I have been thinking about how to plan for an online section of our molecular biology semester-long course.
Sandy Diec and Merlyn Joseph from Texas A&M College of Pharmacy are coordinators for a skills course in the pharmacy program. They have about sixty students in two lab sections that meet for 1.5 hours a week. They also use virtual online pharmacy simulations. Toward the end of the course, they have 3 OSCE tests. There are several modules. Students review the module content (readings, videos, combination), students have unlimited attempts to do a case with feedback. Students complete a pre-lab activity before lab and after the activities complete a graded lab assessment. At the end of the module, participants complete an OSCE evaluation. Diec and Joseph overhauled the assessment system for the course with a focus on practice. They used Linda Nilson’s Specifications Grading book as inspiration for the redesign. The goals of “specs grading” is to motivate students to achieve higher learning, increase quality of work, lessen the grading load, and strive for competency. The presenters described specs grading as having three components:
- Pass/fail grading: passing standard and no partial credit.
- Tokens: redeemed to provide flexibility/second chances.
- Bundles: group of assignments/assessments that form a menu for letter grades.
Students still receive a letter grade with this approach. The presenters opted to use all three components. They defined passing as a minimum of 80% for in-lab work, 100% on quizzes with unlimited attempts, pass the OSCE station, complete inter professional and peer grading assignment, and unexcused absence. Students used tokens to gain second chances for quizzes and lab assignments. Bundles determined how students earn their grades: an A bundle was 1 unexcused absence, pass 10 labs, earn 100% on 8 quizzes, no remediation for OSCE, complete inter professional and 2 peer grading assignments. Students have autonomy and choice to select a bundle.
The presenters did mention that it is difficult to implement specs grading. They suggest creating clear rubrics, and this takes time. They also mentioned to decide whether tokens should be provided at the beginning of the semester or earned. They found that in their course, tokens can be confusing for students. For bundles, the presenters mentioned the importance of labeling all assignments the same. Again, these presenters and several others I have heard lately mentioned that “LMS does not speak ‘specs’.”
Diec and Joseph listed benefits of specs grading for students: flexibility/second chances, clear expectations for learners, promoting learner agency that may reduce student stress, providing meaningful feedback, and motivating students to learn and take ownership. Diec and Joseph also mentioned the benefits of specs grading for instructors. They listed supporting high academic standards, providing clear expectations, reflecting student learning outcomes, giving students feedback they will use, and making students feel responsible for their grades. The presenters summarized the three components specs grading (pass/fail, tokens, and bundles) and left the audience with discussion questions to ponder. I read the book years ago, listened to the same Teaching in Higher Ed podcast episode they presenters mentioned with Linda Nilson, and have been implementing smaller components of specs grading. However, I haven’t done a full specs graded course. I wonder if I could adapt BIT 295 for specs grading?
