I was reading the Ungrading book today and have been looking into Digital Pedagogy Lab resources. Tonight, I watched a presentation entitled “Specifications Grading: Ungrading :: Outcomes: Heart” by Dr. Jennifer McCrickerd from Drake University as part of the 2021 Lilly Conference online. McCrickerd has a Ph.D. in philosophy and specialized in ethics. McCrickerd described how they approached ungrading and fairness in the courses they teach. Through several rounds of modifications, McCrickerd dropped rubrics and used student reflections. Students made a case for a grade and in some cases, McCrickerd modified as necessary. This is similar to the approach that Jesse Stommel mentioned in a chapter of the Ungrading book. I hope to gradually move in this direction. I had a fantastic experience with reflections this year: I enjoyed reading them and learning more about students and their goals and learning process. McCrickerd then spoke about specs grading after being inspired by the book by Linda Nilson. Specifications grading “puts students in control of their grade” by offering bundles of assignments to earn different grades. McCrickerd mentioned a point I had not considered: the instructor has the opportunity to encourage students to do work for the next level. McCrickerd talked about how grading changed over time and a redesign was inspired by the Ungrading book. In the latest redesign, McCrickerd no longer uses a portfolio “where students make the case for their grade” and does not “set the criteria for what had to be demostrated for the different end of semester grades” leaving more decisions for learners. Nevertheless, McCrickerd emphasized that they now “provide much more support throughput the semester to facilitate reflection on learning and keeping learning goals at the forefront of their minds.” This last phrase made me think as I just read Stommel’s essay. I think that learning objectives help guide us AND there is an opportunity for co-design of goals with students. McCrickerd said they “aimed for radical autonomy… no formal paper requirements… and [no] due dates for formal papers.”
McCrickerd used a pre-semester survey to gather information from students about their:
- learning goals beyond good grades
- challenges in achieving the goals
- strategies for overcoming challenges
- thoughts on what would be helpful
In addition, McCrickerd had one-on-one meetings with learners and a weekly anonymous survey based on Stephen Brookfield’s critical scenario analysis that has several questions. Mid-semester, McCrickerd shared a survey adopted from Susan Blum and a self-evaluation form (also from Blum’s website) that includes reflection questions about what worked and what didn’t work. McCrickerd also read Susan Blum’s previous book (I love learning; I hate school) with students as part of another course.
Then, McCrickerd compared specifications grading and ungrading. McCrickerd stated that:
Specifications grading embraces the game and makes it work for student and professor.
Ungrading rejects the game.
Dr. Jennifer McCrickerd, Lilly Conference Online 2021
For specifications grading, McCrickerd mentioned that prior to the semester the instructor has to set up the criteria for passing and the different grade levels. In contrast, for ungrading the term prior to the semester was “vastly less” and focused on “developing surveys.” For specifications grading, during the semester there was less grading and still extensive commenting. However, I agree with McCrickerd that the comments are no longer to justify a grade or rubric. They mentioned that students loved specs grading and “the pressure of grades diminishes” and in ungrading the student experience is “still out.” McCrickerd did mention that although the one-on-one meetings were time consuming, the conversations seem much richer. Interestingly, McCrickerd mentioned that even though students taking the ungraded course had much more control, some did drop the course! According to McCrickerd, students “feel like they could actually focus on learning” and have “freedom to experiment with ideas.” This is what I want in the courses I teach.
At the conclusion of the presentation, McCrickerd summarized their experience with specs grading as “Radically reduced workload… Felt relatively transactional… Didn’t get to know students who opted for lower grades and so less submitted work.” This is an aspect (McCrickerd referred to it as “cost”) I had not considered and I can see how this may not align with who I want to be as a teacher. For ungrading, McCrickerd mentioned that they developed “much closer connections to students” and that they are “attending to them as learner and helping them improve on that front… I’m attending to them as people and helping them grow.” The ungrading course had frequent surveys that allowed the instructor to make quick changes. McCrickerd worried about the amount of formal writing they are doing. I was impressed by how reflective McCrickerd was throughout the process! McCrickerd explained that specifications grading is good for outcomes-based courses and they will continue using it for at least one course. Ungrading “is about changing who the student is and how they think about their own learning.” That was a wonderful way to summarize a journey comparing specifications grading and ungrading. I enjoyed this longer session and learned a different perspective and comparison that had not occurred to me. Now I understand the title: specifications grading is to outcomes what ungrading is to the heart.
