Rethinking Penalties for Late Work: The Case for Flexibility, Equity, and Support

Abstract

Specifications grading is an alternative approach designed to establish assessment criteria aligned with well-defined learning outcomes while giving students autonomy and choice with respect to their level of achievement in a course and focus on the act of learning instead of earning points. Degrees in public health are based on the development of discipline-specific competencies, making them prime candidates for a specifications grading design. This study presents the implementation process and evaluation of specifications grading applied to three graduate health promotion courses, including a comparison of final letter grade distribution as well as student and instructor perceptions of the grading scheme implementation. We hypothesized that although the grading scheme may take some adjustment by students, overall students would feel more control over their letter grade and therefore less stress. The process of revising requirements for assignments and maintaining alignment with competencies is discussed. There were no differences in the distribution of final letter grades between traditional points-based grading and specifications grading. However, students were overwhelmingly favorable toward the specifications grading scheme, with a majority reporting reduced stress, more flexibility, a clearer understanding of the learning objectives and grading standards, greater engagement with the course content, and the perception of greater control over final grades. Using a grading scheme based on displaying competencies is logical in the public health education context. This study supports the application of specifications grading for meeting student and instructor needs, and contributing to an equitable learning environment.