We have so many theories of motivation—self-efficacy, goal setting, goal orientation, expectancy-value of goal achievement and most recently self-determination—backed by many thousands of research articles and books. You would think that we would have no problem at all motivating our students. But we do—serious problems, especially over the past several years, even while our teaching toolbox has markedly expanded since the 1980s. Maybe our teaching is neither the problem nor the solution.
In 2024, Joe Packowski, a faculty member in the business school at Indiana University, and I conducted a survey and literature review (print and video) that yielded 120 faculty who were teaching 120 different courses using a certain alternative grading system. The courses represented every platform, every size of class, almost every discipline—including the full range of STEM fields—and every type of institution from research universities to community colleges, sectarian and religious, in three countries. One hundred of those courses offered data on student motivation. The instructors gathered the data from their own surveys of their students after switching from the points-based grading tradition to the alternative grading system. In 96 of the courses (96 percent), the faculty reported higher student motivation—in most of these, much higher student motivation—than under the traditional system. Both the student surveys and faculty perceptions documented this motivation boost. In three of the four courses with no change, the students were already highly motivated. In one course, the students never understood the new grading system, and we can’t blame them for that.
More motivated students presumably submit higher quality work. In the 120 courses, 111 had data on the quality of student work, as judged by the faculty themselves. In 101 of those courses (91 percent), the instructors reported higher-quality student work after they switched to this alternative grading system. In the 10 courses with no change, most of the faculty said that their students worked harder. Then there was that one course where the students just didn’t grasp the system.
Which alternative grading system pulled off this near miracle? Not ungrading, standards-based grading, labor-based grading or contract grading. It was specifications (specs) grading, even including versions with aspects of traditional grading.
Specs grading has three elements: 1) satisfactory-unsatisfactory (pass-fail) grading of all assignments and tests; 2) a limited number of “tokens” (e.g., three to five) that students can use to revise an unsatisfactory piece of work or obtain an extension; and 3) bundles of assignments and tests that students must complete satisfactorily to earn a given course grade. Faculty can connect these grade bundles to achievement of specific learning outcomes, removing the necessity for chairs or deans to measure this achievement using other tools.
Specs grading promises to restore rigor, and here’s how: Satisfactory work represents not just passing C-level work, but rather work that would earn at least a B in the traditional system. To pass, a test must earn 80 percent or higher, and an assignment or essay must satisfy certain “specs” that an instructor has laid out as absolutely essential in the work. For example, an undergraduate-level literature review must be organized around a controversy, a problem, a general question or conflicting findings, which the student must make explicit. It must also identify three questions that the literature raises or fails to answer. Finally, it must cite at least 12 articles or books published in the past 15 years and be between 600 and 900 words. For another example, a reflective assignment must answer an instructor-supplied list of questions. For yet another, an answer to a mathematically based problem must not only show each step to the solution but also explain the reason for it. Miss any of the specs and the work is unsatisfactory. No partial credit, period; no student slides by on mercy points. This means that, as instructors, we must figure out what we really want students to show that they can do in each assignment and test.
But surely students would hate the system (no partial credit?!) and revolt, right? Wrong. In the 104 courses with data on student reactions, the students in 103 of them responded positively for the following (top nine) reasons:
- The chance to revise unsatisfactory work
- Clear expectations
- Reduced stress
- Empowerment/control over their grade
- Greater focus on learning
- Ability to learn at their own pace
- Feeling pushed/challenged to do their best work
- Feeling motivated to learn, work harder and shoulder more ambitious projects
- Personal pride in doing better work
In only 20 of the 104 courses did any students react negatively, and these responses were in the minority and from early in the course. These were the complaints, listed in order of frequency of mention:
- Too much work; it took longer to master the material and do revisions
- Greater stress
- Eighty percent pass cutoff too high
- Found tokens or the new system in general confusing
- Initial adjustment took time
- No partial credit; everything had to be correct
- Unfamiliar; missed the well-known points system
- Missed the extrinsic motivation of grades/points
- Pass-fail (all or nothing) “unfair,” even if it helped learning
Another benefit of specs grading that many faculty and students recognized was its similarities to performance evaluation metrics in the workplace. In both contexts, students/employees must monitor their own progress toward whatever grade or performance evaluation they are aiming for. They must also demonstrate the competencies needed to meet either the specs or the requirements of the assigned task. Employers don’t give partial credit for an inadequate job, but they may allow one opportunity for an employee to redo it. Furthermore, the pass-fail standard applies to licensing exams, driving tests, piloting tests, graduate qualifying exams and dissertation defenses. Students can profit from getting used to these real-world standards in college.
You may be wondering how much more time specs grading requires of your already overcommitted work life. Transitioning to specs grading takes more time than staying with the traditional status quo, but this is time you probably have more of during the summer. Your major transition takes place only once, followed by the occasional tweaks you make with any grading system in any course. You may spend more time reviewing revisions, but only if you allow your students too many, as a few specs-grading users unfortunately have.
However, according to our survey respondents, you will radically cut the time you spend grading each assignment and test and dealing with grading complaints. No longer will you spend time making hair-splitting decisions on the number of partial credit points to give, or shuffling through already-graded work to check on how many points you gave to similar work. All you have to do is to look for your specs in a piece of student work. Moreover, you won’t be seeing a line of disgruntled students outside your office door. For example, of the 1,386 students that Packowski taught using specs grading over seven semesters, only five (0.36 percent) protested any of his grades. His results were not at all exceptional.
With more time at their disposal, many specs grading users found themselves providing more personalized feedback to their students, but this was their voluntary decision. Furthermore, they perceived that their students paid more attention to any feedback because it came as freely given help from their faculty rather than to justify taking off points.
If you’re game to try specs grading, you might want to read about the system in greater detail and peruse the dozens of disciplinary examples in my recently published book, co-authored with Packowski, Specifications Grading 2.0: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, Saving Faculty Time, and Developing Career Competencies (Taylor & Francis). I have never known of any faculty member who used specs grading once and went back to traditional grading.
Elizabeth Redden
Source link