Professional learning · Coaches, Librarians, Leaders · 60 minutes
Four-Lens App Review
Teams vet three fictional classroom apps through four lenses (learning value, privacy, accessibility, AI transparency) and turn the verdict into a pilot a teacher can actually run.
Teachers forward coaches a steady stream of "Can we use this?" messages, and more of the tools now include AI features that write, grade, or talk to students. In this protocol, teams review fictional app profiles and policy excerpts through four lenses, cite the exact line behind every score, and practice reading vendor claims laterally rather than taking them at face value. The session ends with a decision and a pilot plan built around the 2026 ELE question: what student evidence will show the tool improved the learning?
In this packet
- Handout A: App Profiles: Three Fictional Tools (reading)
- Handout B: Four-Lens Rubric (rubric)
- Handout C: Recommendation and Pilot Plan (worksheet)
TCEA ELE indicators
- C2.2 I can evaluate the effectiveness of educational technology tools.
- AI2.3 I am aware of the importance of transparency and accountability in AI systems.
- C2.1 I know how to guide teachers in meaningful technology integration.
- T3.2 I can adapt my teaching methods to accommodate diverse learning needs.
Full facilitator guide: mglearn.github.io/eles/activities/four-lens-app-review.html
Handout A for Four-Lens App Review
App Profiles: Three Fictional Tools
All apps, companies, and quotes are fictional. Read your assigned profile. Quote the exact line behind every rubric score and star any claim you would verify elsewhere.
1QuizNova (grades 6–12), from Nova Learning Labs. Marketing page: "Paste any article, video link, or document and our proprietary AI builds a 20-question quiz in seconds. 100% accurate, curriculum-aligned questions. Teachers save hours every week!" Features: multiple-choice and short answer; automatic grading of short answers with AI-written feedback to students.
2QuizNova privacy excerpt: "Content uploaded by teachers and responses submitted by students may be used to improve our AI models. Districts may request an opt-out by contacting support. We retain student responses for as long as the account is active." Accessibility page: "QuizNova works with most screen readers." No information on how the AI grades short answers or how teachers can review AI feedback before students see it.
3StoryBloom (grades K–2), from Bloomfield Kids Inc. Marketing page: "An AI reading buddy that listens to your child read aloud and responds in a friendly voice! Builds fluency and confidence. Student Privacy Certified." Features: children read stories aloud; the app records their voice and an AI character gives spoken encouragement and corrections.
4StoryBloom terms excerpt: "StoryBloom is not intended for children under 13 without verified consent from a parent or school. Voice recordings are stored to improve speech recognition and may be reviewed by our quality team." Accessibility: all stories include audio and text highlighting; no information on support for students who use speech devices or who speak languages other than English at home. The "Student Privacy Certified" badge does not link anywhere.
5PeerLoop (grades 6–12 and Higher Ed), from Loopwise Education. Marketing page: "Students give each other feedback on drafts using structured sentence stems. Optional AI Assist suggests a kinder or more specific way to phrase a comment. Teachers see every comment and every AI suggestion." Features: teacher-built rubrics; students must accept, edit, or reject AI Assist suggestions, and the history is saved.
6PeerLoop privacy excerpt: "We do not use student content to train AI models. AI Assist is provided by a third-party model provider under a contract that prohibits retention of student data. Districts can turn AI Assist off. Data is deleted within 60 days of contract end." Accessibility: "Tested with keyboard-only navigation and major screen readers; captions on all videos. Our most recent accessibility conformance report is available on request."
7What every profile leaves out. None of the three vendors offers evidence about student learning beyond their own marketing. Your pilot plan will have to generate that evidence.
Handout B for Four-Lens App Review
Four-Lens Rubric
Score one app per sheet. Quote the line behind every score. If the profile is silent, score Beginning and add a question for the vendor.
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning value | No clear link to a learning goal; the selling point is speed, novelty, or fun. | Supports a learning goal but mostly automates tasks students or teachers already do. | Makes student thinking more visible than the current practice does (drafts, reasoning, revision). | Makes student thinking visible and gives the teacher evidence to act on that paper could not easily produce. |
| Privacy and data | Student data or content may be used to train AI or shared; retention is open-ended; no age or consent terms fit the grade level. | Some limits exist but depend on the district asking (opt-out) rather than defaults. | Student data is not used for training by default; retention and deletion are stated; district can turn features off. | All of Proficient plus a signed district data privacy agreement and independent verification of any certification claims. |
| Accessibility and inclusion | No accessibility information, or only "works with most" claims. | Some features (audio, captions) but gaps for specific learners are unaddressed. | Keyboard and screen reader tested; captions; multilingual or alternative-input support stated. | All of Proficient plus a current conformance report and a way to report barriers that the vendor responds to. |
| AI transparency | AI features grade, respond to, or talk with students with no explanation and no teacher review. | The AI is disclosed but its limits and the teacher's control are unclear. | Teachers can see and override AI output before students rely on it; AI use is labeled for students. | All of Proficient plus students must accept, edit, or reject AI suggestions, leaving a visible record of their judgment. |
Handout C for Four-Lens App Review
Recommendation and Pilot Plan
Choose one app. Write the recommendation a teacher and a principal could both act on.
App and decision (circle one): Approve · Pilot with conditions · Decline. One-sentence reason:
The two quoted lines that most shaped our decision:
Claims we still need to verify, and how we will verify each (who we'll ask, what we'll search, what sample we'll request):
Conditions for a pilot (settings, opt-outs, consent, accessibility checks):
The student evidence that would show this tool improved learning compared with current practice:
Our reply to the teacher's email, in three sentences or fewer: