The JMBE Live session I watched today was on “The Effects of Specifications Grading in a Cell Biology Course.” I watched it from the JMBE YouTube. Stanley Maloy, JMBE Editor, was the moderator. The authors are from Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC) and included Shoshana Katzman, Jennifer Hurst-Kennedy, Elisabeth Javazon, Alessandra Barrera, Jennell Talley, Mary Diaz, and Mary Beth Anzovino. Talley spoke about the Framework of Mastery Learning where faculty must state the learning objectives in smaller units, provide targeted and timely feedback, and provide learning opportunities to address deficiencies. Students in a mastery learning framework must have a clear understanding of the learning expectation, have time to revisit their deficiencies, and be encouraged to work with peers to identify strengths and weaknesses. Talley explained that with specifications grading students are encouraged to achieve mastery. Assessments are lower stakes and instructors provide detailed feedback. Interestingly, Talley explained that students obtain feedback and earn extra changes. Hurst-Kennedy spoke about the cell biology course at GGC and how this course is an “essential prerequisite and foundational course for all biology tracks at GGC.” The approach the team of cell biology faculty took was to review the course content and develop narrow learning outcomes. They associated each learning outcome with a quiz. The quizzes were graded on mastery where 80% or above was passing or mastery. If they didn’t achieve mastery, they had an opportunity to retake up to two times by completing an assignment based on that learning outcomes. These assignments were worksheets, chapter summaries, discussion with faculty. In total, students have three attempts in this setup. The grading scheme using specifications grading now corresponds to 20-18 mastered LOs to earn an A, 16-17 for a B… and so on. Anzovino shared the data and analyses. Their first hypothesis was that more students would successfully complete the course. Their reasoning was that students had more opportunities to show mastery, low states assessments instead of larger ones, and timely feedback was provided. The second hypothesis was that students would have more positive attitudes toward their grades and level of understanding of course content. Anzovino explained that in classes using specifications grading there was a larger number of As and a smaller number of Bs and Cs. Interestingly, among the non-passing students in courses with specifications grading, Anzovino shared that there was a larger number of Ws and Ds and a smaller amount of Fs. They also compared student performance on content-based questions. The median and maximum scores in specifications grading were higher, with a small statistical difference. Katzman explained the student attitudinal data which was on a five-point Likert scale. Ten questions were used. Understanding and retention of course content were included along with several questions about the course learning objectives. The last question was about their enthusiasm for the topic. The percent positive questions (agree or strongly agree) was compared between student responses for those in traditional grading and specifications grading courses. There were few sections with traditional grading. Katzman shared that prior to implementation, the faculty team spent time considering a strategy for retakes (including a room for retakes!) and multiple versions of the quizzes. During the question and discussion session, the presenters explained how they developed question banks and clicker questions for retakes. This allowed the specifications grading system to be scalable. They do fifteen minute quizzes with a combination of multiple-choice and true/false. Hurst-Kennedy explained that the proportion of D/F/Ws was similar to other courses. Interestingly, the speakers mentioned that students usually have been in another specifications grading course prior to the cell biology one. This study took years and a team! They also continue to improve the design and learning outcomes.
