Professional learning · Leaders, Coaches · 90 minutes
Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Leaders sort walkthrough notes, practice on three classroom vignettes, and rebuild their technology observation tool so it captures evidence of learning instead of counting devices.
Many walkthrough forms still ask "Are students using technology?" and a yes feels like success. The updated ELEs say plainly that technology use by itself is not evidence of learning. In this session, leaders sort real-sounding walkthrough notes into evidence of learning versus evidence of device use, calibrate on three classroom vignettes (including one with generative AI), and revise a starter observation rubric so it asks what students are thinking, verifying, and deciding. They leave with a tool they can pilot in next week's walkthroughs.
In this packet
- Handout A: Walkthrough Notes Sort (card sort)
- Handout B: Three Classroom Vignettes (reading)
- Handout C: Starter Look-For Rubric (rubric)
- Facilitator key (last page)
TCEA ELE indicators
- L2.1 I know how to support and evaluate effective technology integration practices.
- L2.3 I am aware of research-based approaches to technology-enhanced pedagogy and their applications.
- AI3.2 I can evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced learning interventions.
- AI4.1 I know how to promote critical thinking skills in relation to AI-generated information.
Full facilitator guide: mglearn.github.io/eles/activities/look-fors-for-learning.html
Handout A for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Walkthrough Notes Sort
Each strip is a note a leader wrote during a five-minute visit. Sort it. For any "Needs more context" strip, write the question you'd ask a student.
Evidence of learning
Evidence of device use only
Needs more context
Handout A for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Walkthrough Notes Sort: cards to sort
Cut apart the strips. Sort each one onto the mat and be ready to explain why.
Sheet 1 of 2
All students logged in and working on the platform within two minutes.
A student explained why she rejected two of the AI chatbot's three suggested research questions: "One wasn't testable and one we already know the answer to."
Students are using an AI chatbot during writing time.
Teacher used the interactive display for the entire lesson.
Two students disagreed about a source's reliability and each pointed to who published it and whether other sources confirmed it.
100% of students completed the online quiz; class average 84%.
A student's revision history showed she rewrote her claim after peer feedback and noted why.
Students watching a video with headphones.
Students made slideshows about the water cycle with animations and sound effects.
Students used a digital annotation tool to mark claims and evidence; one flagged a statistic with no source.
Every student had a device open.
In a no-device lesson, small groups sorted cards and justified each placement to the teacher.
Handout A for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Walkthrough Notes Sort: cards to sort
Cut apart the strips. Sort each one onto the mat and be ready to explain why.
Sheet 2 of 2
Students used an AI-generated study guide.
A student using speech-to-text dictated his lab conclusion and then edited it for accuracy.
Handout B for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Three Classroom Vignettes
These classrooms are fictional. Score each with the Starter Look-For Rubric and write the evidence beside each score.
1Vignette A · 8th Grade Science, Ms. Okada. Students are designing an investigation on what affects how fast ice melts. Ms. Okada projects a district-approved AI chatbot and asks it for ten investigation questions. She hands each team a printout of the list. Teams must choose one, reject at least two with a reason, and check whether their chosen question is testable with the materials available.
2When you visit, one team is arguing about whether "Does salt melt ice faster than sugar?" is fair because the amounts aren't specified. Another student says, "The AI said colored ice melts faster in sunlight, but it didn't say why, so we're testing it." On the board: "Reject list: what we didn't pick and why." A student who recently arrived from Brazil is working with a partner, using a bilingual glossary card.
3Vignette B · 4th Grade Reading, Mr. Hollis. No devices are in use. Students are in pairs with two short printed articles about whether the town should build a skate park, one from the town newspaper and one from a skate shop's flyer. Each pair fills in a T-chart: "What does it claim? Who made it? What do they want?"
4When you ask a student which article she trusts more, she says, "The newspaper, because the flyer is trying to sell skateboards, so of course they want the park." Her partner adds, "But the newspaper only talked to two people." Mr. Hollis circulates, asking "How do you know?" After ten minutes, pairs share one sentence each with the class.
5Vignette C · 6th Grade Math, Ms. Grant. Every student has a tablet. Students work through an adaptive practice program on fractions that awards badges and points. The dashboard on Ms. Grant's screen shows green, yellow, and red dots for each student. Ms. Grant is at her desk updating the grade book.
6When you ask a student what he's learning, he says, "Fractions. I'm on level 12." When you ask him to explain why 3/4 is bigger than 2/3, he says, "I don't know, I just click until it's right, and then it gives me the next one." Two students in the back have headphones in and are on the same screen they were on when you arrived.
Handout C for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Starter Look-For Rubric
A starting point for revision, not a finished tool. Each criterion should be scorable only by seeing or hearing student work or talk, with or without devices.
| Criterion | Not yet seen | Emerging | Evident | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the task | Students can't say what they're learning, only what they're doing or which tool they're using. | Some students can name the learning goal when asked. | Most students can name the learning goal and how the task helps them reach it. | Students explain the goal and why they chose a tool, format, or approach (including no tool) to reach it. |
| Student thinking made visible | Work shows answers only; no reasoning is visible or audible. | Some reasoning is visible, mostly prompted by the teacher. | Students explain or show reasoning in talk, writing, annotation, or revision. | Students revise their thinking and can say what changed it. |
| Verification of information and AI output | Information or AI output is accepted as given. | Students check some information when prompted. | Students question sources or AI output and check claims against other sources. | Students name how they verified, what they rejected or corrected, and why. |
| Ownership and choice | All students follow the same steps with no decisions to make. | Students make minor choices (order, format). | Students make meaningful decisions about approach, sources, or product. | Students set goals, choose approaches, and reflect on whether their choices worked. |
| Access and inclusion | Some students cannot participate fully (language, accessibility, device, or connection barriers are visible). | Supports exist but not all students who need them are using them. | Supports (language, accessibility, alternatives) are in use and students participate fully. | Students use supports independently and the task offers more than one way to show learning. |
Facilitator only for Look-Fors That Look for Learning
Answer key and notes
Handout A: Walkthrough Notes Sort
| Item | Sort | Why |
|---|---|---|
| All students logged in and working on the platform within two minutes. | Evidence of device use only | Efficient routines matter, but logging in says nothing about learning. |
| A student explained why she rejected two of the AI chatbot's three suggested research questions: "One wasn't testable and one we already know the answer to." | Evidence of learning | The student evaluates AI output with a clear criterion. |
| Students are using an AI chatbot during writing time. | Needs more context | Ask: "What did you ask it, and what did you do with what it said?" |
| Teacher used the interactive display for the entire lesson. | Evidence of device use only | Describes the teacher's tool, not student thinking. |
| Two students disagreed about a source's reliability and each pointed to who published it and whether other sources confirmed it. | Evidence of learning | Lateral reading and evidence-based reasoning are visible in student talk. |
| 100% of students completed the online quiz; class average 84%. | Needs more context | Ask: "What was the quiz measuring, and what will the teacher do with the results?" |
| A student's revision history showed she rewrote her claim after peer feedback and noted why. | Evidence of learning | Revision with a reason is strong evidence; the tool made it visible. |
| Students watching a video with headphones. | Needs more context | Ask: "What are you listening for, and what will you do with it?" |
| Students made slideshows about the water cycle with animations and sound effects. | Needs more context | Ask a student to explain one step of the cycle without the slides. Product polish isn't understanding. |
| Students used a digital annotation tool to mark claims and evidence; one flagged a statistic with no source. | Evidence of learning | Annotation makes source evaluation visible. |
| Every student had a device open. | Evidence of device use only | Presence of devices is not evidence of anything. |
| In a no-device lesson, small groups sorted cards and justified each placement to the teacher. | Evidence of learning | Learning evidence doesn't require technology. |
| Students used an AI-generated study guide. | Needs more context | Ask: "Did you check anything in it? Was anything wrong?" |
| A student using speech-to-text dictated his lab conclusion and then edited it for accuracy. | Evidence of learning | Assistive technology gives access, and the editing shows his thinking. |