Track learners' research process with Search Progress
When you want to build evaluation habits into a graded assignment, Search Progress brings Search Coach into Assignments (available in Teams for Education and the Microsoft 365 LTI) and adds structured checkpoints that emphasize process over product in the student workflow.
What does "process over product" mean?
A polished final product doesn't always reflect the thinking behind it. Search Progress makes that thinking visible—asking learners to document their searches, explain why they chose certain sources, and reflect on their process. The goal isn't to slow students down for its own sake; it's to make sure the learning happens along the way.
Think of it like "show your work" in math. Instead of just grading the final paper or presentation, you can see:
- What did they search for?
- Which sources did they consider—and which did they pass over?
- Why did they choose the sources they used?
- How did they verify what they found?
This creates a kind of metacognitive gym—a space where students practice thinking about their thinking. (Metacognition just means being aware of your own thought process: noticing what strategies you're using, what's working, and what you might do differently.)
To extend the analogy: every time a student explains why they saved a source, it's like doing a rep with a dumbbell—they're pausing, reflecting, building that metacognitive muscle. When they check source reputation, that's a different exercise—like a cable machine. Cross-checking claims against other sources? That's the leg press. Considering factual importance and source purpose? More equipment in the gym. You can choose which exercises to assign based on your goals, and students build different thinking muscles with each one.
By requiring learners to articulate their choices, Search Progress helps them build habits they can take to any research task.
It also creates new opportunities for recognition. Students who want to demonstrate the depth of their thinking now have a way to do so—and get credit for the effort behind their work. This is especially valuable for learners who ask great questions and think deeply but struggle with writing or presenting: they can finally show you the quality of their reasoning, not just their final product. And for you as an educator, that visibility is diagnostic—you can see that it's the product they need help with, not the process.
Link to accessible PDF for “What's the difference between Search Coach and Search Progress?”
Assignment settings: your control center
When you attach Search Progress to an assignment, you're essentially choosing which parts of the inquiry process learners complete for this specific project. The setup page lets you customize everything—including editing the prompts students see—so the experience matches your goals and your students.
Not sure where to start? The defaults give you a balanced baseline:
- Minimum sources- ensures learners look beyond the first result
- Explanation- students justify why they saved each source
- Citations- captures source details for proper attribution
- Source reputation- students investigate who's behind a source
- Reflection- students think about their overall process
From there, you can tune the assignment: adjust how many sources students must collect, choose which inquiry steps to require, and tailor the prompts to fit your learning goals.
Try it (5 minutes): Create a new assignment using the default settings, then preview the student experience. Identify one prompt you might customize to match your subject area (for example: history, science, or ELA).
How the settings are organized
Search Progress settings are grouped into four categories that mirror the stages of thoughtful research:
Gather - Help learners collect what they need
| Setting | What it does |
|---|---|
| Minimum sources | Sets how many sources learners must save. This encourages exploring multiple results and perspectives instead of stopping at the first thing that looks useful. |
| Citations | Requires learners to record source details—author, title, publication date, site name. This builds the habit of tracking "who said what and when" as they work, and the information is auto-formatted in APA7 style at the end. |
Evaluate - Help learners verify and compare
| Setting | What it does |
|---|---|
| Source reputation | Learners investigate who created the source: What organization is behind it? What do other sources say about that author or organization? This moves evaluation beyond "what the site says about itself." |
| Cross check | Learners find additional sources and compare what they say about the same topic or claim. This is lateral reading built directly into the workflow—looking for where sources agree, disagree, or add missing context. |
Consider - Help learners reflect and articulate choices
| Setting | What it does |
|---|---|
| Explanation | Learners explain why they saved each source at the moment they save it. This builds in a checkpoint for justification right when the decision is fresh. |
| Reflection | At the end, learners reflect on their overall process: What strategies worked? What would they do differently? What did they learn? This metacognitive step helps strategies transfer to future work. |
Reason - Help learners think critically about stakes and intent
| Setting | What it does |
|---|---|
| Factual importance | Prompts learners to consider consequences: "What if this information is wrong? What's at stake?" This calibrates rigor to risk—a casual blog post about movie trivia doesn't need the same scrutiny as health advice. |
| Source purpose | Learners identify what the source is trying to do—inform, persuade, sell, or entertain—and whether the apparent purpose matches the actual content. |
Sample configurations
Here's how you might configure Search Progress for different types of assignments. These are starting points—adjust the prompts and settings to fit your students and goals.
Persuasive essay (building arguments with evidence)
Goal: Help students find strong, credible evidence and recognize how source selection shapes their argument.
| Setting | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Minimum sources | 5+ (encourage breadth and multiple viewpoints) |
| Explanation | "How does this source support your argument—or what counter-argument does it provide?" |
| Reflection | "Did your opinion on the topic change as you researched? Which source challenged your thinking most?" |
| Factual importance | "If this evidence turns out to be wrong, does your whole argument fall apart?" |
"My local hero" presentation (elementary/middle school)
Goal: Keep it accessible for younger learners—a few sources, one key takeaway per source, and a simple reflection.
| Setting | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Minimum sources | 3 |
| Explanation | "What is one important fact you learned from this source?" |
| Reflection | "Write a paragraph explaining what you learned about your hero and why they matter." |
Science pre-lab (accuracy matters)
Goal: Ensure students understand methodology and safety before they start the experiment. The stakes are real here—incorrect information could mean a failed experiment or a safety hazard.
| Setting | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Minimum sources | 2-3 (quality and authority over quantity) |
| Explanation | "Does this source help you understand the safety risks, the procedure, or the science behind it?" |
| Reflection | "Do you feel fully prepared to conduct this experiment safely? What's still unclear?" |
| Source reputation | "Is this from a reputable scientific organization or safety body? How can you tell?" |
| Factual importance | "Could following incorrect information here cause a safety hazard or a failed experiment?" |
Media literacy lesson (the process is the product)
Goal: Make the research and evaluation process itself the learning artifact. Students practice multiple evaluation moves and capture their reasoning throughout.
| Setting | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Minimum sources | 2-3 (depth over quantity) |
| Explanation | Enabled (default or customize) |
| Source reputation | Enabled |
| Factual importance | Enabled |
| Source purpose | Enabled |
| Cross check | Educator choice (based on time and lesson focus) |
| Citations | Educator choice (based on grade level) |
This configuration works well when you want students to practice the skills without the pressure of a traditional research paper.
Pro tip: The "sandwich" approach
For assignments like persuasive essays or presentations, try a two-part "sandwich" that captures thinking before and communication after the final product. For example:
"My local hero" project (elementary/middle school)
- Assignment 1: Search Progress + research notes: students collect 2-3 sources about their local hero and organize key facts in an attached Word document
- Assignment 2: Speaker Progress + slide deck + presentation: students build a short PowerPoint deck and practice presenting what they learned using Speaker Progress
This sequence keeps the research process visible, then builds confidence in communicating the learning.
The assignment summary page
After learners complete their research, you can review each student's assignment summary page. This is where the "process over product" philosophy really pays off—you see not just what they submitted, but how they got there.
Top-level metrics at a glance
- Searches- how many searches they conducted
- Saved sources- how many sources they chose to save
- Links opened- every result they selected, not just what they saved
Rest of the page—searches, saved sources, scaffolded thinking
- A search-by-search timeline of their process
- The exact queries that led to each saved source
- All their responses to the scaffolds you enabled—explanations, reputation checks, and more
This information helps you provide targeted, meaningful feedback. You can recognize strong thinking ("I love how you cross-checked this claim with a primary source!"), coach specific skills ("Next time, try narrowing your search with the date filter"), or return the assignment for revision with clear guidance.
Compare to class
Each of the top-level metrics includes a "Compare to class" link. Select it to see how this student's patterns compare to the class median and spot trends across:
- Saved sources: See a ranked list of what the whole class saved. If 10 students all saved Wikipedia but only one found a primary source, that's a conversation starter.
- Links opened: See which sources students actually selected. If many learners opened the same three results, but nobody saved them, there could be something interesting to discuss there.
- Unique finds: See when one student found something nobody else did. That might signal curiosity worth celebrating—or an interesting rabbit hole worth discussing.
You can also spot patterns that would otherwise be invisible. For example, you might notice that a source was ranked 6th on the results page—meaning a student scrolled past the first several results before finding something valuable. That hints at deeper engagement than classmates who only selected the top result. Or you might see that a student saved sources they never even opened—a sign they might be rushing through.
As with any assignment, you can provide feedback and grade the assignment, or provide feedback and return the assignment to a learner for refinement.