Traditional grades bear little relationship to learning. Receiving and integrating feedback is an essential part of the learning process, but because grades are retrospective, they serve as a poor feedback mechanism. The meaning of grades may also not be obvious to students; they do not understand what is expected of them in order to earn a particular grade, nor do they know what criteria to use to self-assess their progress. The relative opacity or transparency of grades is highly dependent upon instructors’ assessment practices, and alternative grading systems encourage greater transparency and better communication between students and instructors (Winkelmes, 2016).

Specifications grading is an alternative grading scheme that prioritizes transparency and progress-oriented feedback, with the goals of increasing student motivation, fostering clear communication, and achieving educational equity. Despite its recent, rapid increase in popularity, little attention has been paid to the forms of support faculty need to implement specifications grading successfully, and to the personal and professional circumstances that shape instructors’ experiences with specifications grading. To fill these gaps, we have created a readiness assessment tool that prompts instructors’ reflection on how institutional culture, identity, and course/curricular contexts may pose or alleviate the risks of adopting nontraditional grading practices.

In her latest book Linda Nilson puts forward an innovative but practical and tested approach to grading that can demonstrably raise academic standards, motivate students, tie their achievement of learning outcomes to their course grades, save faculty time and stress, and provide the reliable gauge of student learning that the public and employers are looking for.

She argues that the grading system most commonly in use now is unwieldy, imprecise and unnecessarily complex, involving too many rating levels for too many individual assignments and tests, and based on a hairsplitting point structure that obscures the underlying criteria and encourages students to challenge their grades.

This new specifications grading paradigm restructures assessments to streamline the grading process and greatly reduce grading time, empower students to choose the level of attainment they want to achieve, reduce antagonism between the evaluator and the evaluated, and increase student receptivity to meaningful feedback, thus facilitating the learning process – all while upholding rigor. In addition, specs grading increases students’ motivation to do well by making expectations clear, lowering their stress and giving them agency in determining their course goals.

This book features many examples of courses that faculty have adapted to specs grading and lays out the surprisingly simple transition process. It is intended for all members of higher education who teach, whatever the discipline and regardless of rank, as well as those who oversee, train, and advise those who teach.

Specifications grading has become increasingly popular, yet little is known about students' perceptions of and experiences with it. We examined students’ predicted and actual experiences of specifications grading in courses across several disciplines at a research-intensive, public university in the United States. Particular attention was paid to how students perceive specifications grading to influence their motivations to learn. Most students expressed positive attitudes toward specifications grading both before and after experiencing it. Qualitative responses indicate that facets of motivation, including choice, value, and expectations of success, were important factors shaping students’ perceptions. Based on these findings, we conclude with recommendations for practice for instructors who are interested in implementing specifications grading.