Why chemistry instructors are shifting to specifications grading: perceived benefits and challenges†
Ying Wang‡
a,
Haleigh Machost‡a,
Brandon J. Yikb and
Marilyne Stains*a
aDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. E-mail: mstains@virginia.edu
bDepartment of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
First published on 8th May 2025
Abstract
Previous research extensively explored factors that are associated with instructors’ adoption of evidence-based instructional practices. However, an overlooked yet important aspect is exploring instructors’ motivation for implementing pedagogical innovations that are seemingly popular yet lack evidence of effectiveness. One such innovation that is gaining attention in postsecondary chemistry education is specifications grading, which aims to emphasize the learning process while mitigating some of the drawbacks of traditional grading. This study aims to provide insights into chemistry instructors’ decision to adopt specifications grading. In particular, we interviewed 29 chemistry instructors from 24 academic institutions in the United States who currently use this alternative grading scheme. The goal of these semi-structured interviews was to characterize these instructors’ perceptions of the advantages of specifications grading, their potential dissatisfaction with traditional grading, and potential challenges associated with implementing specifications grading in their courses. Our results indicate that instructors adopted specifications grading as a means to address their dissatisfaction with traditional grading. The commonly cited relative advantages of specifications grading include a perception that specifications grading increases student learning gains and provides greater flexibility for students. These findings provide insights into the dissemination strategy of innovation, highlighting a need for direct alignment between perceived advantages of pedagogical innovations to instructors’ dissatisfaction and instructors’ expressed real-world needs and aspirations for their classroom.
Introduction
The adoption of instructional strategies that have empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness (referred to as evidence-based instructional practices; EBIPs) is still lagging in chemistry undergraduate courses. A national survey study of introductory chemistry instructors (n = 1232) reported that only 51% of respondents consistently use EBIPs in their courses (Wang et al., 2024). Another national survey of chemistry instructors (n = 829) explored the level of use of three specific EBIPs, i.e., Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) (Cracolice and Deming, 2001), Problem-Based Learning (PBL) (Wood, 2003; Servant-Miklos, 2019), and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (Moog, 2023). Survey data analyses showed that only 11–17% of respondents use these strategies (Raker et al., 2021). Extensive research efforts have been devoted to characterizing factors related to the adoption of EBIPs by postsecondary science and chemistry instructors. For example, it has been repeatedly determined that contextual factors (e.g., departmental climate towards pedagogical innovation and physical classroom layouts) and instructor's personal factors (e.g., mindsets and personal experiences with specific pedagogical practices) are associated with instructors’ decisions to adopt innovative pedagogical practices (e.g., Andrews and Lemons, 2015; Lund and Stains, 2015; Sturtevant and Wheeler, 2019; Yik et al., 2022a, 2022b; Connor and Raker, 2023; Kraft et al., 2024). Personal experiences, among these factors, have been reported to particularly concern instructors’ adoption of these practices. For example, Andrews and Lemons (2015) found that instructors prioritized their personal experiences and associated inclinations towards or away from pedagogical practices over literature evidence. Furthermore, instructors’ personal experiences are also linked to the initial step of seeking out pedagogical innovations; it is instructors’ dissatisfaction with the status quo, frequently their dissatisfaction with student learning outcomes and their own teaching practices, that drives instructors to consider different EBIPs (Feldman, 2000; Andrews and Lemons, 2015; Yik et al., 2022a).All these studies focused on identifying factors related to the adoption or lack thereof of EBIPs. However, much can also be learned from exploring instructors’ motivation to adopt pedagogical innovations that may not yet have broad empirical support for their effectiveness but are popular among instructors. Elucidating the decision process that leads instructors to choose this type of practice can provide valuable insight for the development of new instructional methods and the dissemination of already-existing EBIPs. An example of such a pedagogical innovation growing in popularity is specifications grading (Nilson, 2015). Since it was first introduced in 2015, specifications grading is increasingly gaining interest in postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and has become the most represented alternative grading scheme implemented in chemistry (Hackerson et al., 2024). Indeed, implementation studies have been conducted in a wide span of chemistry courses including general chemistry (Martin, 2019; Anzovino et al., 2023; Bunnell et al., 2023; Howitz et al., 2023; Noell et al., 2023; Saluga et al., 2023; Yik et al., 2024), organic chemistry (Ring, 2017; Houseknecht and Bates, 2020; Ahlberg, 2021; Howitz et al., 2021; McKnelly et al., 2023; Mio, 2024; Moster and Zingales, 2024), analytical chemistry (Hunter et al., 2022; Cerkez, 2024), inorganic chemistry (Drummond et al., 2024), physical chemistry (Closser et al., 2024; Drummond et al., 2024), biochemistry and chemical biology (Donato and Marsh, 2023; Kelz et al., 2023; Drummond et al., 2024), and upper-level chemistry writing (McKnelly et al., 2021). Further evidence of this propagation is the increasing number of symposia and presentations at the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE; Fig. 1). In the four-year span of 2017–2020, there were 7 peer-reviewed manuscripts, 2 BCCE symposia, and 8 BCCE presentations on specifications grading in chemistry. These numbers drastically increased in the following four years (2021–2024), growing to 21 manuscripts, 10 BCCE symposia, and 58 BCCE presentations. The increase in BCCE presentations is perhaps most indicative of the accelerated spread of specifications grading among chemistry instructors since the conference has a broad appeal among chemistry educators.
 | ||
| Fig. 1 Evidence for the increasing popularity of specifications grading among chemistry instructors. | ||
This relatively fast adoption of specifications grading contrasts with the slow adoption among chemistry instructors of many EBIPs that have been disseminated for years and that have empirical evidence for their effectiveness. Given that few empirical studies exist on the impact of specifications grading on student learning, other factors or attributes of this innovation must compel chemistry instructors to its adoption. The goal of this study is thus to begin elucidating the motivation of chemistry instructors to adopt specifications grading. In particular, we aim to explore the benefits of specifications grading that chemistry instructors perceive to encourage them to use the practice and the challenges they were aware of before their implementation. In this study, we seek to answer the following two research questions:
1. What are the benefits of specifications grading perceived by chemistry instructors who adopt it?
2. What are the challenges that chemistry instructors anticipated before they implemented specifications grading?
Specifications grading
Extensive research has demonstrated that traditional grading schemes (e.g., 0–100% and A–F) have several limitations. First, there is limited utility of traditional grades for students. Grades indicate students’ performance on individual assignments and in the course overall but do not provide actionable feedback or instruction regarding how students can improve (Cain et al., 2022). This is compounded by the fact that traditional grades can reflect students’ access to mental health resources, high-school preparation, and/or financial stability as opposed to their learning gains (Matz et al., 2017; Feldman, 2019a, 2019b; Link and Guskey, 2019). Furthermore, grades can differ greatly depending on one instructor's standards as compared to another (Donaldson and Gray, 2012; Herridge and Talanquer, 2021; Herridge et al., 2021; Cain et al., 2022) and also on grade adjustments made towards the end of a course (James, 2023). Beyond the unreliable measurements of learning, students in traditionally-graded courses may have increased levels of anxiety and decreased self-motivation to learn (Pulfrey et al., 2011; Schinske and Tanner, 2014; Chamberlin et al., 2018; Lewis, 2020).Instructors have thus begun the shift away from traditional grading methods and towards alternative grading schemes such as mastery grading, standard-based grading, and specifications grading. Clark and Talbert (2023) have outlined four distinctive features of alternative grading methods, which shift the focus from evaluating students to promoting their learning process. These features include: clearly defined standards, helpful feedback, representative marks, and reattempts without penalty. Clearly defined standards include specific learning outcomes and detailed rubrics that outline what students need to complete or demonstrate to achieve success. These standards provide transparent expectations of students, and when paired with helpful feedback provides students with actionable guidance on how to demonstrate their understanding or improve their work. After students complete an assignment, they receive marks (or scores) that clearly reflect their performance, such as “needs revision” or “meets expectations.” Finally, students are provided with the opportunity to revise and resubmit their work without penalty, using the feedback and marks they’ve received to meet the established standards. This approach fosters a learning environment where improvement and mastery are prioritized (Clark and Talbert, 2023).
One alternative grading scheme that has gained increasing attention from chemistry researchers and educators is specifications grading. First formalized by Nilson (2015), specifications grading aligns with several of Clark and Talbert's criteria. Specifications grading evaluates assignments on a two-level basis as determined by preset standards outlined to students. If the standards for an assignment are met, students receive credit on the assignment. Alternatively, if the standards are not met, students can receive meaningful feedback from the instructor and revise their work, although opportunities for revisions may be limited per the instructor's preference or contextual limitations. Importantly, specifications grading requires that the standards be at minimum representative of what would be classified as B-level work under a traditional grading scheme. Thus, students cannot pass a course without producing at least some high-quality work. Finally, specifications grading schemes use bundles of assignments to correspond to letter grades (Nilson, 2015). In the bundling systems, students’ final letter grades can be associated with the number of assessments in each type which meet the set standards, the completion of different assessment types to the set standards, or a combination of the two (Fig. 2).
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Depiction of various bundling schemes in specifications grading. | ||
When the different features of specifications grading are combined, there are 15 anticipated outcomes (Nilson, 2015; Table 1). Nilson describes benefits such as saving faculty time, motivating students to learn and excel, and providing students with useful feedback. Notably, Nilson describes many of these outcomes as being interlaced (Nilson, 2015). For instance, the reattempt opportunities (a characteristic of specifications grading) are linked to discouraging students from cheating (Outcome 5 in Table 1), thereby decreasing the amount of tension between instructors and students (Outcome 8 in Table 1). These outcomes (Table 1) may be part of what motivates chemistry instructors to adopt specifications grading in their courses. Indeed, in the literature surrounding implementations of specifications grading in chemistry courses, Nilson's outcomes are frequently cited. In particular, instructors reference the motivators of lowering student stress (Anzovino et al., 2023; Kelz et al., 2023; Noell et al., 2023), increased learning outcomes (Ahlberg, 2021; Hunter et al., 2022; Noell et al., 2023), greater flexibility for students (Kelz et al., 2023), and reduced instructor grading time (Anzovino et al., 2023). However, these outcomes have not been systematically investigated in the literature until recently. Yik et al. (2024) developed the first psychometric instrument aimed at measuring the extent to which several of these outcomes are met. They found that in comparison to traditionally graded courses, students from two general chemistry laboratory courses (n = ∼1300) perceived that they were less anxious and were clearer on expectations in their specifications-graded course compared to their traditionally-graded courses. However, no difference was observed in students’ perceptions in terms of the three other learning outcomes (i.e., reflects student learning outcomes, useful feedback, and promotes motivation to learn). Interestingly, while another study had also found that students felt less anxious in a specifications-graded upper-level analytical chemistry course (Hunter et al., 2022), a third study focusing on the implementation of specifications grading in a general chemistry course found that students were more anxious (Noell et al., 2023). There are thus mixed results regarding the extent to which the hypothesized outcomes laid out in the book describing specifications grading and its implementation (Nilson, 2015) are realized.
| Outcome | Description | Outcome | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uphold high academic standards | 8 | Minimize conflict between faculty and students |
| 2 | Reflect student learning outcomes | 9 | Save faculty time |
| 3 | Motivate students to learn | 10 | Give students feedback they will use |
| 4 | Motivate students to excel | 11 | Make expectations clear |
| 5 | Discourage cheating | 12 | Foster higher-order cognitive development and creativity |
| 6 | Reduce student stress | 13 | Assess authentically |
| 7 | Make students feel responsible for their grades | 14 | Have high interrater agreement |
| 15 | Be simple |
Other motivating factors for its use may include prior publications on the impact of specifications grading on student learning. Few studies have reported on this potential outcome however, and most were published within recent years (i.e., 2021–2023). For example, studies have reported that students receive higher letter grades (Katzman et al., 2021; Bunnell et al., 2023; McKnelly et al., 2023) and have positive attitudes toward their courses (Katzman et al., 2021; Bunnell et al., 2023). Additionally, previous literature has indicated an increased quality of interactions between instructors and students, with an emphasis on how students can better learn as opposed to receive better scores (Ahlberg, 2021; Bunnell et al., 2023; McKnelly et al., 2023).
Finally, instructors may also opt to try specifications grading because of their dissatisfaction with the traditional grading system. Indeed, several of these reports mentioned various types of dissatisfaction in their articles describing their implementation of specifications grading. For example, they highlighted that the grades students achieve with the traditional grading scheme do not reflect their understanding of the course material (Howitz et al., 2021; Anzovino et al., 2023), students experience stress with the traditional grading scheme (Kelz et al., 2023; Noell et al., 2023), and there were issues with grading consistency across graders (Howitz et al., 2021) or due to partial credit (Martin, 2019).
Theoretical framework
Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory (Rogers, 2003) is commonly used to investigate the adoption of evidence-based pedagogical practices by STEM instructors (Henderson et al., 2012; Andrews and Lemons, 2015; Lund and Stains, 2015; Genné-Bacon et al., 2020; McConnell et al., 2020; Kraft et al., 2024). The DOI theory model is used in educational contexts due to its demonstrated applicability and the detailed perspective of the influences that can affect the adoption and diffusion of pedagogical practices.The DOI theory has five primary stages that describe an instructor's decision to adopt a practice (Fig. 3). In the first stage (i.e., knowledge), an instructor gathers knowledge about a pedagogical practice that is new to them. During the persuasion stage, the instructor then considers their particular context and different features of the innovation to form an opinion about the innovation and its fit for their context. Following this stage, the instructor decides whether to adopt the innovation or not (i.e., decision stage). If the decision to adopt is made, the instructor then follows through with testing the innovation (i.e., implementation stage). If the implementation is deemed successful, the instructor will integrate the innovation in their practice either as is or with modifications to fit their needs (i.e., confirm stage). Notably, while these stages do follow a logical progression, they are interrelated. Thus, there is not a strict, linear progression from the first to the last stage, and, according to the nature of the confirmation stage, the process is necessarily cyclical in parts. Indeed, Rogers specified that the first three stages in particular are not a strictly set path that individuals follow (Rogers, 2003).
 | ||
| Fig. 3 Depiction of Rogers’ DOI theory. Adapted from Kraft et al. (2024). | ||
Rogers (2003) described four factors in the DOI theory that affect the rate of adoption of an innovation: (1) prior conditions and the context of an individual before they begin the process at the knowledge stage, (2) the personal characteristics of an individual who is involved in the process, (3) the attributes an individual perceives an innovation to have, and (4) the communication channels that are used to inform and propagate the innovation (Fig. 3).
As our interest lies in the features of specifications grading that lead instructors to its adoption, this study focuses on the perceived attributes of the innovation. Rogers (2003) identified five attributes which account for the majority of the variation in rate of adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Relative advantage describes “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes”. Compatibility refers to how well the innovation is perceived to align with an individual's personal values, past experiences, and situational needs. Complexity describes how “difficult to understand and use” an innovation is. Finally, trialability describes “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis”, and observability “is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others”.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) further posit five sequential waves of adoptees according to their willingness to adopt innovations: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority adopters (34%), late majority adopters (34%), and laggards (16%) (Fig. 4). Innovators are the first to adopt an innovation and are risk-takers. They are eager to try innovations and have a high level of comfort with both uncertainty and handling potential backlash. Early adopters are more likely to be somewhat comfortable with taking risks and handling potential adversity. However, they still only adopt innovations after careful consideration. Early adopters are crucial for the speed of innovation propagation, and they are often sources of advice or information for others. The early majority group adopts an innovation before the majority of their profession but after the early adopters. This group expresses more skepticism and is often persuaded by evidence produced by the early adopters. Thus, they maintain an open, yet cautious, approach to innovations, and serve as a bridge between risk-taking and risk-averse groups. Those in the late majority group tend to adopt an innovation after a majority of their peers have done so. Notably, the motivations ascribed to this group center on social pressure, practical necessity, or a desire to conform. Thus, they may adopt an innovation they view positively only after their social circle has adopted it, or they may adopt an innovation they are skeptical about due to pressure from their peers. Laggards are the last group to adopt an innovation. They may have either a commitment to traditional methods and/or a deep skepticism of new practices. Thus, laggards are those who require the most substantial proof of the benefits of an innovation before adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
 | ||
| Fig. 4 Stages of innovation adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). | ||
Methods
This study was conducted under Protocol #5936, which was approved by the University of Virginia Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Sciences.Participants and data collection
To enable an in-depth analysis of potentially context-dependent motivations, only instructors using specifications grading in their chemistry courses were recruited as participants. Furthermore, to increase the sample size of chemistry instructors, two pilot interviews were conducted with one biology and one mathematics instructor who used specifications grading in their courses. These two pilot interviews were solely used to inform the design of the interview protocol and are not considered henceforth in the participant identification, participant pool, or data analysis sections. A combination of methods was used to identify potential chemistry instructors as participants in this study. Methods included available conference abstracts, journal article publications, snowball sampling, and social media posts. Participants were also identified through online searches, personal communications, and published book chapters. Table S1 (ESI†) has a full summary of the number of potential participants identified through each method.Once identified, participants were contacted via email. These recruitment emails contained an invitation to participate in the study as well as a link to an online survey (see Appendix A, B, and C for the pre-interview survey, interview protocol, and post-interview survey, respectively). In the online survey, participants were first asked to provide their consent to participate in the study. Subsequently, participants were asked to provide details about their current academic position, current and past teaching experiences, use of specifications grading, and to upload relevant course artifacts (e.g., syllabi, assignment rubrics, and any other supplemental information provided to their students about the course structure and grading).
In all, 85 instructors were identified as potential participants and were invited to participate in this study. In addition to the two instructors who did not teach chemistry and were used to pilot the semi-structured interview, 32 instructors agreed to participate and were interviewed by either author BJY or HM. Of these 32 instructors, there were 3 excluded from the sample for the following reasons: one instructor, who was a part of the biochemistry department at their institution, taught a molecular biology course, i.e., not a chemistry course. Another instructor, while belonging to a chemistry department and teaching chemistry courses, belonged to an institution which does not use a final A–F grading scheme to evaluate students. These two participants were thusly removed from the sample due to their unique institutional context preventing the generalizability of their motivations. One additional instructor belonged to a chemistry department and taught chemistry courses, but they were removed from the sample due to confidentiality concerns and the sensitive nature of personal anecdotes, which were freely shared by the instructor during the interview. Thus, our final sample consists of 29 chemistry instructors teaching chemistry courses who use specifications grading at an institution that assigns students A–F grades after completion of a course. At the time the study was conducted, these 29 participants held appointments at 24 different institutions, which vary in type (Table 2). Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim using Temi, an automated transcription software.
| Category | Number of instructors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic Rank | Professor | 4 | |
| Associate Professor | 7 | ||
| Assistant Professor | 6 | ||
| Professor of Teaching/Practice | 5 | ||
| Associate Professor of Teaching/Practice | 4 | ||
| Assistant Professor of Teaching/Practice | 1 | ||
| Lecturer or Instructor | 2 | ||
| Gender | Man | 17 | |
| Woman | 11 | ||
| Agender | 1 | ||
| Race or Ethnicity | Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American | 27 | |
| Asian or Asian American | 1 | ||
| Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American | 1 | ||
| Years of Teaching Experience | 2–4 | 5 | |
| 5–9 | 4 | ||
| 10–14 | 13 | ||
| 15+ | 8 | ||
| Number of Terms Using Specifications Grading | 1–3 | 7 | |
| 4–6 | 9 | ||
| 7–9 | 6 | ||
| 10+ | 7 | ||
| Number of Unique Courses Taught with Specifications Grading | 1 | 6 | |
| 2 | 10 | ||
| 3 | 5 | ||
| 4 | 5 | ||
| 5 | 3 | ||
| Type of Chemistry Courses | General Chemistry | 9 | |
| Organic Chemistry | 13 | ||
| Inorganic Chemistry | 1 | ||
| Analytical Chemistry | 1 | ||
| Biochemistry | 3 | ||
| Other | 2 | ||
| Course Modality and Class Sizes | Lab | Large (1000+) | 2 |
| Medium (75–500) | 2 | ||
| Small (<75) | 1 | ||
| Lecture | Large (1000+) | 1 | |
| Medium (75–500) | 4 | ||
| Small (<75) | 6 | ||
| Lecture/Lab | Large (1000+) | 0 | |
| Medium (75–500) | 1 | ||
| Small (<75) | 12 | ||
Interview protocol
As mentioned above, the perceived relative advantage of an innovation is a key attribute correlated with the likelihood of adoption according to the DOI framework (Rogers, 2003). In alignment with this framework, we investigated instructors’ motivations for adopting specifications grading by exploring what they perceive as advantages and disadvantages of specifications grading through semi-structured interviews. In particular, we aim to identify these instructors’ perceived advantages of specifications grading that led to their adoption of specifications grading in their firstly course. First, we asked instructors about their perceived benefits of adopting specifications grading, posing questions such as “Why did you decide to use specifications grading?” and “What goals did you have when deciding to use specifications grading in this course?” In their responses, instructors often spontaneously compared the characteristics of specifications grading with those of traditional grading schemes. For those who transitioned from traditional grading to specifications grading, additional questions were asked regarding the factors that led them to move away from traditional grading. This provided additional insight into their perceptions of the two grading schemes. Secondly, we asked questions about their anticipated challenges with the implementation of specifications grading, such as “Before implementing specifications grading, what challenges or worries did you have?” in order to understand the perceived disadvantages of specifications grading. The portion of the interview protocol relevant to the data reported here is included in Appendix B.Data analysis
The transcripts were checked for accuracy and uploaded into Nvivo for initial review and memo creation as well as coding. A thematic analysis approach was employed to analyze the data. Qualitative analytic memos were created by authors HM and BJY; these memos informed an initial codebook. Authors HM and YW subsequently reviewed a subset of the transcripts while using the initial codebook to refine codes, clarify definitions, and combine similar codes. Authors HM and YW leveraged the DOI framework when creating the parent codes used in the codebook. Combined, these efforts resulted in a refined codebook. Authors HM and YW then independently coded the transcripts at the paragraph level in three rounds. In the first round, 10 interviews were coded; a meeting between authors HM and YW achieved complete consensus and minor alterations to the codebook were made as detailed in Part B of the ESI,† Table S4. The latter two rounds of independent analysis and attainment of complete consensus were performed with 10 and 9 interviews, respectively. Similar alterations to the codebook were made and are detailed in Table S4 (ESI†). After full consensus was reached between authors YW and HM, the two authors revisited all instances of coding across the 29 interview transcripts which utilized a code that had been altered between the creation of the refined codebook and the final codebook. The final codebook, complete with example quotes, is available in Appendix D, Tables 5–7.Trustworthiness
Steps were taken throughout the data collection, data analysis, and sense-making processes to ensure credibility, transferability, and dependability (Shenton, 2004; Lincoln and Guba, 2005; Schwandt et al., 2007).Results
This study provides the first empirical report of factors influencing chemistry instructors’ decision to adopt specifications grading in their courses. Leveraging the DOI framework (Rogers, 2003), we will first present instructors’ perceived benefits that lead to integrating specifications grading over traditional grading in their practice, followed by the challenges they anticipated.RQ1: What are the benefits of specifications grading perceived by chemistry instructors who adopt it?
Instructors participating in this study cited an array of benefits, which were grouped into fifteen distinct codes. However, only the responses identifying benefits perceived by at least 10% of the sample (by three participants) are presented herein (Table 3). The full codebook with exemplar quotes is available in the Appendix, Tables 5 and 6.| Code | Definition: instructors want to implement specifications grading… | Number of participants |
|---|---|---|
| Increased flexibility | In order to increase the flexibility available to their students (e.g., ability to miss assignments due to illness or athletics ability to revise or retake assignments) | 20 |
| Increased student learning gains | In order to increase student proficiency with and/or retention of the course material and related skills or to increase the rigor of the course or to increase students' focus on the learning process | 13 |
| Transparent expectations | Because expectations will be clearer to students (e.g., what assignments are necessary, how to complete assignments) | 8 |
| Accommodating different groups of students | In order to increase equitable opportunities for all students as specifications grading can enable students with different cultural backgrounds or contexts to succeed in the course (e.g., differing education backgrounds among students) | 8 |
| Grades reflect students' proficiency | In order to have final grades that are representative of students' proficiency with course material and to enable instructors to accurately track their students' understanding of the material | 8 |
| Increased opportunities for feedback | In order to increase the frequency at which their students receive feedback and/or to ensure that the feedback students receive is meaningful or actionable | 8 |
| Increased student agency over learning | In order to increase student self-regulation (e.g., autonomy, metacognition, motivation) | 6 |
| Reduced student stress | In order to decrease students' anxiety or stress | 6 |
| Supported students and instructors in seeing alignment between course learning objectives and assessments | Because it supports students and instructors in better seeing alignment of the course learning objectives and assessments | 5 |
| No partial credit | Because it does not use partial credit on individual questions or assignments which are not wholly correct or not completed to standard | 5 |
| Reduced grading burden | In order to reduce the mental effort of grading on either themselves and/or the teaching assistants | 5 |
| Reduced tension between instructor and student | In order to reduce instructor's perceived tension in the student-instructor relationship (e.g., move away from the instructor being a gatekeeper of the students' desired grade) | 3 |
“I like that it [the token system] gives the students some built-in flexibility in the course, so then they can request an assignment due-date extension, or, you know, they really just couldn't submit something. Maybe you let them trade in two tokens at the end to make up that assignment, especially if it's a complete/incomplete assignment … And then you look at your evaluation system [traditional grading system] and it's like you're penalizing them for getting things in not on time. You're penalizing them for learning things later instead of earlier and, you're penalizing them again and again.”
Many instructors in this group also mentioned that specifications grading provides opportunities for students to focus on learning as well as develop knowledge and related skills due to its flexible mechanism, highlighting their perception of how one benefit can lead to another. As an example, Instructor 118, who teaches an organic chemistry lab course, cited specifications grading as “a mechanism that says ‘you're gonna try things. If you don't meet the mark, you get second chances, and that's gonna help reinforce these set of knowledge and skills you need so that you're ready for these more higher stake assessments towards the end’.” Indeed, a third of the interviewed instructors (32%) believe that the point-based nature of traditional grading can impede student learning. For instance, some instructors believe that a subpopulation of students will focus on their grades instead of learning the material. As a result, students can leave the class without a concrete understanding of the course. This is one of the reasons driving instructors away from traditional grading, as exemplified by Instructor 120, who also teaches an organic chemistry lab course:
“And at the end of the day, like, should there be enough points where the student literally doesn’t have to pass any tests and they still get a B, a D in the class? Or a C in the class? That's probably problematic because you don’t know if the students have actually learned anything. Um, so yeah. Yeah, I guess I do have a lot of issues with points-based.”
“I was hoping that it could clarify the expectations for students in terms of what they needed to do to, to earn whatever grade they wanted; and also my expectations of them in terms of what learning outcomes I expected them to meet on each kind of assignment in the class.”
Echoing this idea, a concern instructors (n = 3) have with traditional grading is that it often leaves students uncertain about their progression, and thus their final grade, throughout the course of the semester. For example, Instructor 149, who teaches a general chemistry course, mentioned that, with traditional grading, they are unable to answer students’ questions regarding their final course grades in the middle of the semester because students have not completed all the exams and other assignments. Instructor 149 elaborates on this concern: “if I have to guess, you could imagine student[s] have no idea what's going on with their grades and lots of speculation in it.”
“Students that had a strong organic background could just go through and do everything … the first try and then the students that needed more time, I would be able to give them more retries and feedback. And so, it would help me to differentiate the class a little bit more … and tailor to the different populations we have in there.”
Correspondingly, 7% of the instructors perceived that traditional grading only benefits some of the students, as exemplified by Instructor 189, who also teaches an organic chemistry lecture course: “I also feel like a lot of the times our traditional grading is rewarding people that can test well.”
“I just started thinking more about what a grade means and something more tangible to say, ‘okay, a student who left my class having earned a C, they can do these core things.’ And so I could say, yeah, that basically anyone who passed a class C or higher can do these core things and, you know, B students can do some number more, A students can do pretty much everything.”
Related sentiments were captured in instructors’ comments about traditional grading. Specifically, instructors (n = 15) did not believe that grades in traditional grading schemes reflect students’ knowledge and skills. As Instructor 184 indicated:
“We realized that several students were not actually reaching mastery or proficiency on really important concepts that we knew would be important in future chemistry courses. And our letter grades at the end of the semester were indicating that that was okay, when we knew that it actually wasn't.”
Notably, this perceived benefit of specifications grading and disadvantage of traditional grading focuses on the accurate measurement of student performance, as opposed to the prior benefit of increased learning gains which explores the relative amount of student learning itself.
“If you give a large exam, right, 'yeah, they didn't do well,' but now you've really gotta drill down, 'okay, they didn't do well on questions one through three. That means it's this, you know, this topic.'”
This contrasts with their perception of specifications grading, which is more streamlined for both instructors and students because learning objectives are so closely related to assessments:
“Whereas, you know, specs grading, you sort of get that immediate feedback on this objective or this series of objectives, this one concept. And so, you know, if I'm getting that data out of that exam … you know, out of that, then the students also can get it.”
“they start to realize ‘I can make mistakes and it's not [an] immediate penalty.’ And so instead of students viewing each assignment as an opportunity for their grade to go down, it's now viewed as every assignment's an opportunity for me to show growth and improvement. And so that mentality shift I think is then what couples with them feeling more positively about the course and about what they're learning.”
Indeed, several instructors (21%) cited “traditional grading increasing student stress” as one of the reasons for them to switch to specifications grading. These instructors mainly linked students’ anxiety to the high-stake(s) nature of the exams in traditional grading. This is exemplified by Instructor 120:
“And our method of assessment is, ‘okay, here's a test’ and then the test should be, ‘okay, I'm gonna measure and see if you actually meet these learning outcomes.’ … but then that makes the class rather high stakes, right? Everything in the class, their whole grade is based on the test. Which is another issue too, right? Because then you just have all these high-stake(s) things and it's stressful.”
“It made me take another look at what I was teaching. And then it was like, ‘Okay, well here's my big ideas, and this big idea. I only have one module and one assessment. And for other big ideas, I might have more modules and more assessments.’ So it also allowed me to reflect on that and adjust, so that if I considered something important enough to be a big idea that I was assessing it and covering it in as much detail as I would … something else. So that allowed me to go back and like look at what I was covering and reflect on how much time and emphasis I was putting on certain things.”
Additionally, Instructor 186 commented that students do not always make the connection between the exam questions and specific learning objectives; however, specifications grading helps make this connection more transparent due to “the one-to-one alignment between the assessment and the learning objectives.”
“one of the things that was appealing to me with specifications grading is getting rid of that whole idea of partial credit and having to decide, okay, you know, did this person get 9 points out of 10 and things like that.”
Several instructors (17%) also mentioned their dissatisfaction with traditional grading in terms of having to assign partial credit to students, which often leads to students’ arguing for points. This is exemplified by the same instructor (Instructor 173):
“a lot of students who are taking chemistry, I think are highly anxious students. They’re very grade driven, even though I’m trying to, trying to get rid of that focus. But that still doesn’t seem to always happen. So this very much grade-focus point-grabbing, partial credit, you know, sorts of things, was becoming very tiresome.”
“[specifications grading] also was a way to de-emphasize the grade focus for our pre-med students who are primarily taking this course. And it allowed them to say, ‘Hey, you know, …, just focus on doing the things.’ Like … we don't want you to be asking about sig figs, … we don't want you to be, you know, those are important, but that's, I don't want you to be arguing those points every single lab.”
Additionally, Instructor 117 detailed the different roles they perceived themselves to have in the two grading schemes. Specifically, they saw themselves as “the gatekeeper” and “the withholder of points” when using the traditional grading scheme to get rid of points from students. However, using specifications grading, this instructor can “feel much more like their coach or their ally.” Instructor 117 wanted to convey this message to students: “I want to help, and I will give you information that helps you to make progress.” The instructor does not feel that they are pointing out students’ weaknesses and comparing students to a standard in specifications grading. Instead, they perceive the relationship as more supportive and less adversarial.
RQ2: What are the challenges that chemistry instructors anticipated before they implemented specifications grading?
Participating instructors generally cited far fewer challenges than benefits when elaborating on their decision to implement specifications grading. Indeed, only seven distinct codes were identified to describe the anticipated challenges before implementing the grading scheme. However, only the responses identifying challenges present within at least 10% of the sample are presented herein (Table 4). The full codebook is available in Appendix A, Table 7.| Code | Definition: instructors are concerned… | Number of participants |
|---|---|---|
| Increased instructor workload | About having an increased workload in terms of time commitment or mental effort (e.g., spending more time creating assignments, more time grading due to retakes, translation into letter grades) | 19 |
| Student resistance | That students will actively not buy-in to specs grading and will choose to resist it | 11 |
| Unfamiliar system for students | That the system is unfamiliar to the students and that the students may not be able to understand the system | 9 |
| Maintaining rigor | About maintaining the rigor of their course when using specs grading | 4 |
| Lack of support | About the lack of support they may have from their peers/chair/department/institution if they start specs grading | 3 |
“So if I'm doing specifications grading, the way that I do it is with flexible deadlines. And so students are taking different quizzes at different times. You know, maintaining the confidential nature of the assessment pieces… was another concern.”
Instructors were also worried about the time burden associated with regrades, as Instructor 119, who teaches an organic chemistry course, expressed:
“Yeah, I was really worried. So like thinking back to that first exposure in 2018, it just seemed like so much work 'cause you're just allowing so many retries and you have to regrade. And I was just worried that it was gonna end up being more work for me.”
“The biggest drawback for me has been trying to establish student buy-in, just because students are habituated to other types of grading systems, most commonly points-based grading systems. And there seems to be a lot of student resistance to the new system, and they tend to blame them not doing well or them not understanding how the grading system works as well – just to the fact that it's a new system and it doesn't work very well.”
Other instructors attributed this concern to students’ unfamiliarity with specifications grading, which will be unpacked in the following subsection.
“I think my biggest concern then, and arguably, I think now even still, is okay, at what point are we really sure after, I don't know, five retakes, right? Did the student just memorize the concept to pass the objective? Can they truly apply it? Right? Do, have they actually learned it? Can they truly apply it down the road? Is a concern.”
“we had a little bit of concern, but not too much about how the department head or administrators might like, if there might be push-back from that. But… we got buy-in from them relatively early in the process of planning so that it wasn't really too much of a concern.”
Discussion
Chemistry instructors adopted specifications grading due to the perceived relative advantages of specifications grading over traditional grading
Although instructors were not explicitly asked to compare specifications grading with traditional grading in their interviews, many of them spontaneously discussed these comparisons as they explained their reasons for adopting specifications grading, and thus, moving away from traditional grading. At an aggregate level, the perceived advantages of specifications grading are often associated with corresponding dissatisfaction with traditional grading (Fig. 5). | ||
| Fig. 5 Instructors’ perceived relative advantages of specifications grading. | ||
Instructors involved in this study appear to seek out a new grading scheme due to their dissatisfaction with traditional grading and implement specifications grading because it addresses their concerns. This aligns with DOI framework which suggests that the innovators (i.e., instructors) do consider the attribute of “relative advantage” before adopting an innovation (Rogers, 2003). Additionally, it also resonates with results from a previous case study with biology instructors where the sense of dissatisfaction was found to be a necessary prior condition that led instructors to change their teaching (Andrews and Lemons, 2015). In our study, instructors believed that specifications grading, as compared to traditional grading, increases flexibility, student learning gains, and transparency of expectations. It is also perceived to reduce student stress, instructor grading burden, and tension between instructors and students. Additionally, instructors noted that the design of specifications grading, which does not allow for partial credit, results in grades that more accurately reflect student proficiency than in traditional grading. Importantly, instructors view specifications grading as allowing for more opportunities to accommodate students from diverse backgrounds and contexts, which they often see as lacking in traditional grading schemes. Previous literature has shown that traditional grading schemes may be representative of factors such as students’ schooling systems, access to tutoring, and other academic-enhancing resources, as opposed to representing their knowledge or skills (Matz et al., 2017; Feldman, 2019a, 2019b; Link and Guskey, 2019). This is corroborated by work that highlights that grades do not always correspond to job performance (Cain et al., 2022). Furthermore, students’ grades under traditional grading may be a reflection of the instructor's biases and subjectivity rather than of students’ learning; an individual instructor's leniency and grading criteria can result in different grades for the same quality of work (Donaldson and Gray, 2012; Herridge and Talanquer, 2021; Herridge et al., 2021; Cain et al., 2022), and instructors’ implicit and unconscious biases affect the grades assigned to students (Feldman, 2019b). Our findings indicate that instructors are aware of such issues with traditional grading, which contribute to their decision to implement specifications grading.
Flexibility and potential of increasing learning gains are perceived as major relative advantages of specifications grading
While instructors recognized the majority of Nilson's hypothesized benefits of specifications grading, flexibility emerged as the most frequently perceived benefit. Instructors often stated that flexibility can result in other benefits, such as reducing students’ stress and providing accommodations for different groups of students. Flexibility is often provided in specifications grading through the student's ability to revise their work. The hallmark of allowing for revisions in specifications grading is associated with four of Nilson's hypothesized outcomes: reducing student stress, discouraging cheating, minimizing conflict between students and instructors, and providing feedback to students that they will use. Nilson draws a clear connection between the ability to revise work and the reduction of student stress, as students have a “safety net” if they make mistakes. This safety net is also connected to discouraging students from cheating as they will experience less pressure when submitting work to be graded. Through this reduction in academic dishonesty, there is an associated reduction in conflict between students and the instructor, which is furthered by students choosing to revise work as opposed to arguing for points (Nilson, 2015). The instructors we interviewed further explained that the ability to miss or revise assignments enables students with different backgrounds and contexts to have a path towards academic success that fits their other responsibilities, such as caretaking or working, and their non-academic needs, such as attending medical appointments. Thus, given the widely perceived relative advantage of flexibility offered by specifications grading and the other benefits that stem from this characteristic, flexibility can act as a key feature when promoting the adoption of specifications grading.Increased student learning gains are seen as another major benefit of specifications grading. The anticipated increased learning gains are the result of a combination of factors. Primarily, specifications grading emphasizes the mastery of learning objectives, compared to traditional grading which emphasizes the earning of points. Furthermore, specifications grading aims for increased transparency which is deemed to enable students to understand exactly what is expected of them and to plan their studying appropriately. The previously mentioned flexibility also plays a role as opportunities like revisions are expected to promote a growth mindset while encouraging students to engage with the material. The iterative process students engage in under specifications grading is posited to also contribute to knowledge retention. Ultimately, the enhanced learning gains are the result of students focusing on clearly defined aims and goals while being able to learn from their mistakes.
Chemistry instructors’ perceived benefits of specifications grading align with hypothesized, yet untested, outcomes of specification grading
The majority of instructors’ perceived benefits of specifications grading are well-aligned with the hypothesized outcomes of specifications grading proposed by Nilson. This alignment is perhaps to be expected. As Nilson (2015) proposed these outcomes when writing the first formalization of specifications grading, these hypothesized results are closely associated with specifications grading as a practice.Recent work examined students’ perceptions of specifications grading as it related to the student-centered hypothesized outcomes laid out in Nilson's (2015) book. While the students perceived some benefits, namely reduced anxiety and clearer expectations, students did not perceive any difference in the alignment between grades and learning outcomes or in the feedback they received. Furthermore, students actually expressed that they felt a decreased motivation to learn in specifications grading as compared to traditional grading (Yik et al., 2024). The discrepancy in how specifications grading is perceived by instructors and by their students, paired with the disconnect in instructor motivation to increase flexibility and accommodations and in the mixed empirical evidence, indicates a rich area for future investigations.
Typical deterrents to the adoption of EBIPs (time and student resistance) also concern adopters of specifications grading but not to the point of preventing adoption
In her book, Nilson hypothesized several instructor-centered outcomes, one of which is the benefit of saving faculty time (Nilson, 2015). Time is a typical factor mentioned by instructors when ask about barriers to the implementation of EBIPs (Sturtevant and Wheeler, 2019). Nilson argued that the clear passing criteria and simplified framework for marking assessments would streamline the grading process and thus reduce the time instructors spend evaluating student work. However, the interviewed instructors worried that adopting specifications grading would increase their devoted time and mental effort. Specifically, instructors find it mentally challenging to decide the cutoffs for marks on assignments, as well as to take said marks and translate them into a final letter grade for the course. More importantly, the flexibility of “retake and resubmit” brings in instructors’ concerns about maintaining a manageable workload while ensuring their assessments are not distributed in a way that would enable cheating. Instructors felt the need to write different versions of quizzes that cover the same learning objectives which may eventually require more time commitment. This concern is not unique to our study as skepticism about whether specifications grading saves faculty time has been in the published literature since the inception of specifications grading (Prescott, 2015). The process of aligning assessments directly with specific learning outcomes, while helpful for instructors (Walden, 2022), does add a burden to those first implementing specifications grading (Williams, 2018; Shields et al., 2019; Carlisle, 2020). In addition to the potential barrier of additional effort being required during pre-term planning, instructors using specifications grading may also spend more time leaving detailed feedback for students during the term (Lovell, 2018).Additionally, there are conflicting accounts concerning the change in grading workload transitioning from traditional grading to specifications grading. Some instructors report an overall decrease in time and effort spent grading (Elkins, 2016; Lovell, 2018; Mirsky, 2018; Williams, 2018), and others experiencing no change or an increased grading effort (Shields et al., 2019; Carlisle, 2020; Hunter et al., 2022; Spurlock, 2023). Thus, future endeavors in disseminating and promoting specifications grading should address these valid concerns. Clear instructions or guidelines on designing a specifications-graded course are needed to support instructors’ adoption and continued implementation.
Furthermore, students’ resistance to or unfamiliarity with the system is perceived as another major challenge. Instructors are often worried that students may have a negative attitude toward specifications grading as they are used to the traditional grading scheme, which offers partial credit. This is not surprising as student resistance is a relatively common concern with pedagogical innovations and practices (Lake, 2001; Bentley et al., 2011; DeMonbrun et al., 2017; Genné-Bacon et al., 2020; York and Orgill, 2023). Indeed, student resistance to specifications grading has been documented, finding that students are resistant due to the nature of the grades they receive (Graves, 2023; McKnelly et al., 2023). Furthermore, students have been shown to need time to understand the specifications grading system (Williams, 2018; Howitz et al., 2021). Research on the adoption of pedagogical innovations has shown that the challenge of student resistance can be mitigated by clear explanations and active facilitation on the part of instructors (Tharayil et al., 2018). These strategies can be adapted for specifications grading and provided to instructors adopting the grading system if they encounter student resistance. For example, should students be opposed to accepting specifications grading, instructors could clearly articulate the purpose of using specifications grading in their course. Additionally, the instructors could encourage students to ask questions about the grading system, ensure a clearly communicated and consistent grading and re-assessment routine, and continually encourage students to strive for success throughout the course.
Notably, these commonly cited concerns about, or barriers to, specifications grading have caused instructors not to adopt various EBIPs (Brownell and Tanner, 2012). The fact that these barriers are not preventing our participants from adopting specifications grading may be due to the unique characteristics of our sample. Indeed, given the recent formalization of specifications grading, it is possible that the instructors currently using the grading system are innovators or early adopters. As highlighted by Rogers, it is possible that our sample is more inclined towards risk-taking, comfortable with navigating adversity, and/or confident in challenging the status quo (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Additionally, our sample is strongly averse to traditional grading methods, and this intense dissatisfaction may encourage them to attempt an alternative grading system.
Implications
Professional development
To effectively motivate instructors to adopt innovative pedagogical practices, it is essential to target their underlying dissatisfaction with the status quo. Instructors have shown a willingness to accept challenges and potential resistance when the relative advantage is great enough. Indeed, the observed willingness to confront the challenges associated with specifications grading suggests that when a practice is believed to directly address their needs – such as a need to increase flexibility for their students – they are more likely to introduce the practice into their courses. This combination of dissatisfaction and direct, explicit alignment between innovation and an instructor's values or needs should be a primary component of advocacy for pedagogical innovations. This indicates a need for a strategic shift in how pedagogical practices should be presented; rather than focusing majorly or even solely on empirical evidence, we should instead highlight the advantages that clearly address instructors’ real-world concerns. When promoting and providing training on specifications grading, it is vital to highlight the increased flexibility given to students and the focus on learning as it clearly addresses chemistry instructors’ dissatisfaction with traditional grading.Research agenda
Continued efforts to effectively improve the implementation of pedagogical innovation must be rooted in a better understanding of the real-world needs of instructors. In this study, the increased flexibility for students and increased student learning gains appeared to be aligned with instructors’ need for alternative grading schemes which become strong motivators for instructors to overcome the challenges and attempt pedagogical change. Despite the valuable insights this work provided, our sample is probably composed of innovators and early adopters, meaning the strong motivators for our sample to undergo pedagogical change may not translate to the early majority, late majority, or laggards. Thus, future research may focus on exploring the propagation of specifications grading within postsecondary chemistry courses to determine effective dissemination strategies across the different stages of adopters. Through studying the spread and adoption of specifications grading, it may be possible to determine the relative advantages of pedagogical innovations that resonate most with instructors at each stage. Such insight can enable effective and adaptive advocation for EBIPs.Limitations
The sample size in this exploratory, qualitative study inherently limits the generalizability of our findings. However, we intentionally sought to recruit a diverse range of postsecondary chemistry instructors across the U.S. who utilize specifications grading, aiming to provide rich and transferable data. Although caution should be taken in drawing broader conclusions with this data, the data may provide informative information for other instructors to make decisions about implementing specifications grading in their chemistry courses.A further limitation is due to the likely characteristics of our sample population. The instructors interviewed are likely innovators or early adopters, as described by Rogers (2003). Thus, their motivations may differ from the early majority, late majority, and laggard adopters due to their relative comfort with risk-taking and handling adversity.
Furthermore, the study only reflects the perceptions of the instructors who have already implemented specifications grading. The perceived challenges they reported may differ from those perceived by instructors who have not yet adopted this approach, as the latter group may face distinct barriers preventing them from doing so. Further research is needed to explore the perspectives of this group to gain a more comprehensive understanding of potential challenges related to the adoption of specifications grading.
Conclusion
The current study explored chemistry instructors’ perceived relative advantages (i.e., benefits and challenges) of specifications grading that are linked to their decision to adopt this practice, drawing on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory. The results demonstrate that instructors adopt specifications grading due to their perceptions of its advantages over traditional grading, primarily increased flexibility and improved student learning gains, despite their concerns about potentially increased workload and student resistance and in spite of a lack of evidence for increased learning gains. This work provides valuable insights for future dissemination efforts aimed at chemistry instructors who are considering implementing specifications grading. Specifically, to encourage broader adoption, dissemination efforts should emphasize how perceived benefits, even if not yet empirically supported, align with instructors’ dissatisfaction with the status quo and relate to their real-world needs and aspirations for their classroom.Author contributions
BJY, HM, and MS conceived the study. BJY, HM, and MS contributed to the development of the interview protocol. BJY and HM conducted the interviews. BJY, HM, and MS performed an initial review of the data. HM and YW developed the codebook and fully analyzed the data. HM, YW, and MS wrote the manuscript; BJY provided input on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Data availability
Raw data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to participants’ confidentiality.Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendices
Part A. Pre-interview survey
○Professor
○Professor of Teaching/Practice
○ Associate Professor
○ Associate Professor of Teaching/Practice
○ Assistant Professor
○ Assistant Professor of Teaching/Practice
○ Lecturer or Instructor
○ Postdoctoral Instructor
○ Graduate Student Instructor or Teaching Assistant
○ Other
What institution are you currently at?
What is your tenure status at your institution?
○ Tenured
○ On tenure track, but not yet tenured
○ Not on tenure track, but my institution has a tenure system
○ No tenure system at my institution
Do you have the opportunity for promotion that comes with increased security of employment (e.g., longer contracts)?
○ Yes, and I have received such a promotion
○ Yes, and I have not received such a promotion
○ No opportunity exists
Are you considered a full-time employee of your institution for at least nine (9) months of the current academic year?
○ Yes
○ No
What is your typical teaching load (i.e., how many course sections do you teach) during an academic year? If you oversee a laboratory course with multiple sections without a designated lecture section, please count that as one for each term.
How long have you been teaching? (in years)
What courses have you taught?
Have you ever participated in any of the following types of teaching-related professional development?
| No | Yes | |
|---|---|---|
| Half-day workshop(s) | ○ | ○ |
| Full-day or longer workshop(s) | ○ | ○ |
| Attending a teaching-focused conference | ○ | ○ |
| Attended teaching-related presentations at conference not solely dedicated to teaching | ○ | ○ |
| Regular meetings as part of a formal program (e.g., learning community) | ○ | ○ |
| New faculty experience at my institution | ○ | ○ |
| New faculty workshop external to my institution (e.g., Cottrell Scholars Collaborative – CSC NFW, Project NExT, Project ACCESS, Physics New Faculty Workshop) | ○ | ○ |
| Other: | ○ | ○ |
○ Yes
○ No
How many unique courses do you (or have you) used specifications grading in?
In total, how long have you been using specifications grading? Please include either semesters or quarters in your response (e.g., 2 semesters, 3 quarters).
What is the name of the course that you have used specifications grading in the longest?
On average, what is the typical enrollment for this course?
[Required – Syllabus] Please upload the latest course syllabus from the course that you have used specifications grading the longest.
[Optional – Document 1] Please upload any applicable course documents explaining specifications grading (e.g., assignment specifications, grading scheme, final grade calculations, tokens, revisions) that are not captured by your course syllabus.
[Optional – Document 2] Please upload any applicable course documents explaining specifications grading (e.g., assignment specifications, grading scheme, final grade calculations, tokens, revisions) that are not captured by your course syllabus.
[Optional – Document 3] Please upload any applicable course documents explaining specifications grading (e.g., assignment specifications, grading scheme, final grade calculations, tokens, revisions) that are not captured by your course syllabus.
If you have additional applicable course documents that cannot be uploaded into this form, please email them to Dr Brandon Yik (byik@virginia.edu) at least 48 hours before your interview.
Part B. Specifications grading – interview protocol
Hello [participant's name]. Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me today.Pass out study consent form and state that the participant has previously acknowledged consent form. Ask all participants to review the consent form again thoroughly. Then ask for questions, before asking for verbal consent. Let participants know they can keep the consent form.
State that we are going to begin recording. Once the recording has started, ask for verbal confirmation of their consent to be recorded. State the day and time the interview is taking place.
Today we’re going to have a conversation about your role as an instructor that uses specifications grading. I would like you to provide honest answers to the questions that I will ask you about.
Why did you decide to use specifications grading?
a. What other goals did you have when deciding to use specifications grading in this course?
b. Switchers: What drove you away from traditional grading? Why did you decide to use specifications grading in this course?
New: Why did you decide to use specifications grading in this course?
c. Before implementing specifications grading, what benefits did you see in specifications grading?
d. Before implementing specifications grading, what challenges or worries did you see in specifications grading?
Interviewer space to write down goals and motivations for using specifications grading:
Part C. Post-interview survey
What is your age?
My gender or gender identity is best described as (select all that apply):
□ I am agender.
□ I am a man.
□ I am nonbinary.
□ I am gender nonconforming.
□ I am genderqueer or genderfluid.
□ I am questioning.
□ I am transgender.
□ I am a woman.
□ My gender or gender identity is best described as:
□ I prefer not to disclose my gender or gender identity.
My racial or ethnic background is best described as (select all that apply):
□ Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American (e.g., Jamaican, Nigerian, Haitian, Ethiopian, etc.)
□ Asian or Asian American (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, South Asian, Vietnamese, etc.)
□ Indigenous American or Alaska Native (e.g., Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Inupiat Traditional Gov't., etc.)
□ Latino/a/e/x or Hispanic American (e.g., Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Colombian, etc.)
□ Middle Eastern, North African, or Arab American (e.g., Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Israeli, Palestinian, etc.)
□ Native Hawai’ian or Pacific Islander (e.g., Samoan, Guamanian, Chamorro, Tongan, etc.)
□ Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American (e.g., German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc.)
□ My race or ethnicity is best described as:
□ I prefer not to disclose my racial or ethnic background.
Part D. Codebooks
Tables 5–7| Code | Definition: instructors want to implement specifications grading… | Exemplar quotes |
|---|---|---|
| Accommodates different groups of students | In order to increase equitable opportunities for all students as specifications grading can enable students with different cultural backgrounds or contexts to succeed in the course (e.g., differing education backgrounds among students) | “Students that had a strong organic background could just go through and do everything … the first try and then the students that needed more time, I would be able to give them more retries and feedback. And so, it would help me to differentiate the class a little bit more … and tailor to the different populations we have in there.” –Instructor 152 |
| Increased opportunities for feedback | In order to increase the frequency at which their students receive feedback and/or to ensure that the feedback students receive is meaningful or actionable | “Specs grading, you sort of get that immediate feedback on this objective or this series of objectives, this one concept. And so, you know, if I'm getting that data out of that exam … you know, out of that, then the students also can get it.” –Instructor 186 |
| Increased flexibility | In order to increase the flexibility available to their students (e.g., ability to miss assignments due to illness or athletics ability to revise or retake assignments) | “I like that it (the token system) gives the students some built-in flexibility in the course. So, then they can request a(n) assignment due-date extension, or, you know, they really just couldn't submit something. Maybe you let them trade in two tokens at the end to make up that assignment, especially if it's a complete/incomplete assignment.[…]” – Instructor 117 |
| Increased student agency over learning | In order to increase student self-regulation (e.g., autonomy, metacognition, motivation) | ““(Specs grading) improving their (students’) agency over their own learning. I feel like that is a really, um, critical component of student success is having them feel like they have some control over it. And so, um, I think that was what caused me to get started on it” – Instructor 102 |
| Grades reflect students' proficiency | In order to have final grades that are representative of students' proficiency with course material and to enable instructors to accurately track their students' understanding of the material | “I just started thinking more about what a grade means and something more tangible to say, 'okay, a student who left my class having earned a C, they can do these core things.' And so I could say, yeah, that basically anyone who passed a class C or higher can do these core things and, you know, B students can do some number more, A students can do pretty much everything.” – Instructor 171 |
| Reduced student stress | In order to decrease students' anxiety or stress | “I think it decreased anxiety. Um, I think they were able to compartmentalize these smaller pieces of information and carry them from week to week through some of the exercises that I did as opposed to like, that cram that night before, and take the exam, and then move on and forget everything.” – Instructor 189 |
| Increased student learning gains | In order to increase student proficiency with and/or retention of the course material and related skills or to increase the rigor of the course or to increase students' focus on the learning process | “a mechanism that says ‘you're gonna try things. If you don't meet the mark, you get second chances, and that's gonna help reinforce these set of knowledge and skills you need so that you're ready for these more higher stake assessments towards the end’.” – Instructor 118 |
| Transparent expectations | Because expectations will be clearer to students (e.g., what assignments are necessary, how to complete assignments) | “I was hoping that it could clarify the expectations for students in terms of what they needed to do to, to earn whatever grade they wanted. And also my expectations of them in terms of what learning outcomes I expected them to meet on each kind of assignment in the class.” – Instructor 125 |
| De-incentivizes cheating | Because it de-incentivizes students from cheating | “And, um, again, sort of like I had said, kind of trying to come up with ways where maybe we had lower stakes assignments to, to potentially limit any, um, you know, reasons to, to possibly want to cheat or, or, you know, on the longer assignments” – Instructor 173 |
| Reduced grading burden | In order to reduce the mental effort of grading on either themselves and/or the teaching assistants | “so I was doing a lot of grading by hand, so I was really interested in how specifications grading could help me streamline that grading process for, um, the assessments that I do. 'cause they're most mostly like project kind of things and not multiple choice assessments.” – Instructor 163 |
| No partial credit | Because it does not use partial credit on individual questions or assignments which are not wholly correct or not completed to standard | “one of the things that was appealing to me with specifications grading is getting rid of that whole idea of partial credit and having to decide, okay, you know, did this person get 9 points out of 10 and things like that.” – Instructor 173 |
| Supported students and instructors in seeing alignment between course learning objectives and assessments | Because it supports students and instructors in better seeing alignment of the course learning objectives and assessments | “It made me take another look at what I was teaching. And then it was like, ‘Okay, well here's my big ideas, and this big idea. I only have one module and one assessment. And for other big ideas, I might have more modules and more assessments.’ So it also allowed me to reflect on that and adjust, so that if I considered something important enough to be a big idea that I was assessing it and covering it in as much detail as I would … something else. So that allowed me to go back and like look at what I was covering and reflect on how much time and emphasis I was putting on certain things.” – Instructor 163 |
| Reduces tension between instructor and student | In order to reduce instructor's perceived tension in the student-instructor relationship (e.g., move away from the instructor being a gatekeeper of the students' desired grade) | “[specifications grading] also was a way to de-emphasize the grade focus for our pre-med students who are primarily taking this course. And it allowed them to say, ‘Hey, you know, …, just focus on doing the things.’ Like … we don't want you to be asking about sig figs, … we don't want you to be, you know, those are important, but that's, I don't want you to be arguing those points every single lab.” – Instructor 180 |
| Code | Definition: instructors are dissatisfied with… | Exemplar quotes |
|---|---|---|
| Creates competition | The competition created between students in a traditionally graded course where students compete to earn higher scores | “And then if some of them need to take it later, is that an unfair advantage or whatever. And it's like the students are pitted against each other, and constantly I'm making decisions about how to be fair, quote unquote.” – Instructor 117 |
| Grades do not reflect students' proficiency | The final grades assigned to students not being representative of their knowledge/skills (e.g., arbitrary differences in points for same proficiency) | “We realized that several students were not actually reaching mastery or proficiency on really important concepts that we knew would be important in future chemistry courses. And our letter grades at the end of the semester were indicating that that was okay, when we knew that it actually wasn't.” – Instructor 184 |
| Lack of flexibility | The lack of flexibility (e.g., unable to make up missed assignments, unable to gain credit for learning material after original assessment) | “then you look at your evaluation system and it's like you're penalizing them for getting things in not on time. You're penalizing them for learning things later instead of earlier and, and you're penalizing them again and again.” – Instructor 117 |
| Reduced student learning gains | Students passing the course without concrete understanding of the course material or without emphasis on learning (e.g., students not focused on learning, students emphasizing grades over learning) | “And at the end of the day, like, should there be enough points where the student literally doesn't have to pass any tests and they still get a B, a D in the class? Or a C in the class? That's probably problematic because you don't know if the students have actually learned anything. Um, so yeah. Yeah, I guess I do have a lot of issues with points-based.” – Instructor 120 |
| Unable to predict final grades | The inability to predict final grades until the end of term (e.g., need to curve thus grades may change) | “I always feels like the grading itself is not fair. <laugh >, there's like all this different percentage together and um, I feel the number is not very meaningful. But that doesn't really show what that number means. And like every time a student ask me in the middle of the semester what their letter grade will be, I cannot really give them an answer because they don't have their future exams done.” – Instructor 149 |
| Increased students’ stress | The stress on the students that the traditional grading causes | “And our method of assessment is, ‘okay, here's a test’ and then the test should be, ‘okay, I'm gonna measure and see if you actually meet these learning outcomes.’ … but then that makes the class rather high stakes, right? Everything in the class, their whole grade is based on the test. Which is another issue too, right? Because then you just have all these high-stake(s) things and it's stressful.” – Instructor 120 |
| Does not accommodate different groups of students | Does not allow for equitable opportunities for all students such as students with different cultural backgrounds or contexts to succeed in the course (e.g., differing education backgrounds among students) | “I also feel like a lot of the times our traditional grading is rewarding people that can test well.” – Instructor 189 |
| Partial credit | Having to give partial credit on individual questions or assignments which are not wholly correct | “Like the spidey sense in me said like, ‘no, no, no, this student did not meet learning objectives as defined in the syllabus or presented,’ but the student managed to accrue some partial credit here, some partial credit there, and some homework that maybe, or maybe not, it was, uh, not fairly done, and they get a C, and they pass.” Instructor 129 |
| Increased tension between instructor and student | The tension present in student-instructor interactions (e.g., the instructor is a gatekeeper who the student fights against to get a better grade, grade grubbing) | “A big problem that you have if you bring points into the equation is that I have the points and I can give them to you or not. And that's about me. And like, maybe we can argue about it a little bit, but in the end, like I'm the, I'm the gatekeeper, I'm the dole-er out of points or the withholder of points. Um, and, and that's just not how most things work in the world.” – Instructor 117 |
| Code | Definition: instructors are concerned… | Exemplar quotes |
|---|---|---|
| Potential negative impact on students | About the potential negative impacts on students during the semester if specifications grading does not work or a decrease in student outcomes under specs grading | “Now I have to teach “less”, quote unquote, um, you know, and maybe students will “learn less”, quote unquote, because I'm teaching less.” – Instructor 192 |
| Unfamiliar system for students | That the system is unfamiliar to the students and that the students may not be able to understand the system | “I mean, it's complicated to explain to students who have never seen it before … and probably even students who have seen something similar before.” – Instructor 145 |
| Student resistance | That students will actively not buy-in to specs grading and will choose to resist it | “The biggest drawback for me has been trying to establish student buy-in, just because students are habituated to other types of grading systems, most commonly points-based grading systems. And there seems to be a lot of student resistance to the new system, and they tend to blame them not doing well or them not understanding how the grading system works as well – just to the fact that it's a new system and it doesn't work very well.” – Instructor 120 |
| Increased instructor workload | About having an increased workload in terms of time commitment or mental effort (e.g., spending more time creating assignments, more time grading due to retakes, translation into letter grades) | “So if I'm doing specifications grading, the way that I do it is with flexible deadlines. And so students are taking different quizzes at different times. You know, maintaining the confidential nature of the assessment pieces was, was another concern.” – Instructor 174 |
| Potential negative impact on instructor | About the potential negative impacts on themselves (e.g. not receiving tenure, negative career impacts) | “How will it affect my tenure decision? I'm going off rails. So, uh, but thankfully I had a supportive, uh, colleagues and, and the senior colleague of my mentoring committee” – Instructor 129 |
| Lack of support | About the lack of support they may have from their peers/chair/department/institution if they start specs grading | “We had a little bit of concern, but not too much about how the department head or administrators might like, if there might be push-back from that. But we got, uh, we got buy-in from them relatively early in the process of planning so that it wasn't really too much of a concern.” – Instructor 184 |
| Maintaining rigor | About maintaining the rigor of their course when using specs grading | “I think my biggest concern then, and arguably, I think now even still, is okay, at what point are we really sure after, I don't know, five retakes, right? Did the student just memorize the concept to pass the objective? Can they truly apply it? Right? Do, have they actually learned it? Can they truly apply it down the road? Is a concern.” – Instructor 186 |
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the instructors’ participation in our study.References
- Ahlberg L., (2021), Organic chemistry core competencies: helping students engage using specifications, Engaging students in organic chemistry, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ch. 3, vol. 1378, pp. 25–36 DOI:10.1021/bk-2021-1378.ch003.
- Andrews T. C. and Lemons P. P., (2015), It's personal: biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 14(1), ar7 DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084.
- Anzovino M. E., Behmke D., Villanueva O. and Woodbridge C. M., (2023), Specifications grading and Covid, Chemical education research during Covid: Lessons learned during the pandemic, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ch. 7, vol. 1448, pp. 89–105 DOI:10.1021/bk-2023-1448.ch007.
- Bentley F., Kennedy S. and Semsar K., (2011), How not to lose your students with concept maps, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 41, 61–68.
- Brownell S. E. and Tanner K. D., (2012), Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 11(4), 339–346 DOI:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
- Bunnell B., LeBourgeois L., Doble J., Gute B. and Wainman J. W., (2023), Specifications-based grading facilitates student–instructor interactions in a flipped-format general chemistry II course, J. Chem. Educ., 100(11), 4318–4326 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00473.
- Cain J., Medina M., Romanelli F. and Persky A., (2022), Deficiencies of traditional grading systems and recommendations for the future, Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 86(7), 908–915 DOI:10.5688/ajpe8850.
- Carlisle S., (2020), Simple specifications grading, PRIMUS, 30(8–10), 926–951 DOI:10.1080/10511970.2019.1695238.
- Cerkez E. B., (2024), Application of specifications grading to an analytical chemistry lab, J. Chem. Educ., 101(10), 4268–4275 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00784.
- Chamberlin K., Yasué M. and Chiang I.-C. A., (2018), The impact of grades on student motivation, Act. Learn. High. Educ., 24(2), 109–124 DOI:10.1177/1469787418819728.
- Clark D. and Talbert R., (2023), Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education, New York, NY: Stylus.
- Closser K. D., Hawker M. J. and Muchalski H., (2024), Quantized grading: an ab initio approach to using specifications grading in physical chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 101(2), 474–482 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00872.
- Connor M. C. and Raker J. R., (2023), Measuring the association of departmental climate around teaching with adoption of evidence-based instructional practices: a national survey of chemistry faculty members, J. Chem. Educ., 100(9), 3462–3476 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00484.
- Cracolice M. S. and Deming J. C., (2001), Peer-led team learning, Sci. Teach., 68(1), 20–24.
- DeMonbrun M., Finelli C. J., Prince M., Borrego M., Shekhar P., Henderson C. and Waters C., (2017), Creating an instrument to measure student response to instructional practices, J. Engin. Educ., 106(2), 273–298 DOI:10.1002/jee.20162.
- Donaldson J. H. and Gray M., (2012), Systematic review of grading practice: is there evidence of grade inflation? Nurse Educ. Pract., 12(2), 101–114 DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.10.007.
- Donato J. J. and Marsh T. C., (2023), Specifications grading is an effective approach to teaching biochemistry, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 24(2), e00236–22 DOI:10.1128/jmbe.00236-22.
- Drummond M. J., Sager-Smith L. M. and Fishovitz J., (2024), Implementation of a specifications grading system in four upper division chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 102(1), 207–215 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00953.
- Elkins D. M., (2016), Grading to learn: an analysis of the importance and application of specifications grading in a communication course, Ky. J. Commun., 35(2), 26–48.
- Feldman A., (2000), Decision making in the practical domain: a model of practical conceptual change, Sci. Educ., 84(5), 606–623 DOI:10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<606::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-R.
- Feldman J., (2019a), Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52–55 DOI:10.1177/0031721719846890.
- Feldman J., (2019b), What traditional classroom grading gets wrong, Educ. Week, 38(19), 18–19.
- Genné-Bacon E. A., Wilks J. and Bascom-Slack C., (2020), Uncovering factors influencing instructors’ decision process when considering implementation of a course-based research experience, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 19(2), ar13 DOI:10.1187/cbe.19-10-0208.
- Graves B. C., (2023), Specifications grading to promote student engagement, motivation and learning: possibilities and cautions, Assess. Writ., 57, 100754 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100754.
- Hackerson E. L., Slominski T., Johnson N., Buncher J. B., Ismael S., Singelmann L., Leontyev A., Knopps A. G., McDarby A., Nguyen J. J., Condry D. L. J., Nyachwaya J. M., Wissman K. T., Falkner W., Grieger K., Montplaisir L., Hodgson A. and Momsen J. L., (2024), Alternative grading practices in undergraduate STEM education: a scoping review, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res., 6(1), 15 DOI:10.1186/s43031-024-00106-8.
- Henderson C., Dancy M. and Niewiadomska-Bugaj M., (2012), Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 8(2), 020104 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104.
- Herridge M. and Talanquer V., (2021), Dimensions of variation in chemistry instructors’ approaches to the evaluation and grading of student responses, J. Chem. Educ., 98(2), 270–280 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00944.
- Herridge M., Tashiro J. and Talanquer V., (2021), Variation in chemistry instructors’ evaluations of student written responses and its impact on grading, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(4), 948–972 10.1039/D1RP00061F.
- Houseknecht J. B. and Bates L. K., (2020), Transition to remote instruction using hybrid just-in-time teaching, collaborative learning, and specifications grading for organic chemistry 2, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3230–3234 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00749.
- Howitz W. J., Frey T., Saluga S. J., Nguyen M., Denaro K. and Edwards K. D., (2023), A specifications-graded, sports drink-themed general chemistry laboratory course using an argument-driven inquiry approach, J. Chem. Educ., 100(2), 672–680 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00860.
- Howitz W. J., McKnelly K. J. and Link R. D., (2021), Developing and implementing a specifications grading system in an organic chemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 98(2), 385–394 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00450.
- Hunter R. A., Pompano R. R. and Tuchler M. F., (2022), Alternative assessment of active learning, Active learning in the analytical chemistry curriculum, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ch. 15, vol. 1409, pp. 269–295 DOI:10.1021/bk-2022-1409.ch015.
- James N. M., (2023), Course letter grades and rates of D, W, F grades can introduce variability to course comparisons, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(2), 526–534 10.1039/D2RP00150K.
- Katzman S. D., Hurst-Kennedy J., Barrera A., Talley J., Javazon E., Diaz M. and Anzovino M. E., (2021), The effect of specifications grading on students’ learning and attitudes in an undergraduate-level cell biology course, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 22(3), e00200–00221 DOI:10.1128/jmbe.00200-21.
- Kelz J. I., Uribe J. L., Rasekh M. F., Takahashi G. R., Gibson W. S., Link R. D., McKnelly K. J. and Martin R. W., (2023), Implementation of specifications grading in an upper-division chemical biology lecture course, The Biophysicist, 4(1), 11–29 DOI:10.35459/tbp.2022.000239.
- Kraft A. R., Atieh E. L., Shi L. and Stains M., (2024), Prior experiences as students and instructors play a critical role in instructors’ decision to adopt evidence-based instructional practices, Int. J. STEM Educ., 11, 18 DOI:10.1186/s40594-024-00478-3.
- Lake D. A., (2001), Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion, Phys. Ther., 81(3), 896–902 DOI:10.1093/ptj/81.3.896.
- Lewis D., (2020), Student anxiety in standards-based grading in mathematics courses, Innov. High. Educ., 45, 153–164 DOI:10.1007/s10755-019-09489-3.
- Lincoln Y. S and Guba E. G., (2005), Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, in Denzin N. K. and Lincoln Y. S. (ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Sage.
- Link L. J. and Guskey T. R., (2019), How traditional grading contribute to student inequities and how to fix it, Curric. Context, 45(1), 12–19.
- Lovell M. D., (2018), Defining and assessing competencies in an undergraduate reinforced concrete design course, Presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 1–13 DOI:10.18260/1-2--30034.
- Lund T. J. and Stains M., (2015), The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty, Int. J. STEM Educ., 2, 13 DOI:10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8.
- Martin L. J., (2019), Introducing components of specifications grading to a general chemistry I course in Enhancing retention in introductory chemistry courses: Teaching practices and assessments, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ch. 7, vol. 1330, pp. 105–119 DOI:10.1021/bk-2019-1330.ch007.
- Matz R. L., Koester B. P., Fiorini S., Grom G., Shepard L., Stangor C. G., Weiner B. and McKay T. A., (2017), Patterns of gendered performance differences in large introductory courses at five research universities, AERA Open, 3(4), 1–12 DOI:10.1177/2332858417743754.
- McConnell M., Montplaisir L. and Offerdahl E. G., (2020), A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption, Int. J. STEM. Educ., 7, 53 DOI:10.1186/s40594-020-00255-y.
- McKnelly K. J., Howitz W. J., Thane T. A. and Link R. D., (2023), Specifications grading at scale: improved letter grades and grading-related interactions in a course with over 1000 students, J. Chem. Educ., 100(9), 3179–3193 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00740.
- McKnelly K. J., Morris M. A. and Mang S. A., (2021), Redesigning a “writing for chemists” course using specifications grading, J. Chem. Educ., 98(4), 1201–1207 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00859.
- Mio M. J., (2024), Alternative grading strategies in organic chemistry: a journey, Front. Educ., 9, 1400058 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2024.1400058.
- Mirsky G. M., (2018), Effectiveness of specifications grading in teaching technical writing to computer science students, J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 34(1), 104–110.
- Moog R. S., (2023), Origins of POGIL. Process Oriented Guided Guided Inquiry Learning, in Simonson S. R. (ed.), POGIL: An introduction to process oriented guided inquiry learning for those who wish to empower learners, Routledge.
- Moster C. A. and Zingales S. K., (2024), Use of specifications-based grading in an online, asynchronous graduate organic chemistry course, Front. Educ., 9, 1379216 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2024.1379216.
- Nilson L. B., (2015), Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
- Noell S. L., Rios Buza M., Roth E. B., Young J. L. and Drummond M. J., (2023), A bridge to specifications grading in second semester general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 100(6), 2159–2165 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00731.
- Prescott S. G., (2015), Will instructors save time using a specifications grading system? J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 16(2), 298 DOI:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1027.
- Pulfrey C., Buchs C. and Butera F., (2011), Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: the mediating role of autonomous motivation, J. Educ. Psychol., 103(3), 683–700 DOI:10.1037/a0023911.
- Raker J. R., Dood A. J., Srinivasan S. and Murphy K. L., (2021), Pedagogies of engagement use in postsecondary chemistry education in the United States: results from a national survey, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(1), 30–42 10.1039/D0RP00125B.
- Ring J., (2017), Confchem conference on select 2016 BCCE presentations: specifications grading in the flipped organic classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 94(12), 2005–2006 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b01000.
- Rogers E. M., (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press.
- Rogers E. M. and Shoemaker F. F., (1971), Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach, Free Press.
- Saluga S. J., Burns A. M., Li Y., Nguyen M. M. and Edwards K. D., (2023), A specifications-graded, spice-themed, general chemistry laboratory course using an argument-driven inquiry approach, J. Chem. Educ., 100(10), 3903–3915 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00433.
- Schinske J. and Tanner K., (2014), Teaching more by grading less (or differently), CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13(2), 159–166 DOI:10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054.
- Schwandt T. A., Lincoln Y. S. and Guba E. G., (2007), Judging interpretations: but is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation, New Dir. Eval., 2007(114), 11–25 DOI:10.1002/ev.223.
- Servant-Miklos V. F. C., (2019), Fifty years on: a retrospective on the world's first problem-based Learning programme at McMaster University Medical School, Health Prof. Educ., 5(1), 3–12 DOI:10.1016/j.hpe.2018.04.002.
- Shenton A. K., (2004), Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Educ. Inf., 22(2), 63–75 DOI:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.
- Shields K., Denlinger K. and Webb M., (2019), Not missing the point(s): applying specifications grading to credit-bearing information literacy classes, in Mallon M., Hays L., Bradley C., Huisman R. and Belanger J. (ed.), The Grounded Instruction Librarian: Participating in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Association of College and Research Libraries, ch. 8, pp. 87–97, https://hdl.handle.net/10339/94128.
- Spurlock S., (2023), Improving student motivation by ungrading, Presented at the Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education V.1 (SIGCSE 2023), Toronto, ON, Canada DOI:10.1145/3545945.3569747.
- Sturtevant H. and Wheeler L., (2019), The STEM Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS): development and exploratory results, Int. J. STEM Educ., 6, 35 DOI:10.1186/s40594-019-0185-0.
- Tharayil S., Borrego M., Prince M., Nguyen K. A., Shekhar P., Finelli C. J. and Waters C., (2018), Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning, Int. J. STEM Educ., 5, 7 DOI:10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y.
- Walden P. R., (2022), Student motivation, anxiety and pass/fail grading: a SoTL project, Teach. Learn. Commun. Sci. Disord., 6(1), 13 DOI:10.30707/TLCSD6.1.1649037808.651639.
- Wang Y., Apkarian N., Dancy M. H., Henderson C., Johnson E., Raker J. R. and Stains M., (2024), A national snapshot of introductory chemistry instructors and their instructional practices, J. Chem. Educ., 101(4), 1457–1468 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00040.
- Williams K., (2018), Specifications-based grading in an introduction to proofs course, PRIMUS, 28(2), 128–142 DOI:10.1080/10511970.2017.1344337.
- Wood D. F., (2003), Problem based learning, BMJ, 326, 328–330 DOI:10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328.
- Yik B. J., Machost H., Streifer A. C., Palmer M. S., Morkowchuk L. and Stains M., (2024), Students’ perceptions of specifications grading: development and evaluation of the Perceptions of Grading Schemes (PGS) instrument, J. Chem. Educ., 101(9), 3723–3738 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00698.
- Yik B. J., Raker J. R., Apkarian N., Stains M., Henderson C., Dancy M. H. and Johnson E., (2022a), Association of malleable factors with adoption of research-based instructional strategies in introductory chemistry, mathematics, and physics, Front. Educ., 7, 1016415 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2022.1016415.
- Yik B. J., Raker J. R., Apkarian N., Stains M., Henderson C., Dancy M. H. and Johnson E., (2022b), Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses, Int. J. STEM Educ., 9, 15 DOI:10.1186/s40594-022-00333-3.
- York S. and Orgill M., (2023), Experienced tertiary instructors’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of systems thinking in chemistry education, J. Chem. Educ., 101(1), 10–23 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01000.
Footnotes |
| † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00035a |
| ‡ Authors contributed equally to this work. |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |