A Bridge to Specifications Grading in Second Semester General Chemistry

Abstract

The development of equitable grading systems that provide students with effective feedback and provide instructors with an efficient means of assessment are of deep interest to chemical educators. A recent trend in chemical education, and STEM education more broadly, has been the use of specifications, or specs, grading that emphasizes mastery of material through recursive methods and standards-based grading. Students must meet certain standards in multiple specifications to earn a particular letter grade, as opposed to more traditional points-based grading systems. However, changing from a points-based grading system to specs grading requires significant effort by the instructor, especially in courses with an integrated lab component. In this manuscript we describe the development of a hybrid-specs grading system implemented in our second semester general chemistry course over the 2021–22 academic year. We describe the development of the hybrid-specs grading system, student performance as measured by shifts in letter grade distributions and final exam scores, and student perceptions of the new grading system. Notes for practitioners on the implementation of the grading system are in the Supporting Information. Finally, we also discuss improvements of the system for implementation in future courses.

Specifications-Based Grading Facilitates Student–Instructor Interactions in a Flipped-Format General Chemistry II Course

“…Overall, our results show that the implementation of specifications-based grading did improve students' final grades in general chemistry II, but it may not have improved learning according to the final exam results. The changes to the final grade distribution we observed mirror that of Noell et al 6 and Hollinsed, 17 where the number of A's increased using specifications-based grading; however, we did not observe a similar increased withdrawal rate. 6 Toledo and Dubas, 8 in contrast, saw an increase in the number of B's, which remained constant in this study.…”

“…The changes to the final grade distribution we observed mirror that of Noell et al 6 and Hollinsed, 17 where the number of A's increased using specifications-based grading; however, we did not observe a similar increased withdrawal rate. 6 Toledo and Dubas, 8 in contrast, saw an increase in the number of B's, which remained constant in this study. Unlike our results, Martin saw increased performance on final exams.…”

“…These improvements in student perceptions contrast Noell's implementation, where students perceived specifications-based grading to be unfair and complex. 6 Importantly, our survey did not measure perceptions of the grading scheme, instead focusing on elements of the "flipped" format of the course, explaining the discrepancy.…”

“…18−24 Noell et al created a hybrid specifications-based grading system for small class sections of general chemistry II and found more final grades of A's compared to traditional grading. 6 Martin 5 and Toledo and Dubas 8 introduced variations of specifications-based grading into general chemistry I, showing notable positive student outcomes including higher final exam scores (Martin) and higher levels of understanding of the final exam compared to unit exams (Toledo and Dubas). Hollinsed used specifications-based grading in general chemistry and found an increase in the amount of A's and no effect on the DFW rates (i.e., the proportion of students earning a D or F or withdrawing from the course).…”

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

“…This grading method was first introduced by Linda Nilson in 2014 . Examples of specifications grading have been reported for general chemistry, biochemistry, biology, math, anatomy and physiology, engineering, and physics lectures, as well as scientific writing courses, general, and organic chemistry laboratory. ,− …”