Tip: Thinking About Specs Grading

Specifications grading offers the potential for simplifying assigning of grades, ideally leaving more time for providing feedback.

Two weeks ago I started this mini-series by thinking about how to articulate a philosophy of grading, followed last week by a post on ungrading. Today we are swinging in the other direction with a discussion of specifications grading. A bit over two years ago, I shared some resources on specifications grading and described how I was implementing a specs “lite” approach.

Tip: Specs Grading

Because my earlier post goes fairly in-depth into the “how to” of specs grading, with multiple real-life examples, I won’t replicate that now. Instead, I want to explore why someone might choose specs grading versus traditional grading or the ungrading approach I explored last week.

Philosophically, specifications grading relies on clearly defined expectations (specifications), with pass-fail grading of assignments with no partial credit given, and offering multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery of learning outcomes. It offers the potential for simplifying the assigning grades part of evaluating, leaving more time, ideally, for providing feedback. I think two benefits to adopting specs grading are in the system of built-in rewards that provide accountability for students, and how the focus on mastery encourages students to have a growth mindset.

Image by Wokandapix from Pixabay

Rewards and Accountability

One of the concerns I hear from colleagues when talking about grading is the feeling that students (some, not all) won’t do work that doesn’t “count.” I think this is a particularly prevalent concern among faculty teaching required general education courses. If students don’t have the intrinsic motivation that comes from majoring in the subject to encourage them to put in their best effort, what options are there for faculty to encourage students to engage consistently with the course?

Whether efforts “count” is what struck me in reading this recent article in the Chronicle, Why Students Are Skipping Class So Often, and How to Bring Them Back. The author discussed surveying her students about why they weren’t attending or participating in class. Students reported many different reasons, noting that in classes where attendance was taken - and earned them points - they were more likely to make attending a priority.

Taking attendance is an especially good idea for first-year students who are fresh out of high school and accustomed to accountability. It also makes sense in terms of student cognitive development…17- and 18-year-olds are in a right/wrong, black/white stage of brain development. For this age group…rewarding attendance can work well.

I think this really speaks to understanding the perspective(s) of our students and working with the reality that they are frequently motivated by what they think “counts” towards their final grade.

Grading for Growth

Another compelling aspect of specs grading is that you’re grading for growth

¹

- students have opportunities to review and get better, and they have a clear idea of what the end result needs to be. In Specifications grading: We may have a winner, the author, Robert Talbert describes the appeal of this approach:

Students are graded on what they can eventually show that they know, and they get to learn from mistakes and build upon failures; their grades are based on actual concrete evidence of learning; and the grades themselves convey actual meaning because they can be traced back to concrete evidence tied to detailed specifications of quality.

The flip side is that you can’t grade students just for effort; there has to be evidence of achievement at certain levels. In this article about how specs grading can be used in chemistry courses, the author explains her concerns over what letter grades represent in therm of what students are capable of doing in future courses In the author’s view, when students earn a passing grade, that should mean something about their skills and knowledge, not just their work effort:

I understand wanting to give them credit for their effort, but you’re actually hurting them because you’re making them think they know something when they don’t.

Grading for growth is not just about multiple opportunities; instructors also need to provide growth-oriented feedback on assignments. Less time spent providing grade-justification feedback (i.e., "this discussion post earned a B rather than a B+ because…”) means more time can be spent on truly formative feedback. If the alternative is spending a lot of time each semester negotiating with individual students about their grades on different assignments, the specs approach of spending time up-front clearly outlining the expectations might be more of a time-saver in the end

---

Can you see specifications grading working for you & your students?

---

I would love to hear about your experiences with specifications grading - whether you’ve transformed a whole course or just a few assignments. Please share in the comments!

© 2022 Tips for Teaching Professors

1. Also the title of David Clark & Robert Talbert’s upcoming book