View as Webpage

This month's columns include:

• Insider Perspectives from the GPT Development Institute
• Listening to Learn (podcast)
• Episode 4: Grading Doesn't Teach Students How to Improve
• Series: The Learning Process Methodology
• Step 13: Self-Assessment
• News from the Self-Growth Community
• Assessing the Guide Role in the Growth Cycle
• Self-Growth Tip: Choosing Your Battles Wisely
• Keeping an Eye on Higher Education
• Free Webinar Series from The Chronicle
• Trump and Higher Ed: Understanding the Latest

Insider Perspectives from Three Participants

At the Institute, three members of the University of Indianapolis community participated in the fully online experience. They were: Julie Gahimer, Christine Kroll, and Josh Morrison. This is their account of their experience.

The “A.I. Era” has certainly arrived!



With the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT a few years ago, to innovations from Google (Gemini), Claude (Anthropic), Deepseek, Perplexity, and many others, access to generative artificial intelligence services is nearly ubiquitous and almost unavoidable.

The power of these systems is quite high and undeniable. Even so, their usefulness to humans and humanity remains an open question. For the group that attended Pacific Crest’s Generative AI Development Institute on October 12-14, the question of usefulness has been well answered. Yes, GPTs are indeed powerful, useful, and are increasingly becoming essential tools to accelerate progress in learning, organizational development, and in many other areas.

During the first day, participants were guided through a process to assess the functions and behaviors of existing Pacific Crest custom GPTs. These GPTs have been developed using very robust design practices, ensuring that they behave within their guidelines and reference appropriate resources. They served as strong models for future development on days two and three.

On the second day, participants began hands-on design work, following a set methodology to carefully determine the purpose, functions, and subfunctions of a custom GPT. This included developing explicit External Information Files, Knowledge Files, Capability Files, and a new file type - the Persona File. Each of these file types includes set protocols, functions, and formatting to make the GPT act as a highly capable partner in solving problems in its intended area. By the end of day two, each of us had a working prototype GPT, or more than one, that was created using the Pacific Crest methodology.

On our last day together, participants revised and trained their GPTs, ensuring fidelity to the External Information File and other files, to make the performance of their tools even more impactful. We utilized a two-person team-based approach both on Monday and Tuesday, resulting in enhanced GPTs that leveraged the ideas and feedback from our teammate.

During the Institute, Josh focused on developing Google Gems through Gemini, Google’s AI system. He created a GPT for nonprofit organization strategy called The Strategist, a GPT to assist in academic literature reviews entitled the Lit Review Pro, and developed the Program Assessment Guide, a tool to assist academic programs in improving student outcomes and organizational performance. A key learning for Josh was the crucial role of a clear purpose and set of well-defined and discrete functions. Throughout the Institute, the value of determining a fairly narrow purpose [use case] for the GPT was reinforced regularly. Clarity on the functions needed and the processes the GPT will follow are both essential to designing a high-quality GPT.

Christine chose to develop a coach to assist the occupational therapy doctoral students throughout their capstone courses and during the experiential placement. The result is a custom GPT called Capstone Planning Coach that will provide coaching, prompt critical thinking, and offer problem-solving guidance during this self-directed placement and project. Through the institute, Christine realized that this could also be easily used to assist any student or discipline working on a capstone. The intent is not to replace mentors; rather, it is to provide in-the-moment coaching for the student. 

Julie embarked on designing the “Quality of Life (QoL) Coach” GPT. It is a holistic wellness coach enhanced by quality-of-life research and evidence-based insights. It is intended for first-year students in the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) Program at the Krannert School of Physical Therapy enrolled in a Health Promotion course. It will support students in achieving comprehensive well-being through structured coaching sessions, visual tools, reflective inquiry, and an expanded set of evidence-based interventions. The QoL Coach emphasizes the balance between personal satisfaction and measurable wellness outcomes. It acknowledges how social determinants, environmental design, autonomy, and meaning interact to shape life quality. The coach uses these insights to help students 1) develop a personalized “QoL Index” based on subjective ratings and objective habits, 2) explore their alignment between values, lifestyle, and satisfaction, and 3) devise interventions that support “flourishing”, just not functioning—focusing on meaning, connectedness, and vitality. During the institute, she learned from other participants: best practices, insights, challenges, and plans for future development. Peer feedback and facilitator personal coaching were the highlights of the 3-day experience.

All UIndy participants are grateful for the opportunity to participate in this first instance of the AI GPT Development Institute. We benefit from the University’s Google partnership, which allows us access to NotebookLM, as well as Google Gemini. NotebookLM is a GPT allowing users to create custom notebooks that develop study aids such as podcasts, mind maps, and others, while Google Gemini is a GPT service similar to ChatGPT.

Listen on...

This episode kicks off with the amusing revelation that Pablo Picasso, in his later years, sometimes required supervision in galleries because he had been caught trying to "touch up his own paintings"—a perfect, if eccentric, example of the "constant human drive we have to make things better". This impulse to refine, even our best work, serves as the springboard for a deep dive into the crucial distinction between evaluation and assessment. We explore why relying solely on evaluation, which delivers a judgment or grade right at the end and often lacks the necessary roadmap, risks getting students stuck in a cycle of repeated attempts hoping for a different outcome. Crucially aimed at educators trained primarily as evaluators, the episode details the shift required to adopt the assessment mindset, which involves focusing only on the performance characteristics—not the person—and valuing the assessee’s goals first. We define the MEA (measurement, evaluation, assessment) framework and then tackle the "final frontier" for self-improvement: self-assessment, arguing that it is exponentially harder because we instinctively evaluate ourselves rather than objectively assessing the work. Tune in to learn why the ultimate goal is consciously becoming your own mentor, not your own judge, complete with a structured roadmap for setting genuinely important criteria (like sophistication of argument, rather than just word count) and developing both short-term and long-term action plans for sustainable growth.

Based on Faculty Guidebook modules focused on Evaluation and Assessment, as well as Learn to Learn for Success. Created with the help of Notebook LM.

The Faculty Guidebook module Learning Process Methodology notes that this step is most essentially about the “Self-Assessment of Growth” and involves documenting improvements in “knowing you know” (FGB 2.3.8).

The authors share the observation that Transfer/Application (Step 11) and Problem Solving (Step 12) both involve challenges that demonstrate this kind of growth. This means that in order for a learner to accurately assess their performance in learning, they need to look most closely at the result of that learning: transferring/applying what they learned and using what they’ve learned to solve problems. Being able to do those two things indicates successful learning (and successful application of the Learning Process Methodology).

In Self-Validation of One’s Learning (FGB 3.3.5), Rick Armstrong tells us that,

Too often, there is a large gap between what students think they know or understand and what they have actually learned. Self-validation is a multi-faceted skill set that allows students to change their mindset from “thinking they know” to “knowing they know.” By cultivating and using an array of validation skills, students will legitimately “own” their learning.

The validation skills that Armstrong shares include the kinds of application of learning we’ve already covered in Steps 11 and 12, but adds Teach others as in intriguing additional method of validating learning.

While this is not explicitly part of the LPM, it probably should be! Certainly, we all know that the best way to learn something is to be in the situation of needing to teach it to someone else. As educators and learning activity designers, we need to keep this method of validating learning in mind and, when possible, task students (and ourselves!) with teaching as a way to “know we know” or "show we know".

Coming at this step from a slightly different direction, while Watts defines it similarly to the definition above (Assessing use of the learning process and mastery of the material learned), they continue, focusing on earlier steps in the LPM:

“Having finished the learning performance, the mastery of the learning objectives and fulfilling of the performance criteria can be assessed. Self-Assessment has the learner give themselves feedback on the performance with a growth mindset, i.e., the intention of improving future performances. This should be done in the form of a positive attitude that avoids harsh self-judgement.“ (from The Learning Process Methodology: A Universal Model of the Learning Process and Activity Design)

This answers the question, then, of what criteria to use when performing an assessment of learning. While application and problem solving are the best examples of that learning in practice (and thus the best performance demonstrating that learning), the assessment should be conducted according to whether/how the learner met the learning objectives (Step 4) and to what degree their performance in applying their learning by solving problems meets the performance criteria (Step 5).

That’s it!

The optimal self-assessment of learning is to assess the use of application and problem solving (Steps 11 & 12) of what was (hopefully) learned (Step 4), according to a set of pre-determined criteria (Step 5).

What’s most critical is that all these pieces/steps are in alignment.

Identifying learning objectives (the goal for learning: Step 4) that end up being very different from what we ultimately learn is a bit like booking a trip to Paris, France, but ending up in Paris, Texas. Both may be nice places, but we didn’t reach our intended destination. For teachers and activity designers, that’s a major uh-oh. The same goes for the performance criteria we set for what we would learn…if the performance that best demonstrates that learning occurred differs much from what we end up doing in applying or using that learning to solve problems, we’ve left the map we initially created.

You can argue that what you ended up learning was still worthwhile, but the point is that the learning objectives and/or performance criteria are no longer available to guide assessment of learning. If the point of a self-assessment of learning is to IMPROVE learning, the improvement is only possible if the assessment is valid.

Think of it this way:

A self-assessment without criteria or a clear performance
is basically just a certificate of participation.

You did something but its value to your growth is questionable.

As Armstrong puts it,

“Students need to be encouraged to self-assess their performance and identify ways they can improve. Self-assessment should be done in a meaningful and interesting way, consistent with the learning objectives and success criteria.”

And on that note of encouraging students with respect to self-assessment, we find the criteria for including self-assessment as a part of any learning activity in the Activity Design Institute Handbook. It recommends that when we task students with assessing their learning, we ensure that:

1. The assessment we ask them to perform is timely (in relation to what they’re currently doing and the information they currently have)
   
2. There is the opportunity for improvement as a result of the assessment (there’s no point in assessing a one-off performance!)
   
3. The assessment is properly scoped (think Goldilocks: it shouldn’t be too narrow or too broad)
   
4. It is aligned with the performance criteria we should have already shared with them and
   
5. The assessment itself is sequenced appropriately as part of a larger context that is devoted to development.

Assessing the Guide Role in the Growth Cycle

Participants explored whether and how internal growth processes could be measured meaningfully—especially when driven by reflection, values, and intentionality.

A centerpiece of the discussion was an early draft of the Guide Role Tool, which aimed to assess confidence in enacting meta-behaviors— situational mindsets and responses that shape how we reflect, interpret, and grow from experience. Participants examined the clarity of tool items, their relevance to real growth situations, and their potential to inspire deeper self-assessment. Feedback emphasized the need for greater personal relevance, clearer developmental language, and a rating system better aligned with reflection rather than static self-confidence.

Based on the session’s feedback, Cy’s team created a second-generation version of the tool. This version broadened the tool from 10 to 12 distinct meta-behaviors, each framed not just as a cognitive skill but as a lived mindset shift. To make the tool more usable in real-life coaching and reflection, each meta-behavior now includes:

• A short, relatable name (e.g., “Notice What’s Happening,” “Tune into Feelings”)
• A clear definition of what the behavior means
• An explanation of why it matters in a growth context
• A “From → To” developmental shift that describes how the behavior evolves with use
• A revised meta-behavior statement capturing its deeper purpose in self-growth

This version also reflects a shift from generic self-assessment toward situation-based reflection. Users are asked to identify a specific growth challenge and rate each meta-behavior based on both its relevance to the situation and its potential impact on success. This dual-rating system helps uncover blind spots and guides more personalized growth planning.

Here are the first 3 meta-behaviors expanded:

1. Noticing What’s Happening



What It Means Pay attention to your thoughts, emotions, and environment without judging or avoiding them.

Why It Matters Builds self-awareness and helps you catch small cues that can grow into insights or patterns.

From → To From overlooking inner signals → to noticing patterns that reveal meaning and inform growth.

Meta-Behavior You stay present and observant, noticing thoughts, feelings, and shifts without judgment—tuning into signals that guide growth before they escalate into problems.

2. Reading the Situation



What It Means Recognize how context—people, place, timing, roles—shapes what’s happening and what’s possible.

Why It Matters Enables you to act with greater wisdom by aligning with what the moment calls for.

From → To From reacting the same way everywhere → to adapting thoughtfully to the unique demands of each situation.

Meta-Behavior You attune to the moment—reading dynamics, timing, and roles—to respond in ways that fit and elevate the context you’re in.

3. Tuning Into Feelings



What It Means Notice emotional and energetic signals—your own and others’—as valuable sources of information.

Why It Matters Emotions reveal needs, tensions, and truths that logic alone can’t access.

From → To From ignoring or misreading emotions → to using emotional cues to guide wiser action.

Meta-Behavior You sense the emotional tone within and around you, letting feelings inform understanding, connection, and right timing for your next move.

The remaining 9 meta-behaviors of the Guide are:

4. See Other Views

5. Look Back for Clues

6. Spot the Insight

7. Listen to Your Inner Voices

8. Be Real with Yourself

9. Write Your Story

10. Be Kind to Yourself

11. Trust Yourself

12. Name the Gap

This updated tool will be field-tested in November coaching sessions and is intended to lay groundwork for similar tools for the other four roles.

Community members interested in piloting the tool or offering feedback are invited to reach out to Cy’s research team.

Every conflict, disagreement, or "battle" in life, whether at work, with family, or with a stranger, comes at a price. We can easily spend significant resources and strain others’ goodwill and our relationships. Before diving in, we need to stop and ask ourselves: Is the potential win truly worth the cost?

Because sometimes, even a "win" can be a devastating loss: a pyrrhic victory. That’s when winning costs so much that might as well be defeat.

In our personal lives, a pyrrhic victory might look like "winning" an argument by tearing down a relationship, or achieving a short-term goal by completely sacrificing our peace of mind or health.

For a battle to be worthwhile, the "return" must be so overwhelmingly positive that it justifies all the resulting fallout and energy expended. Many interpersonal battles don't meet this standard—too often, there are no real winners.

Greater peace (and self-growth) come by choosing to move on and let the issue go. This is especially important when the problem is someone else's behavior. We truly cannot control others and trying to force them to change is a recipe for frustration (ours and theirs) with a side order of wasted energy.

Better to engage in issues of real significance: our growth, values, health, and most vital relationships.

There are many stories and trends that we're keeping an eye on. We're happy to share these, along with links to learn more.

Recent college graduates in the U.S. are having a tougher time finding jobs than usual

The unemployment rate for U.S. degree-holders ages 22–27 reached 5.8% in March 2025, which is higher than the overall unemployment rate and the highest in more than a decade excluding pandemic years. Entry-level job postings (and internships) for new grads are down significantly — for example, postings on the platform Handshake were down ~15% between July 2024 and April 2025 compared to the prior year. 

“New U.S. college graduates enter a ‘freezing’ labour market” (Financial Times) — a detailed look at hiring declines for new grads.  https://www.ft.com/content/87a393a2-0b5d-4a20-bee5-7f9484dbd870

Many institutions are seeing public skepticism about whether college degrees justify the cost. If potential students question the value of higher education, enrollment drops, which further exacerbates financial strain. It becomes a feedback loop: declining enrollment → fewer revenues → cuts or closures → weaker programs → less appeal.

Colleges are fighting to prove their return on investment (AP) https://apnews.com/article/college-degree-cost-tuition-return-on-investment-31a538551062e4632c6d76a999e9c87e

Federal Influence & Academic Freedom 

The White House introduced a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” which would tie federal funding for universities to compliance with certain policies around DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), gender rules, and international student oversight.

In exchange for funding, schools would have to report more data and potentially adjust campus policies to meet new federal standards.

Brown University, Harvard, Stanford, and several state systems have declined to sign or have publicly criticized the compact. They argue it threatens academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and free inquiry by letting the federal government dictate campus policy and research priorities.

• Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_for_Academic_Excellence_in_Higher_Education
  
• White House urges colleges to sign compact aligned with Trump's agenda (NPR Morning Edition) https://www.npr.org/2025/10/03/nx-s1-5560954/white-house-urges-colleges-to-sign-compact-aligned-with-trumps-agenda

American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Statement on the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

In April, leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies called for constructive engagement with government in response to unprecedented overreach and political interference in higher education—expressing openness to constructive reform and acceptance of legitimate government oversight, while also affirming the core principles, shared values, and established legal framework on which the American system of higher education rests.



Regrettably, the administration has continued to seek ways to impose its own ideologically driven vision for higher education through unilateral executive action and the coercive use of public funding. On October 1, it invited a first cohort of university leaders to sign a “compact” that would commit their institutions to the vigorous pursuit of the administration’s priorities. The compact is, in effect, an ultimatum: sign and receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” or retain the freedom to “develop models and values other than those” of the administration, and “forgo federal funding.”

This is not constructive engagement.

Continue reading… https://www.aacu.org/newsroom/aac-u-statement-on-the-trump-administrations-compact-for-academic-excellence-in-higher-education

Stanford Daily: From the Community | We must refuse the ‘Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education’

The Trump administration’s new “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is a trap.

Presented last week to a group of nine universities that doesn’t yet include Stanford, the compact proposes a list of policy changes the administration hopes universities will agree to in exchange for preferential access to federal grants. Several of the proposed reforms respond to legitimate concerns about higher education and identify real challenges that elite universities have faced in recent years. As White House advisor May Mailman put it, “Our hope is that a lot of schools see that this is highly reasonable.”

However, if you are debating whether the Trump administration’s proposed changes to university policies are reasonable or not, you are missing the point entirely. The compact is a thinly veiled invitation for universities to relinquish their self-governance and replace it with federal oversight, a threat concealed in a Trojan Horse of concerns about rising tuition costs, equality and diversity of ideas. Its effects, should the compact be adopted, will not be limited to implementing an enumerated set of reforms. Whatever your view on the merits of the proposals contained in the document, the compact will not be applied in good faith and will instead be enforced selectively to coerce university action on other core matters. 

Continue reading… https://stanforddaily.com/2025/10/12/from-the-community-we-must-refuse-the-compact-for-academic-excellence-in-higher-education/

FREE WEBINAR SERIES from
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Trump and Higher Ed: Understanding the Latest

Colleges nationwide are navigating an unpredictable landscape as the fall semester kicks into gear. Our free webinar series breaks down how the Trump administration is trying to reshape higher education, and what shifting federal policies mean for institutions today.

Sign up for free today and you’ll automatically be registered for all fall sessions, taking place once a month in October, November, and December. (The September session has already been held.)

Sarah Brown, The Chronicle’s news editor, and Rick Seltzer, author of the subscriber-only Daily Briefing newsletter, will tackle the most pressing issues in higher-ed policy, helping you stay informed and prepared for what’s ahead.

• Session 3: November 20 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT
• Session 4: December 15 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT

Don’t worry if you can’t attend live: Registrants will receive reminders before each session and on-demand access to the recordings afterward.