In the fall of 2023, I shared my 1st experience with specifications grading, which I was experiencing with my students in my Coordination of a Work Team course (Coordination d’une équipe de travail). Since this real-life story was published before the end of the semester, I thought it would be appropriate to write a follow-up to share the outcome of the final evaluation. In addition, based on my learning from 2023, I decided to implement a different variant of specifications grading this semester (winter 2024): contract assessment. I am using it in another specific course in my technical program: Controlling Manufacturing Processes in Bakery (Contrôler les procédés de fabrication en boulangerie).
November 1, 2024
My 2nd Experience with Specifications Grading
This article is a translation of a text published in Eductive’s French edition.
Looking back on my 1st experience
In my fall 2023 course, I had decided to use a new evaluation method based on specifications grading. I had defined 6 specifications, each counting for 10% of the final course grade, for a total of 60%. Some were considered essential to the course, while others were complementary. The essential course specifications stemmed from the knowledge (savoirs) and skills (savoir-faire) derived from the course competency, whereas the complementary specifications were based more on the attitude (savoir-être) promoted by the program.
The remaining 40% was associated with the final evaluation of the course (certification evaluation), in line with the Institutional Policy on the Evaluation of Student Achievement (IPESA) of my institution.
I had defined about 4 tasks by specifications. When a task was completed to my satisfaction, I checked it off the list. When all the tasks on a list had been checked off, the student obtained a grade of 10/10 (10% of the final course grade), and the specification was considered “mastered.” If the tasks related to a specification were not checked off (whether none were checked or all but 1), the student received a 0/10.
This “all or nothing” approach for each specification is referred to as bundle assignment by Linda B. Nilson in her great book Specifications Grading.
Choosing not to do everything
The “all or nothing” approach may seem radical, I agree. In the end, it proved to be quite beneficial for my course progression for reasons completely unrelated to students’ final performance, which translates into their final course grade.
As always, students made attempts that prompted me to clarify my expectations at the beginning of the fall 2023 semester.
However, in the last part of the semester, I observed some unusual behaviours. Some individuals who had achieved satisfactory grades chose to set aside some specifications in order to spend their energy on other courses. The most striking moment was when my highest-achieving student thanked me for allowing them the possibility of not completing all the assignments, resulting in a grade of 0/10 on one of my specifications.
Even if, on paper, I had designed my course precisely for this situation (through complementary specifications), I must admit that, as a teacher, I found it somewhat confronting. It made me realize how some students might feel “imprisoned” by grades. Could it be that the traditional grading system forces students to complete tasks rather than encouraging them to accomplish them? Of course, I still believe the role of a teacher is to push their students to become better individuals by offering opportunities to surpass themselves. However, could it be that this goodwill is perceived differently by our students?
These questions arise from the distinction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. In the end, I believe that offering students the choice to do or not do some tasks is for the best. As mentioned by Bruno Voisard and Caroline Cormier during the Major Lecture of the Association québécoise de pédagogie collégiale on alternative grading practices (AQPC), these evaluation tasks should better support learning. Without a doubt, students who are motivated in their studies learn better, in the long term. (I experienced it during my 2nd attempt at specifications teaching this winter.)
Encouraging risk-taking
In my Coordination of a Work Team course (Coordination d’une équipe de travail) in the fall of 2023, the final evaluation consists of a roleplay simulation with actors from the École de théâtre du Cégep de Saint-Hyacinthe. Each student interacts with an actor to resolve a simulated workplace conflict.
One of the main challenges of this course is effectively preparing students for this final evaluation. It’s normal; it is stressful to have to deal with a workplace conflict in front of an experienced actor. This fall, it seemed to me that students were better prepared than the previous years. I mostly found them more daring. They would make more attempts at “saying things as they are”, which made their interventions more effective. I was quite satisfied with this, but not entirely surprised. Indeed, according to the writings of Linda B. Nilson, alternative grading practices are known to promote the “right to make mistakes” and thus encourage students to take risks.
No impact on the final course average
In conclusion, a common criticism of specifications grading is that giving 100% or 0% for each specification will skew the group’s average upwards, affecting the R score. However, my colleagues Bruno Voisard and Caroline Cormier assert that, based on their readings and their own experience, a change in grading practice does not alter the final course average. To be honest, I was among the skeptics regarding this matter.
It was a good thing I didn’t make a bet with Caroline and Bruno, as I would have lost! In the fall of 2023, the final average of my group was the same as the previous 2 years, within 1%. By combining the grades 01/0 obtained by choice or by students with learning difficulties on certain specifications, the group average stabilized around 80%, just like in the past.
Building on my experience from the fall of 2023, this semester I wanted to set a new challenge for myself. My goal was to apply alternative grading practices for a key course in the course sequence of my program: Controlling Manufacturing Processes in Bakery (Contrôler les procédés de fabrication en boulangerie).
The Food Processing and Quality Assurance Technology program is structured around 4 categories of food production: meat, plants, dairy, and bakery. My bakery course, which is given in the 6th semester of the program, synthesizes all aspects of production control, such as sanitation and quality management.
This time, I opted for another alternative assessment method: contract assessment. With contract grading, students choose in advance the grade they aim for. However, the higher the desired grade, the greater the required amount (or quality) of work.
In my course, there are 8 labs, each lasting an entire day. Each time, students work in teams of 4 to make a different bakery product: raisin bread, focaccia, croissants, etc. (It’s such a delight to teach in my program!)
The students’ work goes far beyond simply making the products. Before each lab, each team has to create a production log, a raw materials log, and a compliance log for the finished product. These logs must be completed during the lab. Once during the semester, each student must create a product label (with, among other things, the list of ingredients and the nutrition facts table).
In addition, theoretical concepts are covered in class before each lab, and I expect the students to understand them properly. Therefore, students have 1 theoretical quiz to complete before each lab.
The workload is significant in this course. Creating and filling out a log requires a lot of time, typically between 2 and 4 hours per production.
The traditional evaluation method for this course allowed them to submit their logs in teams. Even if the workload was reduced through team distribution, historically, this method was a source of tension as some individuals often took on a larger share of the work within their team.
However, according to Bruno Voisard and Caroline Cormier, the evaluation should reflect each student’s abilities. The obvious solution would be to ask them to individually submit their log instead of in teams. But it would be unthinkable for a single student to accomplish all the work…And not to mention the considerable amount of time it would take me to grade everything!
Contract assessment seemed very appropriate in this context. With this type of alternative grading, I don’t assign a grade for each log created or each quiz completed. Instead, I asked the students to create a certain number of logs that met my expectations. If a log meets my expectations or a quiz is successful, the student gets 100% for that activity. If a student produces fewer satisfactory logs or completes fewer satisfactory quizzes, they get fewer points.
The important thing is that the student determines in advance the amount of work to be done so that their final grade reflects the efforts they consciously choose to invest (again, we are referring to intrinsic motivation).
Evaluation template for my course (in French) (This template does not include information about the final course evaluation. In accordance with the IPESA, this final evaluation is an integrative assessment, graded with a traditional evaluation grid. It counts for 45% of the total course grade.)
Specifically, in the 1st class of the semester, I presented the table above to the students, explaining that while each individual has the possibility to create 8 production logs, they only need to submit 3 (satisfactory ones) to get 100% of the points allocated to the creation of production logs. If they choose to do fewer, they will get a grade accordingly.
I evaluate the production logs they created and provide feedback.
- If a log is not satisfactory, I inform the student so they can correct it. (As the creation of a log is quite complex and requires a lot of work, logs are usually not perfect on the 1st try. However, as the students have to submit them in advance, they have the time to make adjustments after my feedback if needed. They can then resubmit their work for evaluation. This feedback without penalty remains the core of alternative assessment with specifications.)
- If the log is satisfactory, even if not perfect, I still provide constructive feedback to the student, but I count that log as part of the ones the student has successfully completed.
My feedback on a raw materials log (in French)
A production log created (on the computer) and completed (by hand) by a student (in French)
At the end of the semester, if a student has created 3 satisfactory production logs, they receive 100% for this assignment. If they have only completed 2, they get 60% of the points. A single satisfactory log gives 40% of the points.
After all, I believe that if a student can design 3 satisfactory logs for different bakery products, they have demonstrated mastery of this skill. The evaluation allows me to attest to the student’s learning achievements.
For each team of 4 students, I need to have at least 1 copy of all the logs during the labs to ensure the team’s access the factory facilities. Therefore, the teams must split the work among themselves. (Believe me, they all want to make croissants!)
Just like last semester, I’ve been using OneNote to collect students’ work, provide feedback, and track their progress. (I check boxes in a table allowing the students and me to keep track of the number of logs of each type they have completed, the number of quizzes they have passed, etc.)
Contract assessment to facilitate teamwork
I was explaining earlier that, in the past, the division of the work among team members has often been an issue in the advanced courses of my program. In the Controlling Manufacturing Processes in Bakery course (Contrôler les procédés de fabrication en boulangerie), it was often the high-achieving students who created all the logs, while some teammates acted merely as labourers. Since the grade was assigned to the team, this often led to feelings of frustration.
I read the excellent book Grading for Equity before the start of the semester and it echoed my thought… When evaluating a team, no one is satisfied. Neither the teacher, who knows the grade doesn’t reflect the work of each individual, nor the students, who end up doing the work for others and feel they deserve better, nor the students who didn’t do their share of the work and come out feeling like impostors.
With my approach, I evaluate each student individually, but they still need to collaborate within their teams. The contract grading not only compelled them to take a position regarding their grades but also encouraged them to communicate their intentions to their team for the work division. My aim is for students who don’t have to design a log on a given week to assist others in creating theirs (for example: “Could you check if anything is missing from my log before I submit it to the teacher?”).
I am already observing that the team members seem to communicate better. In addition, stronger students are more inclined to delegate tasks rather than take on too much (“Could you take care of this thing this time? I’ve already done it…”). Perhaps I should have emphasized more on evaluating the collaboration skill because this semester, all my students would have had excellent results!
A new approach to evaluation in a new course: quite a challenge!
I aimed high this semester as it was the 1st time I was teaching the course Controlling Manufacturing Processes in Bakery (I had already taught part of it during the pandemic, but the context was obviously very different.)
Trying out a new alternative assessment format while mastering new content was a significant challenge. Faint-hearted, beware!
That being said, in skiing as in teaching, there are always daredevils venturing onto the double black diamond slopes. I am not a great skier myself, but I take great satisfaction in having made it through the semester by skiing off-piste on a track filled with moguls that sometimes forced me to slide on one ski for a moment.
A small group and a single teacher
I must admit I had great conditions during my semester. I had only 8 students in my class (2 teams of 4), and I was the only teacher, taking the matter into my own hands.
Obviously, having fewer students reduces the workload. This even allows me time to meet with them individually. (They present their work to me during my office hours, and then I see them individually again for the final evaluation.)
And since I am the only teacher of the course, I can also quickly adapt the assignments and my course content as the weeks progress.
Alternative grading practices in technical programs
Yes, but how can these practices be adapted when we have 80 students aimed for a high R score? Honestly, that’s an excellent question and I would be very interested to see how alternative grading practices can be adjusted for this situation. Again, I have to say I am lucky to teach in a technical program.
I believe that alternative grading practices adapt well to the reality of a technical program. In my opinion, specification grading more closely resembles the reality of the job market (or internships) than traditional grading. In the job market, a technician has a list of tasks to complete. Once they are done, they go to their supervisor to get the work approved. The supervisor tells them whether the work is satisfactory or not and gives them feedback… This is exactly what I do in my class!
In my program, students don’t aim for an R score of 40; they are not seeking admission to medical school. In fact, my program is even, in a way, in competition with the industry. Right now, we need to convince our students that they truly need their DCS and that their diploma will be useful to them. We face challenges with maintaining student engagement and fostering a sense of belonging to the program and the institution. In my opinion, evaluation practices that resemble the reality of the job market are a step in this direction. I believe these practices help students recognize the significance of their learning. They make students more likely to engage in learning and evaluation activities for their intrinsic value rather than out of “requirement for the grade”.
Technical courses are very diverse, but I believe that specifications grading can be adapted to each one. As proof, my course from the previous semester and the one I am teaching this winter (2024) are quite different: the 1st was somewhat focused on skills (savoir-être), while the 2nd is very content-heavy (covering regulations, techniques, etc.)
What about you? Have you tried specifications grading in a course? Tell us about it in the comments section!
Subscribe
Login
0 Commentaires
