I’m pursuing a micro credential at my institution and these blog posts are my submission for the final requirement. I also want to get better at actually reflecting on my semesters so I can stop relearning things. I hope if you’re curious about specifications grading (specs grading) or alternative grading in general, you’ll find something useful here. This post will focus on specs grading in general. Others will distinguish between lessons learned from the writing class and the lab class.
Tokens
Tokens are a key part of specs grading but I find them to be the hardest logistical part of the approach. Tokens are the forgiveness, you-don’t-have-to-be-perfect, aspect of specs grading. Students are given and/or can earn tokens to use at any time during the course. The way I did it, students earned tokens for doing things that would either normally be part of the course or will impact their performance (don’t love this word) in the course. Some examples:
- syllabus quiz where they are required to use the grade tracker for a hypothetical student to emphasize the LOWEST grade with all criteria met
- prelabs that allow students to practice calculations with fake data
- course grade plan where they use the grade tracker to plan what actions they need to take to get to their desired grade
- midsemester survey where I make adjustments to the course based on their feedback if possible
- journal article reviews to help them recognize the parts of an article and how to take useful notes if they need to use it in the future
Using Tokens
I used a linked Google Form & Google Sheet to keep track of token usage. The form used an opening question to direct a student to a page using tokens for a specific purpose. The new page would then ask for specifics and allow them to return to the first question to use additional tokens. I did this because I didn’t want a bunch of submissions from one student. Having it all in one row was much easier for my brain to keep track of. I made sure that the options listed the number of tokens the request required because I couldn’t remember off the top of my head. The form was linked to a Google Sheet that had token usage for both courses in different sheets. It was one less link to keep track of.
To keep track of token requests I had fulfilled, I used a color and formatting system in the Google Sheet. I opened the sheet on my tablet while completing the requests on my laptop. It was easier than switching tabs/windows/desktops. Completed requests got strikethrough. Requests that I couldn’t do (not enough tokens, no original submission = no revision, repeat submission, etc.) got red filled cells. Orange filled cells were for requests that either didn’t benefit the student or weren’t the best use of their tokens (I emailed them to let them know) and blue filled cells were requests that required me to give the student access to an assignment in Canvas.
Sticking Point: Token Strategy
I didn’t see the need to be strategic with tokens coming. At the end of the course when students were trying to figure out how to get their desired course grade using the available tokens, they had to decide how much work they were willing to do with an unknown outcome versus a guaranteed boost with reliance on ungraded work (I was really behind). For example, a student currently has an F at the end of the course because of a low practical grade and not enough high pass short answers:
- Option 1: They use tokens to revise 3 short answers potentially to high passes and to boost the practical 20 points to get a B in the course. If they get anything other than 3 high passes, they would have an F.
- Option 2: They use tokens to change a short answer low pass to a high pass and boost the practical 10 points to guarantee a C.
Which one should the student do? Now, maybe this was a flaw in my criteria design & token power but it was really tough on the Head TAs to advise students on this. It was bit like gambling and for some reason