Alessandra Aprea

Student Learning Analysis (SLA)

Fall 2018

Throughout this Student Learning Analysis, readers will find five sections that were used
to assess student growth in elaboration in opinion writing for a third-grade class. Sections one
and two deal with the description and alignment of the initial assessment to Michigan state
standards, section three is the analysis of the assessment, section four is the subsequent
instruction based on the analysis of the assessment and section five covers the final
assessment and measurement of student growth.
Ⅰ. The assessment is clearly aligned with specific learning goals and state/district
standards.
The state standard that was assessed was ccss.ELA-Literacy.W.3.1.B: Provide reasons
that support the opinion. I aligned my assessment to the state standard through a pre and mid
writing on-demand, which involved students forming an opinion writing speech in a time span of
forty minutes. This on-demand was given at the start of our opinion writing unit and after a
month or halfway through our unit. The on-demand were scored using a third-grade rubric for
opinion writing. The rubric measures elaboration. Elaboration is defined as naming reasons and
writing more about each one. The rubric measures students on a first through fourth-grade
opinion writing development scale. Students are given 1, 4, 6 or 8 points depending on where
their writing scores on the scale below. Students also have the option of receiving a half point if
they exhibit traits from two categories. For example, a students’ writing sample may show
characteristics of a grade one and some of the attributes of grade two; this student would score
a 3. The scale reads as follows:

Grade 1 (1 point) Grade 2 (4 points) Grade 3 (6 points) Grade 4 (8 points)

The writer wrote at The writer wrote at The writer not only The writer gave
least one reason for least two reasons named his/her reasons to support
his/her opinion. and wrote at least a reasons to support their opinion. They
few sentences about their opinion, but also chose the reasons to
each one. wrote more about convince their
each one. readers.
The writer included
examples and
information to support
their reasons,
perhaps from a text,
their knowledge, or
their life.

Ⅱ. The assessment produced information useful for conducting a substantive analysis of

student understanding.
The assessment used produced a precise data set for all of the students. Each pre and mid-on-
demand was scored using the scale provided in section one of this SLA, and scores were
documented on an opinion class profile chart. The class profile chart provided information on
the abilities of each, individual student and made it easy to group my students based on level.
These leveled groups turned into flexible, conferring groups that offered students elaboration
strategies and teacher feedback. The class profile chart reads as follows:

Ⅲ. Analysis of assessment data produced insights into student

thinking. Student feedback was informed by this analysis.
I grouped students into small, conferring groups based on the analyzation of the data set as well
as individual, student writing samples. The dataset and writing samples provided insight into
student background knowledge on elaboration and if they could apply that knowledge into their
writing. From the class profile chart in section two of this SLA, I formed my on, above and below
grade level conferring groups that would meet with me weekly. Additionally, I formed writing
partnerships among the students not based on level, but based on students whose personalities
would work well together; a student who would be a coach a student who needed to be
coached. Within the conferring groups, students were given a delta or a plus at the end of each
week after meeting one-on-one with me. If both the student and myself felt that they had applied
the conferring group strategy to their writing, they would receive a plus, however, if either of us
thought that the student should keep working on that strategy they would receive a delta. As you
can tell in the conferring group charts below, the feedback was given on a weekly basis, and the
groups were fluid; students would move in and out of groups based on elaboration strategies
that would progress them as a writer. The conferring group charts read as follows:
 Ⅳ. Subsequent
instruction is informed
by the analysis of
student thinking.
Each mini- lesson in the
Lucy Calkins writing
curriculum is given as an
invitation for every
student to try the opinion
writing strategy
taught. However, as
the conferring
group charts and student
writing samples
show, some students
were not

developmentally ready to use the mini-lesson strategy or were already accomplishing the
strategy in their writing, and all students needed more direct focus at their level of learning. To
target student learning in elaboration, I began my conferring groups with the skill of developing a
topic and thesis statement. Next, students who were ready to move forward came up with a plan
for their opinion writing. The strategy I used for my on and below grade level groups were to
form a box and bullets plan for their writing; this included students drawing a box around their
thesis statement, and bulleting at least two reasons to support their opinion. The box and bullets
strategy not only helps students organize their writing but offers them a tool to write more about
each of their reasons. For the students whose writing samples indicated that they could benefit
from a bump-up, I pulled those students into a small group and taught the chunking strategy that
would lead to paragraphing of their writing. These students read through their opinion writing
and grouped sections of their writing when they felt they changed ideas or were writing about a
different supporting reason. For students who were ready, the next conferring session was on
adding research to support and validate their reasons. Two groups of students were taught a
strategy that would aid them in citing research within their writing. These groups were shown
how to search on their iPad and in our classroom library for valid research that related to their
topic and were given a chart for their writing toolkit that showed them how to cite their research
within their writing. The next two groups were taught how to elaborate on their reasons through
mini-narratives. These students analyzed a mentor text that included a great example of a mini-
narrative, and as a group, we practiced writing a mini-narrative through shared writing. Finally,
my last group was comprised of students who were still developing a box and bullets plan for
their writing. These students needed extra support in planning their opinion writing, and students
were further supported through shared writing. Lastly, the next conferring session was focused
on addressing their audience. My high group worked in a strategy group for adding a
counterclaim that would strengthen and elaborate on their reasons. My next two groups
collaborated on addressing questions that their audience might have about their opinion. All
three of these groups were supported through shared writing and were given a tool for their
writing toolkit that outlined examples of counterclaims and including audience questions. My
fourth group of students continued their previous strategy of citing research. Moreover, my final
group required support in including mini-narratives that would support their reasons.
Ⅴ. Additional assessment information was produced to determine student growth.
As stated in the introduction of this SLA, in addition to the daily and weekly formative
assessments given through small-group conferring, two primary, formative assessments were
given, the pre and mid-on-demands. The pre and mid-on-demands provided information on
student growth in elaboration, throughout a months time-span. After assessing each, individual
students’ mid-on-demand, using the opinion writing development scale in section one of this
SLA, I documented student scores on the class profile chart. The class profile chart offers an
evident and concise way of measuring student growth, as it shows students pre-score and their
mid score next to each other. When analyzing the class profile chart, all of my students showed
growth in elaboration. For example, six students grew by half a grade level, ten students grew
one grade level, and one student grew two grade levels in the category of elaboration.

Class profile chart:

Student Writing Sample (Grew one grade level):

Scoring Guide (Blue is a pre score and orange is a mid score):

Pre On-Demand:
Mid On-Demand:

In conclusion,

The five sections outlined in this SLA provide readers with an example of how I impacted
student learning in the area of elaboration in opinion writing. Throughout this SLA, I present data
for my readers of how I affected student learning through continuous, formative assessments,
providing opportunities for constant feedback from both myself and their peers through small-
group conferring and writing partnerships, and through diagnostic strategy groups that were
tailored to student need through formative assessments. Students were not expected to all be
on grade level by the final assessment but were instead working towards even small
improvements that were realistic for their level of learning. As shown through writing samples
and the class profile, each student achieved this goal of improvement, and each improvement is
celebrated.