Publish at August 27 2025 Updated August 28 2025
Co-constructing is not just a technical gesture. It means shifting the center of gravity of the power to judge, reconfiguring classroom dynamics and questioning the very purpose of assessment - to sanction, certify, develop. Learner participation means clarifying expectations, clarifying values and assuming the political dimension of academic judgment. It also highlights the implicit didactic contract that governs every learning situation.
This article explores the educational sciences, critical sociology, social-cognitive psychology and philosophy in order to understand :
Without providing recipes, the aim is to shed light on the tensions and potential of a practice that is still marginal but rich in emancipation.
Objective-based teaching, promoted in the 1960s, makes the grid an instrument of legibility.(1) By breaking down knowledge into criteria and levels of mastery, teachers aim for greater coherence between objectives, activities and assessments.(2) This approach responds to a logic of curricular alignment: everything must fit together, from the reference framework to feedback.
However, rationalization does not equate to absolute objectivity. While the grid provides descriptive transparency, it is nonetheless based on interpretative choices - which criteria should be retained? What weight should be given to them? This interpretative dimension is a reminder that the technical tool is never neutral; it encodes a specific vision of competence and progress.
Beyond its practical function, the grid is a cultural vector. The criteria entered reflect a tacit hierarchy of values: certain types of language are deemed more "professional", certain references more legitimate. As Bourdieu has shown, these hierarchies perpetuate cultural arbitrariness under the guise of merit(3).
This symbolic dimension sheds light on the mechanisms of social reproduction. By privileging the dominant habitus, the grid can exclude or invisibilize alternative forms of knowledge or expression. Co-constructing criteria therefore means opening up a space for negotiation on what is considered valid, and potentially redistributing symbolic capital.
Foucault (1975) situates evaluation at the heart of the micro-physics of power: classifying, comparing, standardizing.(4)(5) By assigning each person a place on the performance scale, the grid internalizes the norm. The numerical and documented nature of the tool lends the judgment an "objective" legitimacy, masking its prescriptive dimension.
This objectification produces a disciplinary effect: students internalize expectations in order to conform. Co-construction disrupts this mechanism by making the standardization process visible; it transforms power over learners into power with them, provided that the negotiation is real and not cosmetic.
Chevallard reminds us that all school knowledge is the result of a transposition from scholarly knowledge to taught knowledge.(6) The grid crystallizes this transposition: it defines what will be considered proof of learning. Modifying the grid means redefining the very nature of legitimate knowledge and, consequently, the didactic contract that governs the pedagogical relationship.
By inviting learners to participate, the teacher opens up a space for reflection on the legitimacy of content and forms of evidence. This reflexivity can reinforce the meaning of learning and reduce the gap between institutional and experiential knowledge, as long as disciplinary requirements are not diluted.
The pedagogies of Dewey, Freinet or Makarenko affirmed the need for effective learner participation as early as the XXᵉ century. Paulo Freire extends this tradition by conceptualizing "conscientization": knowledge is co-created in dialogue and action. Co-constructing an evaluation grid is thus part of an emancipatory project in which the student becomes the subject of his or her own training(7).
This critical perspective calls into question the verticality of the traditional school. By sharing in the elaboration of criteria, teachers relinquish a share of their symbolic power in favor of dialogical learning. It's not just a question of motivating students, but of recognizing the legitimacy of their experience and representations in the definition of "doing well".
Vygotski and Bruner emphasize the role of language as a mediator of development:(8) Elaborating a grid means creating a quality metalanguage; discussing action verbs and performance levels means equipping reflective thinking and placing assessment in the zone of proximal development.
Co-construction thus acts as an inverted scaffolding device: instead of top-down support, we jointly build the conceptual scaffolding that will enable self-regulation. Learners acquire the ability to self-diagnose, a key skill in competency-based approaches and lifelong learning.
Social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2003) indicates that a sense of self-efficacy predicts perseverance in the face of difficulty.(9) Self-determination theory adds that autonomy, competence and belonging feed intrinsic motivation.(10) Co-constructing criteria reinforces perceived autonomy: students understand not only what is expected, but why and how it was decided.
By making the standard explicit and allowing it to be discussed, evaluative ambiguity, a source of anxiety, is reduced. Clarity of expectations, combined with the possibility of recognizing oneself in the criteria, fosters a climate of psychological security conducive to cognitive risk-taking.
Axel Honneth identifies recognition as an essential condition for the development of identity.(11) When a student is invited to judge the quality of a piece of work, the institution attributes epistemic dignity to him or her. They no longer passively receive the standard; they participate in its formulation, which consolidates their sense of belonging and social integration.
This dimension of recognition enhances distributive justice with relational justice. Even if requirements remain high, the opportunity to participate in defining them reinforces the perception of fairness, a crucial factor in the acceptance of judgments.
However, as Taylor reminds us, there are also cases of "false participation", where decisions have already been taken(12). Co-construction can become an alibi if the scope of negotiation is too restricted, or if students' proposals are systematically rejected.
To avoid this pitfall, the process must include a moment of explicit framing: setting out what is negotiable (formulation of indicators, weighting, examples of proof) and what is not (national objectives, minimum regulatory thresholds). Confidence is built on this clarity, not on the illusory promise of total freedom.
Within prescribed curricula, teachers cannot modify the final objectives set by national examinations or professional frames of reference. On the other hand, a number of areas remain open to discussion: the hierarchy of criteria, the formulation of indicators, the descriptive scale of levels or the choice of traces to be produced.
Explicitly clarifying this boundary protects against double talk and avoids disappointment. Learners know where their margin for action lies, and can invest their energy in genuine negotiation, rather than contesting an intangible framework.
Allocating time to co-construction seems, at first glance, to impinge on the program. However, there is obviously a return on investment: fewer challenges, faster corrections and more targeted feedback. What's more, the session itself is a time for learning: working on metalanguage, critical thinking and cooperation.
This initial temporality can be optimized by asynchronous digital tools: brainstorming on Padlet, brainstorming on Framapad, then collective synthesis in class. The key is to ritualize this moment right from the start, when the rules are being put in place.
Crozier & Friedberg describe the organization as a concrete system of action, criss-crossed by power games.(13) In a highly hierarchical school culture, co-construction can be seen as a challenge to authority. Conversely, schools promoting distributed leadership offer a favorable breeding ground: institutional trust legitimizes experimentation.(14)
Explicit support from management and coherent discourse (school project, training plan) are key to the sustainability of the practice. Without a cultural anchor, co-construction remains an isolated act, dependent on the goodwill of a pioneering teacher.
Collaborative platforms facilitate the collective drafting of descriptors. They leave traces, enable asynchronous feedback and historicize versions. However, as Poyet & Genevois show, technology is only a support tool; without a dialogical posture, it risks reinforcing asymmetry (the teacher retains moderation, deleting contributions)(15).
Proper use requires sharing editing rights, explaining netiquette rules and setting up a transparent validation system. The platform thus becomes a space for community self-regulation, rather than simply a controlled repository.
Romainville's research shows the resilience of teachers' beliefs about assessment. Many teachers still regard the grade as an "objective" measure, and the grid as a guarantee of neutrality. Accompanying co-construction therefore implies working on representations, via action research, analysis of practices and confrontation with evidence-based data.
Effective training programs combine theoretical input, analysis of real-life examples (existing grids, student productions) and guided experimentation. The teacher discovers that it is possible to guarantee validity while sharing the development of criteria.
Allal contrasts two paradigms: summative assessment sanctions at the end of the course, while formative assessment regulates ongoing learning.(16) Co-construction is resolutely in line with this second logic, as it transforms the grid into a tool for ongoing dialogue rather than a final verdict.
This does not mean that certification has been abandoned. On the contrary: by clarifying the criteria and involving the learners, we reinforce the reliability of the summative judgment. The final mark is based on a shared, understood and accepted frame of reference, thus reducing disputes and subjective bias.
The competency-based approach requires the assessment of situated performances, integrating knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills. Criteria necessarily become qualitative ("relevance of argument", "mobilization of resources").(17)(18) Co-elaborating these criteria helps students to grasp the complexity of the competent act.
This approach fosters dialogical thinking: everyone must justify, illustrate and contextualize the indicators. We move from a checklist grid to a ribbon of mobilizable evidence, closer to authentic professional situations.
Roegiers promotes transparency as a condition for appropriation.(19) But when a grid becomes too detailed (dozens of indicators, micro-levels), we slide towards bureaucratization: the teacher ticks boxes, the student collects points, meaning is diluted.
Co-construction can avoid this pitfall by prioritizing criteria: "What really makes the difference between acceptable and excellent work? By prioritizing relevance over quantity, we maintain readability without sacrificing depth.
Sen proposes that justice should be judged not by the equality of resources, but by the ability to act.(20) A co-constructed grid increases cognitive ability: students know how to interpret their results and identify areas for improvement. This reinforces procedural justice, even if not everyone achieves the same score.
Crahay qualifies, however: fairness may require compensatory mechanisms (21), such as weighting certain criteria to reward progress, or adapting expected proofs according to student profiles. Co-construction provides a forum for discussing these adjustments, without paternalism or levelling.
Brousseau reminds us that too much negotiation can dissolve the didactic contract.(22) If everything is negotiable, nothing is stable; the student loses the reference points necessary for progress. The teacher remains the guarantor of validity (alignment with objectives) and fidelity (consistency of judgments between different markers).
From this perspective, co-construction functions as co-regulation: the teacher makes things explicit, negotiates margins, but retains responsibility for scientific and professional alignment. The balance is found in a dialectic between openness and rigor.
Co-constructing an evaluation grid is not a pedagogical gimmick. It's a founding conversation that reconfigures the pedagogical triangle: knowledge, power, value. It reveals the tensions at work in schools, between training and selection, autonomy and control, transparency and standardization.
Against a backdrop of flooding learning data and artificial intelligence modeling, the co-constructed grid offers a common basket of interpretation. It restores human deliberation to its rightful place; it requires players to explain, justify and assume responsibility for their choices.
More than a method, it sketches out an evaluative ecology in which assessment becomes the common thread of shared learning, rather than the last stage of sorting. The back-to-school period, when rules are established, is an ideal time to start this process. When everything has yet to be written, why not write it together?
Illustration: AI-generated - Flavien Albarras
References
1- Fabre, Michel. 2014. "Jean Houssaye, La pédagogie traditionnelle. A history of pedagogy. Followed by "Petite histoire des savoirs sur l'éducation"". Recherches en éducation, no. 19 (June). https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.8409
2- Scallon Gérard. 2004. L'évaluation des apprentissages dans une approche par compétences. Pédagogies en développement. De Boeck.
3- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Les Éditions de minuit.
4- "Michel Foucault - Une microphysique du pouvoir". n. d. Accessed August 20, 2025. https://www.scienceshumaines.com/michel-foucault-une-microphysique-du-pouvoir_fr_30360.html
5- Foucault, Michel. 1993. Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison. Gallimard.
6- Chevallard, Yves. 2025. "Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique: perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique". Recherches en didactique des mathématiques 38 (1): 1 15.
7- Freire, Paulo. 1980. Pedagogy of the Oppressed; followed by Conscientization and Revolution. François Maspero.
8- Vygotski, Lev Semenovitch, Jean Piaget, Françoise Sève, Yves Préfacier Clot, and Lucien Préfacier Sève. 2013. Thought and language. La Dispute.
9- Bandura, Albert, Jacques Lecomte, and Philippe Préfacier Carré. 2007. Auto-efficacité: le sentiment d'efficacité personnelle. De Boeck.
10- Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior". Psychological Inquiry 11 (4): 227 68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
11- Honneth, Axel, and Pierre Rusch. 2013. The Struggle for Recognition. Gallimard.
12- Taylor, Charles. 2003. Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press.
13- Crozier, Michel, and Erhard Friedberg. 2011. The actor and the system: constraints on collective action. Éditions Points.
14- Spillane, James P. 2006. Distributed leadership. Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
15- Genevois, Sylvain. 2014. "Poyet, F. (2015). Technologies numériques et formation: freins et leviers". Recherche et formation, no. 77 (December): 77. https://doi.org/10.4000/rechercheformation.2362.
16- Allal, Linda, Lucie Mottier Lopez, Rencontres REF, and Réseau international de recherche en éducation et formation. 2007. Régulation des apprentissages en situation scolaire et en formation. De Boeck.
17- Le Boterf, Guy. 1994. De la compétence: essai sur un attracteur étrange. Les Éditions d'Organisation.
18- Tardif, Jacques. 2006. L'évaluation des compétences: documenter le parcours de développement. Edited by Gilles Fortier and Clémence Préfontaine. Chenelière éducation.
19- Roegiers, Xavier, and Jean-Marie De Ketele. 2001. Une pédagogie de l'intégration: compétences et intégration des acquis dans l'enseignement. De Boeck université.
20- Sen, Amartya. 2001. Development as freedom. Oxford university press.
21- Crahay, Marcel. 2003. Peut-on lutter contre l'échec scolaire / Marcel Crahay. Pédagogies en développement. De Boeck Université.
22- Brousseau, Guy. 2025. "Fondements et méthodes de la didactique des mathématiques - Revue RDM. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques 38 (1): 1 15.
You might also like:
No more distractions in the classroom - Clay Shirky gets his chalk on.
It is not so much that the Internet and the computer are at fault, these tools can be wonderful aids to learning, but rather that commercial systems and services are designed to distract and hog attention first and foremost at all times. Those who want to study and focus are fighting back in a world increasingly hostile to that goal. In the classroom, they will win.
Towards a high level of relational quality in facilitation
High relational quality is probably the point that differentiates somewhat mechanical facilitation from facilitation that sticks as closely as possible to the energies/needs/desires/imaginings/potentials of a group.
Nature, the common link that teaches us
Nature as a source of learning and psychological benefits, an inspiration to renew pedagogical models
So many futures to be nurtured in schools and beyond! How can we ensure that this happens for the happiness of the greatest number of students? From uncertainty to possibilities, let's head for the school of sharing with multiple boxes.
The concept of wu wei applied to professional training
There is an alternative to learning by objective: learning without intention
