The PICRAT lesson-observation rubric.

Most observations of technology lessons go wrong in a recognisable way. The observer walks in, sees iPads on every desk, ticks "tech is being used", writes "students used Nearpod" in the comments box, and walks out. Call that what it is: edtech-spotting. The placement is left to vibes, and the placement is divorced from the only question that actually matters: what was the lesson trying to do, and did the technology help it get there?

The form below is built to fix that. It forces the observer to start with the learning intent. It guards against rewarding Creative Transform reflexively or punishing Passive Replace by default. It closes on an agreed action. Those moves are the difference between a rubric and a walkthrough scaffold.

What the scaffold does differently

It is organised around the learning intent. Section 0, the foundation, asks one question: what was the lesson trying to achieve? Everything that follows is tested against that answer.

The front side is the observation. Filled in during the lesson, sat at the back of the room. Place the dominant use of technology on the PICRAT grid, mark it with an X, capture the evidence (what students did, what the technology added or removed). The observer leaves with a placement and a description, holding judgement until the debrief.

The back side is the conversation. Filled in afterwards, ideally with the teacher in the debrief. Was the placement deliberate, did it serve the intent, what is the most useful next step, what is the one open and curious question to bring back. The form ends in a final move that few observation tools insist on: an agreed action. One small adjustment, trial, or reflection point, agreed with the teacher in the room.

That eighth beat is what turns professional curiosity into professional improvement.

The eight beats

Each beat does one thing, and the order matters.

The word dominant in beat 1 is doing real work. A fifty-minute lesson may include several technology moments, but the observer is looking at the one that drives the lesson, not auditing every click.

Beat 2 is where the best coaching conversations start. A teacher who chose deliberately can defend the choice. A teacher who drifted into a placement may not have realised what they were doing.

Beat 3, the evidence, is the protective beat. Without it, the placement is just a label. Two prompts, real lines to write on, force the observer past they used iPads and into the value claim.

Beat 7, the agreed action, is the most important addition. Ending on a commitment, however small, turns observation into improvement.

The PICRAT definitions, sharpened

The six definitions on the form are not the original Kimmons et al wording. They have been sharpened for observation, after a fair amount of practical use. Two phrases are doing protective work that the original definitions did not.

Without show thinking, Creative becomes "they made a thing": a Canva poster of copied facts qualifies as Creative under loose phrasing. With it, that lesson sits in Passive or Interactive, where it belongs. Without the four named lenses on Amplify, the category becomes "the lesson looked better with tech": a catch-all that hides shallow use. With four lenses, the observer has to pick one.

The hyphen in non-digital matters too. A digital textbook replacing a paper textbook is Replace. A digital simulation replacing a paper textbook may be Amplify or Transform. The hyphen pins the comparison.

The two traps to watch for

Both traps come from the same place: the assumption that there is a "good" cell. There isn't.

The first trap is rewarding Creative Transform. Observers' instincts pull toward CT lessons because they look like the high end of the grid. CT is harder to plan, harder to manage, and goes wrong more often. Most weeks, in most subjects, CT is the wrong cell. Marking a teacher down for not aiming there is an instruction to teach worse lessons.

The second trap is punishing Passive Replace. PR is the most common cell in real classrooms because direct instruction with technology as a substitute for paper is often the right pedagogy. The question worth asking is "did you choose to be in PR?" If yes, that is a defensible lesson. If no, that is the start of a useful conversation.

Place the lesson before you judge the lesson.

How to use it without crushing the teacher

How you use the form matters more than the form itself. Four moments make the difference between a useful walkthrough and a damaging one.

What to do tomorrow

If you have an observation in your diary this week, download the rubric and take it in. Brief the teacher beforehand. Sit at the back. Fill it in during the lesson. Walk out with one open, curious question. End the debrief on an agreed action, however small.

If you want to see how a lesson sits without observing it live, drop the lesson plan into Review: it classifies the lesson against PICRAT, surfaces the strengths, flags the weaknesses, and suggests one practical next step. For the debrief itself, Coach walks the conversation with the teacher, asking focused questions and helping them move from instinctive choices to intentional ones.

Andy Perryer is the head of digital learning at a group of international schools and the creator of PICRAT Suite. The PICRAT framework was developed by Royce Kimmons, Charles Graham and Richard West in their 2020 paper in the CITE Journal. This scaffold is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence: share, adapt, print, embed, with attribution to picrat.com.