Teachers as Private Investigators – Eliciting Evidence of Learning

Marie Henderson — Instructional Technology Specialist, Hays USD 489
- $21^{st}$ year in education (began as HS/CC mathematics teacher)
- $10$ years in current role
- Passion: Adult Learning Theory
- Personal snapshot: married $24$ years (June), two “adult-adjacent” children (ages $19$ and $20$ ), two dogs, active church musician/leader

Theme of the session: “Teachers as Private Investigators – Eliciting Evidence of Learning.”
Analogy: Detectives collect clues → Teachers collect evidence of student learning.
Goal: Move from simply delivering instruction (“I taught it”) to verifying understanding (“they learned it”).

Classic classroom scenario:
1. Teacher asks, “Any questions?”
2. Students respond, “No.”
3. One minute later confusion erupts.
Highlights unreliability of passive checks (e.g., “Any questions?”).
Necessitates proactive, deliberate evidence gathering.

Think of a past lesson that left you uncertain about student learning.
Jot the clues you used (or could have used) to detect understanding:
- Verbal cues, body language, work samples, peer explanations, etc.

Traditional terms:
- “Show What You Know”
- “Checks for Understanding”
- “Formative Assessment”
New framing offered: Evidence of Learning lens.

Core idea: pair intentional success criteria (research-validated, effect size $0.88$ ) with student ownership.
Students must be able to answer: “How will I know I learned it?”
Shifts emphasis: Teaching → Learning.

LEARNING INTENTION (LI):
- “What am I learning and why am I learning it?”
- States desired knowledge/skill + purpose/relevance.
SUCCESS CRITERIA (SC):
- “How will I know I learned it?”
- Observable, measurable indicators; co-constructed or at least co-understood.
- Example from the session:
- LI: “Today I am learning about eliciting evidence of learning…”
- SC: “I can identify strategies…” & “I can plan tasks…”

When both teacher and students answer all three → Teacher Clarity is achieved.

“Work”
- Compliance-oriented, graded for completion.
- Often disconnected from LI/SC.
“Learning Products”
- Designed evidence aligned to LI/SC.
- Show transfer, depth, reasoning.
Activity: Venn Diagram with sticky colors (Pink = Work, Blue = Learning Products, Green = Both) to surface characteristic overlap.

Quote: “Tasks must be designed, not just assigned.”
- Compliance vs Evidence
- Completion vs Effectiveness
Designed tasks explicitly map to LI/SC and include structures for self-assessment.

LI: Writing & telling a coherent story.
SC: Identify relevant details, sequence logically, explain relationship to effectiveness.
Task 1: List details → choose organizer (sticky notes, graphic organizer, Canva timeline).
Task 2: Peer share + feedback via rubric.
Alignment Strengths: Student-created organizers provide visible thinking; rubric clarifies SC; peer feedback = immediate evidence.
Potential Tweaks: Require self-reflection checklist; audio record for fluency evidence.

LI: Explain Ancient Greek influence on modern society.
SC: Identify Greek beliefs/practices; connect to current region.
Task 1: Iconic list.
Task 2: Papier-mâché Grecian urn painted with icons + personal element.
Detective Notes:
- Possible Red Herring (time-heavy crafting).
- Does painting icons demonstrate causal connection or merely representation?
- Need reflection paragraph or gallery walk critique to surface conceptual links.

LI: Physical characteristics & settlements in Kansas.
SC: Explain influence of characteristics; label map accurately; justify each settlement.
Task 1: Label map (physical and settlement data).
Task 2: Slideshow/infographic with map images + explanations.
Strengths: Visual evidence; student choice fosters ownership.
Watch-outs: Must ensure justification quality > slide aesthetics.

LI: Add mixed numbers with like denominators.
SC: Replace mixed numbers with equivalent fractions; apply properties of addition.
Task 1: Group work on first $12$ problems.
Task 2: Independent completion of worksheet.
Issue: Tasks mirror textbook exercises; evidence limited to correct numeric answers.
Investigator Tips:
- Add strategy-based exit ticket (explain conversion process).
- Incorporate error analysis to expose misconceptions.
- Example worked solution: $2\frac{1}{4}+1\frac{3}{4} = \frac{9}{4}+\frac{7}{4}=\frac{16}{4}=4$

Jennifer Gonzalez flags activities that devour time yet add little academic value:
- Excessive coloring/crafting
- Over-focus on aesthetics / “pretty posters”
- Low-level puzzles (e.g., word searches)
Guiding question: “Does it consume far more student time than is reasonable relative to academic impact?”

Show that the learning target was met (observable evidence).
Possess qualities students themselves can observe (self-assessment).
Prepared by instruction — prerequisite knowledge & modeling supplied.
Offer escapes from misunderstanding & opportunities to accelerate (feedback cycles, choice, scaffolding).

Jason Kennedy Planning Template (influenced by John Almarode’s “Success Criteria Playbook”).
AI-generated rubrics: accelerate creation, allow nuance.
AI-generated exemplars & non-examples: clarify SC, support self-checking.

Shifting cognitive load to students fosters agency, metacognition, and ownership.
Transparent criteria reduce test anxiety and inequities.
Detective mindset combats habitual “busy work,” protecting instructional minutes.

Adults (teachers) learn best when content is relevant, problem-centered, and self-directed — mirrored in the investigative workshop structure.
Hattie’s effect size $0.88$ for success criteria underscores high impact on learning outcomes.