SCHOOL AFFILIATION: Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
EMAIL: davidgs@uw.edu
I found a blog by Linda P. Nilson on specifications grading and was intrigued by the possibility of providing students with more control over their learning and reducing their anxiety about grades. After reading her book, I was eager to try this approach.
I lay out all of the available learning activities (i.e., assignments) on the syllabus, and provide point values for each one. This resolved the problem of all assignments looking like they are equal in challenge and in importance. Then I provide a few sample pathways to each potential course grade (4.0, 3.5, 3.0, and 2.5) and let students decide how to reach their desired course grade.
Typically, the first draft of an assignment is ungraded, but goes out for peer feedback, for which students use the same rubric to provide feedback as I will use for the final version. They then revise and submit it to me for assessment. For a few assignments, I allow one more revision. I also provide two “tokens” that students can use to submit an assignment late without penalty or revise one more time.
One of the biggest challenges for me is making the Canvas gradebook work with specifications grading. Shifting from a list of satisfactory/unsatisfactory assignments--some of which were required for all students, and some required only for students pursuing higher course grades--to a point system was the biggest improvement I have made, and is slightly easier to manage with the Canvas gradebook.
Here are some peer-reviewed journal articles about specifications grading.