Spec Grading: An Investigation on Assessment

Introduction

            I was first introduced to Specifications grading (also known as Standards Based Grading, SBG, or spec grading for short) in an undergraduate math class at Grand Valley State University. As I had never been evaluated in this way before, it was confusing at first, but in short time I came to realize that it really made a lot of sense. What I found most impactful, and what really stuck with me since, was this core principle of SBG: by the end of the class your grade will accurately reflect the amount of course material you have mastered. I had never really thought about it before, but now it seems really silly to think that this is not a main consideration in every classroom. In most classes we take a test after we have covered a certain amount of material, which count for the largest portion of our grade, but then we never review or revisit that material again. If at some point later in that class I learn an objective that I missed on the test I receive no credit. In other words, there is no incentive for me to actually learn the material, but just get as many “points” as possible, and my grade does not often reflect what I actually did or did not learn in the class.

            Obviously there are a lot more things to consider when determining how we should evaluate and grade students, but the previous example was what initially caught my attention. I am going to be a math teacher and I am passionate about finding the best ways to educate and motivate my students. I have been fortunate to have two great teachers, Dr. John Golden and Dr. Robert Talbert that taught with varying SBG designs; as a result I have become inspired by the underlying principles of SBG and very interested in using a similar system in my own classroom. The following work will describe in further detail what SBG is, the differences between SBG and traditional grading, ways to implement SBG, and some potential concerns I have moving forward. Though I have seen evidence of SBG systems working in all types of classrooms I admit that my examples may be biased toward mathematics. As I plan to construct a similar system, I have intentionally interpreted information from that perspective.

What do Grades Mean?

            One of the biggest issues with a traditional grading system is that we have no idea what a grade actually means. For instance, I could tell you that my final grade was a “B” in algebra class, but what does that actually mean? It could mean that I showed up every day, did my homework adequately, and averaged C’s on my tests. Likewise, it could mean that I Never did homework, showed up most of the time, did pretty well on tests, and took advantage of a couple extra credit assignments. In either case I am not really sure how much of the material has actually been mastered. Does my “B” in the class indicate that I am well prepared to move on to the next area of study? Generally speaking, a “B” means that your grade is in the mid 80’s as far as a percentage, but I’m not sure that either of those cases necessarily exemplifies a student that has mastered 80-90 percent of the topics in the class. I think at this point it is appropriate to ask a few questions, like is there a way to make grades more representative of actual learning, what grade represents appropriate achievement, and is our current letter system (percentages of total points) functional?

From a historical perspective, the common letter grade was designed to give more accurate appraisal of students transferring between classrooms and institutions, not for motivating students (Schinske, 2014).  Point systems encourage students to find the quickest and easiest ways to earn points but do not reward mastering the material. I am personally guilty of paying more attention to assignments worth more points and doing lower quality work on those that reward fewer points; and I consider myself a good student. The message is that, this system is not built to encourage learning; it is built to encourage doing what is necessary to get a grade. Though we don’t talk about it, everyone knows this, and that is why GPA holds little to no weight with employers. Often, it is not a symbol of how much you know, but how well you were able to work the system, how much time you put in, or how well you were able to memorize hours before a test. Schinske (2014) observes that, “Perhaps at best, grading motivates high-achieving students to continue getting high grades.”

I want to mention a few other things to consider about our current grading system. In averaging systems, a zero holds tremendous weight. The easiest way to get a good grade is to just do everything, even if it is not done well; teachers are often generous with partial credit. Students who miss assignments for whatever reason suffer greatly. Additionally, grading on a curve is principally flawed; achievement should not be based on how well a student does compared to another student, but whether or not the have displayed understanding of the learning objectives. We should also consider that often times grading is subjective; the current system and partial credit invites grading bias and almost guarantees grading arguments with students. The bottom line is, grades dampen intrinsic motivation, reduce interest, create competition, and increase anxiety. Later on we will address how SBG confronts these issues, but I want to first think about what grading should look like.

I realize that it is nearly impossible to do away with some aspects of our current system. We practically all use the common letter system for final grades and it is still a way to appraise students as they progress or transfer. However, I think we can find ways to better link those grades to real understanding. Nilson (2015) gives fifteen criteria for evaluating a grading system, a few of them are as follows: uphold high academic standards, reflect student learning outcomes, motivate students to learn, reduce student stress, make students feel responsible for their grades, give students feedback they will use, make expectations clear, and assess authentically. Perhaps a more simplified view is Talbert’s (2017, n.p.), who maintains that  “Grades should be based on concrete evidence of students success in three different areas: Mastery of basic technical skills; ability to apply basic technical skills and concepts to new problems, both applied and technical; and Engagement in the course.” Notice that both of these systems have high standards while requiring students to demonstrate mastery of specific topics, encourage learning, and positively correlate grades to skill mastery.
 I thought it was important to take a little time to think about our current grading system and what we want grades to mean before moving forward. I think it is possible for grades to more accurately reflect knowledge, while encouraging students to learn and holding them to higher standards. We can demand competence, while offering second chances, and encourage students to focus on actually learning the material instead of just getting a good grade.

What is Standards Based Grading?

Though standards based grading can be represented in many different forms, there are some core ideas that differentiate it from traditional grading. And while different classrooms and different subject matter may be better conveyed with varying strategies, I believe the core principles of SBG are a strong foundation for any classroom. In order for us to develop appropriate lessons we must know exactly what skills we want our students to master and develop reliable assessments for them to convey mastery. Additionally, it important that we find a way to motivate students while only accepting satisfactory work, accommodate for life situations, and link mastery to a final grade. Scriffiny (2008) makes a good point about demanding quality and assessing proficiency when he states that, “In the adult world, everything is a performance assessment.”

Standards based grading begins by very specifically defining what skills we want students to master during a class. Nilson (2015) claims that one way of achieving this is a ‘backwards’ approach to developing learning outcomes. In this scenario you begin by thinking about the most complex tasks you want your students to be able to complete. Once this list is generated we need to break down those complex tasks into the ‘building blocks’ that students must first understand; these all become clearly defined learning objectives. When teaching on these topics it is important that we openly share objectives with students; when they know what is expected of them they can more appropriately prepare for assessments. It can often be beneficial to students to allow multiple forms of assessment, with the main objective being that they can show clear understanding. This also means that we need very detailed rubrics that explain what is actually necessary for communicating understanding or meeting criteria. For homework or short assignments this may be a short list of objectives, but for a project or research paper the requirements may be much more significant. So far all of this sounds like common sense, and there are many classrooms that operate similarly.

One less common, yet important dynamic of SBG is grading work as pass or fail. Certainly this may not be applicable to all assignments, but theoretically it should apply to most. This is one of the major positions that sets SBG apart from traditional grading, and there are good reasons for it. It gets to the point of partial credit and what we actually want students to demonstrate in the classroom. In order to implement pass/fail systems we must first define what is passing, or acceptable work. Nilson and others generally set this at what we currently consider the “B” level. This means that in order for an assignment to be considered passing, or “good enough,” it doesn’t need to be perfect; it does however need to be good, and demonstrate that the student has satisfactory understanding of the learning objective. In addition to saving time and the struggle of awarding partial points to students’ work, it allows for more appropriate and meaningful feedback as to why the submission fails to be satisfactory; there rarely seem to be issues in determining whether or not a specific piece of work is satisfactory.

While utilizing a pass/fail system of grading assignments, most teachers using a SBG system will implement some form of resubmission or retake policy. The idea here is that we want to demand a certain level of excellence, yet be understanding that it often may not come on the first attempt; some of our greatest learning comes from taking a close look at what we did wrong and reformulating our ideas. However, this does not mean that students should have an infinite number of opportunities to correct their work so that there is no accountability on the first attempt; we should be firm, yet understanding. Many instructors find it beneficial to implement a token system with regard to resubmissions. They may give out a certain number of tokens in the beginning of class and students may be required to surrender a token for a resubmission, an opportunity to retake an assessment, or even to allow acceptance of late work. This also allows us to be more accepting of unforeseen and external situations that students may not have control of. Giving students a little flexibility with deadlines can not only reduce stress, but increase the quality of work as well. Depending on the class, teachers may also want to offer ways for students to earn additional tokens or reward them for unused tokens at the end of the term.

So how can we tie this all together to a final grade that represents student learning? The really simple answer is bundles (Nilson, 2015). This can be done a couple different ways, but basically refers to the number of passing assignments needed to achieve a particular final grade. For instance, a teacher may have the following bundles containing the corresponding amount of assignments: Definitions (30), Theorems (20), Proofs (10), Group Presentations (3). They could then stipulate that in order to get a B in the class a student must clearly demonstrate knowledge of 25 definitions, 15 theorems, 8 proofs, and have 2 successful group presentations. This is very rough but only intended to communicate the basic idea. Some teachers choose to factor in attendance and participation in a similar way. Generally, in order for students to get a higher grade they must jump more hurdles, higher hurdles, or a combination of both (Nilson, 2015); by higher hurdles we mean that they show deeper understanding of the material. Nilson (2015, p.26) mentions numerous systems of assessing level of understanding but I am particularly drawn to the simple hierarchy of Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision of Bloom’s taxonomy:

1.     Remembering

2.     Understanding

3.     Applying

4.     Analyzing

5.     Evaluating

6.     Creating

This representation means that a student who is able to apply a definition has shown greater understanding than a student who just remembers the definition, and a student that is able to create new connections between models is more advanced than the one who can only analyze and draw conclusions about a single model.

            There are many ways to generate grades based on the decided learning objectives, but in nearly all cases students need to have demonstrated satisfactory understanding of nearly all of them in order to get an “A.” Likewise, this system allows us to define the minimum amount of mastery required to pass the class and set the lowest passing grade at this point. Many structures require at least some ‘excellent’ or higher level work to get an “A,” and some structures even have a completely different set of work to get the highest grade possible. However, it is more commonly a pyramid type structure such that the requirements to get a “B” are a few things in addition to those required for a “C,” etc. By letting the students know right up front what the requirements are to get each grade we can encourage them to decide beforehand what grade they want to achieve. Thus, standard based grading is transparent and motivational while more accurately representing mastery of clearly defined skills.

Specific Implementations of SBG

As discussed, there are many ways to implement a SBG system while sticking to the core theories behind it. Having read many different interpretations on SBG, and personally having teachers use the model, I wanted to add some detail while highlighting some ideas and methods that I find particularly helpful.

One thing I really like about spec grading, and I have seen used in many different ways, is the option for students to demonstrate understanding of a topic through different mediums. Sure, there are some things that are cut and dry, like knowing a definition or being able to state a theorem. However, there is a multitude of ways to show that you understand what the theorem means, how to apply it appropriately, or how it relates to another theorem. Personally, I seem to find more understanding through visuals and find that if I create something I am much more likely to gain and retain relevant information. In math this can mean doing a picture or graph based proof, or creating a model with math based software. I have also read about many teachers giving students the opportunity to explain problems they are having a difficult time representing in another way; oral revisions seem very common is SBG. I think this may actually be one of the better ways to truly judge understanding. When a teacher sits down one on one with a student they can hear an explanation and ask appropriate follow up questions. Thus, they are able to get a really good idea of the students understanding, especially if it is something they missed the first time around. Talbert (2016) sometimes requires multiple evidences of proficiency and students can choose to fulfill this orally as well. Surely, if a student can answer a question on a test and verbally explain the phenomenon, they have demonstrated understanding. Even giving students a list of optional problems to choose from or different ways to present work them gives freedom of choice and the opportunity to personalize their work, which increases motivation and a sense of ownership.

Revising work that does not at first meet standards is another great feature of SBG. Iamarino (2014) asks a question we should all be asking, “Does the grading we do pay off in terms of improved student understanding?” When we grade work as pass/fail and offer the opportunity for corrections our comments mean a lot more to students; we are not just justifying their point deductions, but giving them useful feedback that will help them create satisfactory work. Robert Talbert (2016) uses a system that I really like; when grading written work he uses what he calls a EMRN scale, which stands for Excellent, Meets requirements, needs Revising, and Not quite there. To get an “A” in his class he requires that a certain number of assignments meet the excellent mark, but ‘meets requirements’ is good enough for most. He uses a token system and requires the use of a token for any revisions of “N” work, but “M” and “R” work can be revised without the use of a token. These revision options reduce stress while still holding students to a high standard and helping them learn form their mistakes instead of just punishing them.

Dueck (2011) offers great insight on learning with these four targets and associated questions:

1.     Knowledge Targets: What do I need to know?

2.     Reasoning Targets: What can I do with what I know?

3.     Skill Targets: What can I demonstrate?

4.     Product Targets: what can I make to show what I know?

 I find this setup great from a teaching perspective because the wording helps me generate appropriate learning objectives while focusing on what is really important in the course. From a student’s perspective, it encourages them to think about what they need to do to demonstrate knowledge and gives them options in doing so. These learning targets could be used to model learning bundles as well and seem to reflect Anderson and Krathwohl’s hierarchy stated above.

Psychology

            I want to just briefly discuss a few well-studied and proven ideas from psychology related to student learning and motivation that are present within the core ideas of SBG. Nilson (2015) does a great job of succinctly touching on five of these relevant theories, which are: self-efficacy, expectancy-value of goal achievement, goal orientation, self-determination, and goal setting. First, we know that students are more motivated to achieve when they know how to attain a goal and also feel confident that they are capable so. Second, The SBG model offers a lot of freedom for students, not only in what assignments they choose and how they choose to demonstrate understanding, but also in what grade they wish to attain. Students are more motivated and take ownership when they have choices; if they get a “A” in the class it is because they chose to take that path and do the associated assignments, not simply because it is the will of the instructor. Next, SBG promotes a learning orientation over a performance orientation. With this mind set students expect a challenge and realize that failure is a step to learning, they are free to be more creative and take risks. Thus, the learning orientation helps us create a classroom community where students feel safe to be themselves; numerous studies show a positive correlation between student success and a feeling of belonging. Alternatively, students with a performance orientation are more worried about how they look in front of their peers and shy away from failure, the grade is more important than the material. Finally, as the students are setting their own goals they are naturally more motivated to achieve them. Freedom of choice, along with a challenging yet attainable goal, and continual progress and feedback, is the perfect recipe provided by SBG.

Questions and Concerns

I think that the core principles of standard based grading are imperative to student success. I know that I want to use some form of SBG in my classroom, but I do have some questions and concerns moving forward. Though I know that SBG is used in high school settings, most of my sources are college professors who tackle slightly different issues and also may have a little more freedom with teaching style and experimentation. I worry that parents may not understand why I don’t want to use a conventional system or that I simply won’t be allowed to by administration. Imariano (2014, n.p.) notices that the K-12 system is different from college in that “a parental and societal expectation exists that schools monitor and encourage adolescents’ social and work habits in conjunction with their academic progress.”  Though he claims that this can be monitored separately I still see it as a concern. I’m not sure how I will handle homework, and there are a ton of options. I think some homework needs to be assigned, and I agree with those who claim that eliminating the homework grade will more accurately reflect overall performance, but I don’t know how to monitor it or address homework related questions. I basically want to make sure homework is genuinely attempted without it carrying too much weight. I know that with a system like this I need to be careful of allowing too much flexibility; multiple teachers have discussed issues with procrastination and students submitting tons of ‘make-up’ work at the end of a semester. I think this can be avoided by introducing checkpoints (where everything up to a certain point has to be turned in) or incentives for on-time work. Finally, there is the issue of students not all being at the same level, which I think is a bigger issue in K-12. Amundson (2011) suggests giving students pretests on subjects; students who already have a good grasp on the material are given “alternative enrichment activities” instead of participating in the lesson. This one I’m really not sure on, but I am sure that we can find a way to appropriately challenge every student in the classroom.

Conclusion

            I know that I still have a lot to learn, I haven’t even had my own classroom yet, but I know that I want to demand excellence of my students and provide them with a system that is fair and promotes learning over performance. From what I have seen, SBG is a great foundation for achieving my goals, and as a student I found SBG functional and enjoyable. Though I know that some teachers have tried it and not been convinced, many have reported great success, and it just makes sense to me. Something I specifically found interesting are numerous reports of grades becoming more dichotomous. That is, teachers report very few students getting C’s; students are either on board and do the work to get an “A” or “B,” or they are not on board and fail to produce enough satisfactory work to pass. It sucks to accept the fact that some students will fail, but it is an unfortunate truth. I think this dichotomy only speaks the fact that, if we hold students to higher standards, most of them will produce better work and succeed. To me, this just adds to the evidence that SBG more accurately reflects learning and encourages students to do their best, which is after all, the goal. I would also like to add a quick thank you to John Golden, Linda Nilson, and Robert Talbert who have all been great sources on standard based grading. My first hand experiences with John Golden and Robert Talbert first got me interested in spec grading, and Nilson’s book (recommended by Talbert) was a phenomenal main reference point.

Sources

Amundson, L. (2011). How I overhauled grading as usual. Educational Leadership 69(3). 

Buell, Jason. Monday, July 12, 2010. The Foundation of Standards-Based Grading [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://alwaysformative.blogspot.com/2010/07/foundation-of-standards-based-grading.html

Campbell, C. (2012). Learning-centered grading practices. Leadership, 41(5), 30-33.

Carey, T., & Carifio, J. (2012). The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study of seven years of grading data from an urban high school. Educational Researcher, 41(6), 201-208.

Christopher, S. (2007). Homework: A few practice arrows. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 74-75

Clymer, J.B., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Improving the way we grade science. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 36-42. 

Dueck, M. (2011). How I broke my own rule and learned to give retests. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 72-75.

Guskey, T.R. (1994). Making the grade: what benefits students?. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 14-20.

Iamarino, D. (2014). The Benefits of Standards-Based Grading: A Critical Evaluation of Modern Grading Practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1234

Levine, Marty. (2014). Advocating a new way of grading. Retrieved from https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/archives/?p=30598

Miller, J.J. (2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered assessment. English Journal, 103(1), 111-118

Nilson, L. B., & Stanny, C. J. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Noschese, F. (2011). A better road: Improve teaching and student morale through standards-based grading. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 38(3), 12-17.

Scriffny, P. (2008) Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct08/vol66/num02/Seven_Reasons_for_Standards-Based_Grading.aspx

Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE - Life Sciences Education (13), 159-166.

Talbert, Robert. 2017-04-08. Specifications grading: We may have a winner [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://rtalbert.org/specs-grading-iteration-winner/

Talbert, Robert. 2016-01-31. Specifications grading with the EMRF rubric [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://rtalbert.org/blog/2016/specs-grading-emrf 

Talbert, Robert. 2016-01-31. Specifications grading with the EMRF rubric, part 2 [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://rtalbert.org/blog/2016/specs-grading-emrf-2

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.

Winger, T. (2005). Grading to communicate. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 61-65.