EdTech Evaluation & Implementation

Proof required

Submit your EdTech evaluation report (minimum 500 words): named framework, five or more criteria with evidence, and summary judgement on whether this tool improves learning outcomes.

What gets checked

• Evaluation uses a named recognised framework — not personal criteria
• Five or more criteria assessed with specific evidence from the tool itself
• Summary judgement addresses learning impact — not only usability or cost

Common mistakes

• Evaluation criteria are personal rather than from a recognised framework
• Evidence is from marketing materials rather than direct tool use or published research
• Summary judgement addresses usability or features without addressing learning impact

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• If the EdTech evaluation involved access to a school or institution, confirm appropriate data handling permissions were in place
• If the EdTech pilot involved direct contact with minors, confirm enhanced DBS/background check clearance was documented as a prerequisite
• Verify evaluation uses a named recognised framework — ask student to name it
• Check evidence is from direct tool use or published research — not marketing materials
• Ask student: what evidence would convince you this tool improves learning outcomes rather than just engagement?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your EdTech implementation plan (minimum 600 words): learning objectives, integration approach, teacher training, impact assessment methodology, risk assessment including data privacy and accessibility.

What gets checked

• Plan is specific to a named context — not a generic 'any school' plan
• Impact assessment methodology is specific — how will you know if it worked?
• Risk assessment addresses data privacy and accessibility — not only cost

Common mistakes

• Plan is generic — not specific to the named educational context
• Impact assessment methodology is absent or vague
• Risk assessment omits data privacy — GDPR and student data protection must be addressed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• If the implementation plan involves student data, verify GDPR and data protection requirements are addressed
• If the pilot involved direct contact with minors, confirm enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented
• Check impact assessment methodology is specific — ask student how they would know if the tool worked
• Verify accessibility is addressed in the risk assessment
• Ask student: what is the most significant risk in this implementation and how does your plan mitigate it?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer with professional role, specific challenges — minimum half page), (2) revision notes (minimum 300 words addressing at least two challenges).

What gets checked

• Review record documents specific challenges to methodology, evidence, or risk assessment
• Revision notes address at least two specific challenges with updated thinking
• Reviewer has named professional credentials in educational technology or curriculum

Common mistakes

• Review focused on presentation quality rather than methodology or evidence
• Revision notes address only surface comments — not substantive challenges
• Reviewer was a peer student rather than an education professional

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm reviewer has named professional credentials in education or EdTech — not a peer student
• Verify review challenged methodology or evidence — not just presentation quality
• Check revision notes address at least two substantive challenges
• Ask student: which challenge in the review most changed your implementation plan and why?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.