Module 3: You Do Together — Team Exploration With NotebookLM Inside PLC Practice
IN THIS LESSON
Teams will generate a Studio output aligned to their chosen task, then verify and revise as a group so they leave with one usable artifact and clear guardrails.
Key Expectation: Uploaded Sources Only
Confirm the notebook is grounded in uploaded sources only.
If a web option exists, do not use web search today.
Reminder: NotebookLM can be inaccurate—treat Studio outputs as drafts and double check against the text.
Step 0: Confirm Roles + Team Norm (2 minutes)
Because everyone has a device, roles keep the team aligned and verification non-personal.
Roles (rotate each meeting):
Driver (Process Lead): keeps everyone on the same step; generates the Studio output on cue
Source Checker: anchors claims in the uploaded text (“Where is that in the text?”)
Skeptic: flags overconfidence, gaps, missing nuance, or student-impact risks
Recorder: captures I Notice/I Wonder patterns, verification notes, team decision, next step, guardrail
Roles today:
Driver: ______________________
Source Checker: ______________________
Skeptic: ______________________
Recorder: ______________________
Team norm (read aloud): Outputs are drafts. We verify against the uploaded text before we use or share anything.
Step 1: Upload the instructional text (2–3 minutes)
Add one approved instructional text to the notebook’s Sources/Knowledge Bank. Use something you actually teach (public article, curriculum PDF, textbook excerpt, primary source, lab reading, dense passage).
Step 2: Choose and generate ONE Studio output (5–7 minutes)
Go to Studio and choose one output:
Audio Overview
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Studio output selected:
Generate it. The output will save in Studio.
Step 3: Individual “I Notice / I Wonder” (3 minutes)
Each person writes:
I Notice… accuracy, what it emphasized, what it missed, tone, clarity
I Wonder… instructional usefulness, risks, revisions, student impact
Step 4: Team discussion — Which Studio tools are useful for instruction? (10 minutes)
Round 1: Noticing (share 1 I Notice each)
Recorder captures patterns:
What seems accurate and supported by the text?
What seems unclear, missing, or overly confident?
Round 2: Wondering (share 1 I Wonder each)
Decide together:
How could this support instruction (prep, lesson delivery, student study supports)?
What student group might it help most?
Where could it mislead or oversimplify?
What would we revise before using it?
Team takeaway sentence:
“This Studio tool could help us with: _______________________________”
Step 5: Verification check (non-negotiable) (5–8 minutes)
Use the source text to confirm key claims:
Source Checker asks: “Where is that in the text?”
Skeptic flags anything that feels too confident or unsupported
If you can’t find it, mark it as needs verification
Verified strengths:
Needs revision/verification:
Step 6: Decide next step + guardrail (3–5 minutes)
Choose one: Use / Revise / Skip (circle one)
If Use: How will we use it this week to support instruction?
If Revise: What one change is required first?
If Skip: Why isn’t this the right Studio tool for this text/task?
One guardrail we will follow every time:
(Examples: “Uploaded sources only.” “Web off unless approved.” “Verify before sharing.” “Treat outputs as drafts.”)
Next PLC Loop: Whole-Staff Share-Out (Prep for Next Meeting)
At the next whole-staff meeting, each team will share a quick, honest summary to help the school decide what to do next with this tool.
Bring these three items:
Win: Where did NotebookLM help (save time, improve clarity, support students)?
Limit: Where was it inaccurate, unhelpful, or too confident? What needed heavy revision?
Next Step: What will the team try next time (same Studio tool, different Studio tool, different text, tighter guardrail)?
30-second share-out structure (optional):
“We used ____ (Studio output) with ____ (type of text).”
“It helped with ____.”
“The limit was ____.”
“Next, we’re going to try ____ and we’ll keep the guardrail ____.”
