I designed the Evaluator General for government - and there you have the resources and the challenge I was trying to meet was bureaucrats' compulsion to 'spin'. They mostly go through the motions. This is problematic for all bureaucracies, but particularly public ones, because politicians have no choice other than to pretend they know what they're doing — including when they don't. Why do they have no choice? Because there are always competitors (adversaries in opposing parties and enemies in their own) waiting in the wings ready to pretend to know what they're doing.
For self-assessment, I think the problem is different. One doesn't want to stress separation between doing and being held to account for it — rather the reverse. One wants to show how doing is amateurish without a self-accountability loop. Suppose you really do want to learn and progress, rather than muck about and entertain yourself #NTTAWWT. In that case, you need to proceed purposefully pursuing progress — in which case self-evaluation is pretty indispensable.
Here's a quick exchange between me and ChatGPT to conclude my point.
"Me: how do online courses frame evaluation and self-evaluation in a way that doesn't sound too officious. As a mechanism of entangling one's learning with the discipline of really learning rather that poking around.
It: Online courses can frame evaluation and self-evaluation in a way that feels organic rather than officious by emphasizing engagement, reflection, and growth rather than rigid assessment. The key is to integrate evaluation as a natural part of the learning process rather than as a bureaucratic checkpoint. Here are some approaches:
1. Framing Evaluation as a Conversation
• Instead of a formal “assessment,” courses can use language like “Check your understanding,” “Reflect on what you’ve learned,” or “How does this fit into your thinking?”
• Peer discussion and feedback loops help make evaluation feel participatory rather than imposed.
2. Tying Self-Evaluation to Mastery, Not Just Completion
• Encourage learners to ask: “Do I really understand this, or did I just go through the motions?”
• Use techniques like the Feynman method (explain the concept simply to someone else) as a form of self-checking.
3. Using Reflection Instead of Grading-Heavy Language
• Rather than “Submit your self-evaluation,” a course might say “What surprised you in this module?” or “What still feels unclear?”
• Self-evaluation can be framed as “How would you explain this to your past self?” rather than filling out a checklist.
4. Building Learning Habits Through Micro-Evaluations
• Quick, low-stakes self-checks embedded in content (e.g., “Pause and try this on your own before continuing”).
• Encouraging active recall: “Without looking, write down three key takeaways before moving on.”
5. Framing Learning as a Process of Deepening, Not Skimming
• Online courses should acknowledge the risk of poking around without really engaging. This can be countered with questions like:
• “Where did you struggle, and what does that tell you about what you need next?”
• “What connections can you make between this and something you already know?”
6. Encouraging Iteration Over One-Time Assessment
• Acknowledge that real learning often requires revisiting and refining understanding. For example:
• “How would you answer this question differently now than you would have a week ago?”
• “Go back to your notes from the start of this module—what do you see differently now?”
By framing evaluation as a habit of mind rather than a hoop to jump through, online courses can foster real learning—entangling the learner with the discipline rather than letting them skim along the surface."
Thank you for this - I like some of the framing, especially in points 1 and 3.
The idea of “mastery” is an interesting one and directly speaks to your comments about bureaucracies. If people feel they can truly say they’ve “mastered” something (Socratic objections about knowing nothing notwithstanding), then they can make a claim to competence without deceit.
However, many tests in schools are as much about concealing ignorance as they are displaying knowledge. If you consider your typical multiple-choice test, for example, learners will usually employ some method of reducing the probability of being wrong by eliminating distractors, but then go and make a series of what amounts to guesses. Even when given a composition exercise, test takers usually have a couple options for what question to tackle, and the essays themselves will reflect the strength of their knowledge and argumentation in certain areas. Idealistically, this displays a learner’s agency and showcases practical knowledge. But on the flip side, it also allows learners to hide what they don’t know very well.
I don’t actually think this is all that bad, necessarily. The relationship between teacher and learner is mostly cooperative, but there’s a competitive element as well — one that in my opinion motivates learning.
I designed the Evaluator General for government - and there you have the resources and the challenge I was trying to meet was bureaucrats' compulsion to 'spin'. They mostly go through the motions. This is problematic for all bureaucracies, but particularly public ones, because politicians have no choice other than to pretend they know what they're doing — including when they don't. Why do they have no choice? Because there are always competitors (adversaries in opposing parties and enemies in their own) waiting in the wings ready to pretend to know what they're doing.
For self-assessment, I think the problem is different. One doesn't want to stress separation between doing and being held to account for it — rather the reverse. One wants to show how doing is amateurish without a self-accountability loop. Suppose you really do want to learn and progress, rather than muck about and entertain yourself #NTTAWWT. In that case, you need to proceed purposefully pursuing progress — in which case self-evaluation is pretty indispensable.
Here's a quick exchange between me and ChatGPT to conclude my point.
"Me: how do online courses frame evaluation and self-evaluation in a way that doesn't sound too officious. As a mechanism of entangling one's learning with the discipline of really learning rather that poking around.
It: Online courses can frame evaluation and self-evaluation in a way that feels organic rather than officious by emphasizing engagement, reflection, and growth rather than rigid assessment. The key is to integrate evaluation as a natural part of the learning process rather than as a bureaucratic checkpoint. Here are some approaches:
1. Framing Evaluation as a Conversation
• Instead of a formal “assessment,” courses can use language like “Check your understanding,” “Reflect on what you’ve learned,” or “How does this fit into your thinking?”
• Peer discussion and feedback loops help make evaluation feel participatory rather than imposed.
2. Tying Self-Evaluation to Mastery, Not Just Completion
• Encourage learners to ask: “Do I really understand this, or did I just go through the motions?”
• Use techniques like the Feynman method (explain the concept simply to someone else) as a form of self-checking.
3. Using Reflection Instead of Grading-Heavy Language
• Rather than “Submit your self-evaluation,” a course might say “What surprised you in this module?” or “What still feels unclear?”
• Self-evaluation can be framed as “How would you explain this to your past self?” rather than filling out a checklist.
4. Building Learning Habits Through Micro-Evaluations
• Quick, low-stakes self-checks embedded in content (e.g., “Pause and try this on your own before continuing”).
• Encouraging active recall: “Without looking, write down three key takeaways before moving on.”
5. Framing Learning as a Process of Deepening, Not Skimming
• Online courses should acknowledge the risk of poking around without really engaging. This can be countered with questions like:
• “Where did you struggle, and what does that tell you about what you need next?”
• “What connections can you make between this and something you already know?”
6. Encouraging Iteration Over One-Time Assessment
• Acknowledge that real learning often requires revisiting and refining understanding. For example:
• “How would you answer this question differently now than you would have a week ago?”
• “Go back to your notes from the start of this module—what do you see differently now?”
By framing evaluation as a habit of mind rather than a hoop to jump through, online courses can foster real learning—entangling the learner with the discipline rather than letting them skim along the surface."
Thank you for this - I like some of the framing, especially in points 1 and 3.
The idea of “mastery” is an interesting one and directly speaks to your comments about bureaucracies. If people feel they can truly say they’ve “mastered” something (Socratic objections about knowing nothing notwithstanding), then they can make a claim to competence without deceit.
However, many tests in schools are as much about concealing ignorance as they are displaying knowledge. If you consider your typical multiple-choice test, for example, learners will usually employ some method of reducing the probability of being wrong by eliminating distractors, but then go and make a series of what amounts to guesses. Even when given a composition exercise, test takers usually have a couple options for what question to tackle, and the essays themselves will reflect the strength of their knowledge and argumentation in certain areas. Idealistically, this displays a learner’s agency and showcases practical knowledge. But on the flip side, it also allows learners to hide what they don’t know very well.
I don’t actually think this is all that bad, necessarily. The relationship between teacher and learner is mostly cooperative, but there’s a competitive element as well — one that in my opinion motivates learning.