis more based on satire. Also, the devices I chose to use could have been more tailored towards satire and irony, but the time restriction limited me to the ones I had chosen earlier. Although my universal idea was accurate, my devices were not perfect and by no means refined. These are things that I plan on refining in my writing and hope to improve in the future.
Post a Comment