Specifications Grading at Scale: Improved Letter Grades and Grading-Related Interactions in a Course with over 1,000 Students

Abstract

In our previous work we piloted a specifications grading system in an organic chemistry laboratory course with 37 students. Our current work describes the scale up of that specifications grading system to a course with over 1,000 students. Strategies used for keeping the system manageable and mitigating the time commitment required to do so are described. We found that the time necessary to grade student work and manage the specifications grading implementation of the course was not any greater than for the previous, points-based course, that grade-related interactions were more positive, and that student letter grades increased. Despite the increase in final letter grades, we encountered some resistance to the grading system from students and graduate teaching assistants. Here, we explore their concerns and address the difficulty of alternative grading methods in overcoming habituation to traditional points-based grading systems. Future work is needed to evaluate student and GTA buy-in, to assess potential improvement in student work, and to address questions regarding equity in specifications grading systems.

10 Guiding principles for learning in the laboratory

“…More generally, assessment of laboratory competencies in the broader sense have been described, with criterion explicitly aligned with learning outcomes made visible to students, with the task set to demonstrate capability in each of the competencies listed (Pullen et al, 2018). Similar approaches to specification grading in organic chemistry on a very large scale (41000 students) have recently been shared (McKnelly et al, 2023). Approaches to encourage marking consistency across diverse cohorts by using template marking approaches proved beneficial and reduced time on marking (George- Williams et al, 2019a).…”

“…Peerfeedback can be facilitated by tasking students to act as 'buddies', to check on each others' work (Musgrove, 2023). The intention of self-assessment rubrics are a means to allow students interact with the assessment criteria, so that they can make more meaningful relations between feedback and learning Including assessment of laboratory skills where appropriate (Hensiek et al, 2017;Seery et al, 2017;Hancock and Hollamby, 2020) Shared rubrics (Veale et al, 2020) as well as specification grading (Pullen et al, 2018;McKnelly et al, 2023) and engaging students in consideration of assessment processes (Bertram and Tomas, 2023) can all help in clarifying and aligning assessment processes Rubrics for critical thinking skills shared with students can help foster awareness of what is assessed in this aspect of laboratory work (Reynders et al, 2020) Include opportunities for self-and peer assessment (Taylor et al, 2009;Lau, 2020) to help make assessment approaches tangible Structure students' work in building capacity to write laboratory reports, including where intended the production of research project reports Include activities to help students learn and be assessed on particular aspects of laboratory work (Deiner et al, 2012;Capel et al, 2019) Support assessment of the broader generation and contribution to group-produced work through, for example, the use of a wiki (Lawrie et al, 2016) outcomes. Bertram and Tomas (2023) extended this idea to incorporate evaluative judgements in a large project-based course, resulting in a series of feedback reflection stages in curriculum delivery, where students compared their selfassessment with instructor feedback, with action planning for future work incorporated as a means to help students take actionable steps for how they would approach their next activity, or future work.…”

A Specifications-Graded, Spice-Themed, General Chemistry Laboratory Course Using an Argument-Driven Inquiry Approach

“…Because specifications grading is a noncompetitive grading process, teams work together in a collaborative manner, supporting the ADI process. ,, Furthermore, token earning and exchange permits revision on 5 of the 12 assignments (4 FS + 4 OI + 4 LR = 12). Token exchange for revision replaces the peer-review step often present in ADI.…”

Challenges and Experiences in Implementing a Specifications Grading System in an Upper-Division Undergraduate Computer Networks Course

“…Linda Nelson chalks out the key features of specifications grading in her book that popularized the system 8 . With guidance from the book and based on previous implementations of specifications grading, specifically in STEM fields 10,9 , the author incorporated the following key tenets in the grading system.…”

“…Specifications grading 8 is a new grading tool that makes it possible to systematically shift the focus toward student learning and developing a growth mindset. Past examples of successful implementations in STEM and other fields motivate this work 9,10,11,12,13 . This paper presents the author's experience in designing and implementing specifications grading for an upper-division computer networks course, CMPE 148 at the San Jose State University.…”