An official website of the United States government
Specifications (specs) grading systems use a “checklist” approach to assessing students that asks them to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in course content, often coupled with multiple attempts at revision. Students also must demonstrate mastery in some specs to earn high letter grades. There have been several reports in lower division college chemistry courses that use specs grading systems (e.g., general and organic chemistries), but there remains a dearth of accounts of specs grading systems in upper division courses. In this manuscript, we report on the use of specs grading systems at a primarily undergraduate women’s college in four upper division chemistry courses: biochemistry, inorganic chemistry, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. The conceptual framework for designing specs tailored to upper division chemistry courses and their use to assess student understanding of course content are shared along with student outcomes and feedback. The upper division students generally had a positive view of the specs grading system with students viewing themselves as working hard on assessments that were tough but fair. Finally, instructor comments are presented in an effort to highlight the perceived benefits and challenges of specs grading to future adopters.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 1, 2025
Implementing Mastery Grading in Large Enrollment General Chemistry: Improving Outcomes and Reducing Equity Gaps
Specifications and mastery grading schemes have been growing in popularity in higher education over the past several years, and reports of specifications grading and other alternative grading systems are emerging in the chemistry education literature. The general goal of these alternative grading approaches is to reduce the reliance on high-stakes exams and give students a more transparent pathway to achieving the course learning outcomes. More importantly, relying less on infrequent high-stakes exams may help reduce historical equity gaps in introductory gateway STEM courses. Herein, we describe the implementation of two versions of mastery grading systems in large enrollment general chemistry courses at a public R1 institution. Class-wide course outcomes, equity gaps in performance on a common final exam, and student feedback on their experience navigating these grading schemes are presented. We show that combining mastery grading with interactive courseware tools improved the average performance on a common final assessment for under-represented minority (URM) students by 7.1 percentage points relative to an active control course that used infrequent high-stakes exams.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2421279
- PAR ID:
- 10615545
- Publisher / Repository:
- MDPI
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Education Sciences
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2227-7102
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1224
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This is a board presentation at the 2023 ASEE Annual Conference describing the HSI Implementation and Evaluation Project: Commitment to Learning Instilled by Mastery-Based Undergraduate Program (CLIMB-UP). Commitment to Learning Instilled by a Mastery-Based Undergraduate Program (CLIMBUP) is an NSF IUSE:HSI project centered on re-designing courses with high non-completion rates (C- or lower) that have implications towards students’ graduation, transfer ability and retention. Despite decades of effort to create active, inquiry-based learning practices in classrooms, our institution continues to see equity gaps and many required courses with noncompletion rates exceeding 50%. Grading practices have been identified as one of the main culprits in the persistence of equity gaps. As a Hispanic Serving Institution, we recognize and value the diversity of experience that our students bring to our campuses and are committed to utilizing their strengths by creating datadriven, equitable grading practices that give students space to take risks and bring alternative viewpoints to our classrooms and be rewarded. We believe a Mastery-Based Grading (MBG) approach can address problems that a traditional grading approach has caused. The CLIMB-UP project is building the infrastructure to support and train STEM faculty (both tenure-line and adjuncts) to redesign and teach a Mastery-Based Graded (MGB) course, and is conducting research on faculty experiences and on the change in student attitudes, mindsets, and outcomes.more » « less
-
This theory paper focuses on understanding how mastery learning has been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses through a systematic review. Academic environments that promote learning, mastery, and continuous improvement rather than inherent ability can promote performance and persistence. Scholarship has argued that students could achieve mastery of the course material when the time available to master concepts and the quality of instruction was made appropriate to each learner. Increasing time to demonstrate mastery involves a course structure that allows for repeated attempts on learning assessments (i.e., homework, quizzes, projects, exams). Students are not penalized for failed attempts but are rewarded for achieving eventual mastery. The mastery learning approach recognizes that mastery is not always achieved on first attempts and learning from mistakes and persisting is fundamental to how we learn. This singular concept has potentially the greatest impact on students’ mindset in terms of their belief they can be successful in learning the course material. A significant amount of attention has been given to mastery learning courses in secondary education and mastery learning has shown an exceptionally positive effect on student achievement. However, implementing mastery learning in an undergraduate course can be a cumbersome process as it requires instructors to significantly restructure their assignments and exams, evaluation process, and grading practices. In light of these challenges, it is unclear the extent to which mastery learning has been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses or if similar positive effects can be found. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to elucidate, how in the U.S., (1) has mastery learning been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses from 1990 to the present time and (2) the student outcomes that have been reported for these implementations. Using the systematic process outlined by Borrego et al. (2014), we surveyed seven databases and a total of 584 articles consisting of engineering and non-engineering courses were identified. We focused our review on studies that were centered on applying the mastery learning pedagogical method in undergraduate engineering courses. All peer-reviewed and practitioner articles and conference proceedings that were within our scope were included in the synthetization phase of the review. Most articles were excluded based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve studies focused on applying mastery learning to undergraduate engineering courses. The mastery learning method was mainly applied on midterm exams, few studies used the method on homework assignments, and no study applied the method to the final exam. Students reported an increase in learning as a result of applying mastery learning. Several studies reported that students’ grades in a traditional final exam were not affected by mastery learning. Students’ self-reported evaluation of the course suggests that students prefer the mastery learning approach over traditional methods. Although a clear consensus on the effect of the mastery learning approach could not be achieved as each article applied different survey instruments to capture students’ perspectives. Responses to open-ended questions have mixed results. Two studies report more positive student comments on opened-ended questions, while one study report receiving more negative comments regarding the implementation of the mastery learning method. In the full paper we more thoroughly describe the ways in which mastery learning was implemented along with clear examples of common and divergent student outcomes across the twelve studies.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)We explore how course policies affect students' studying and learning when a second-chance exam is offered. High-stakes, one-off exams remain a de facto standard for assessing student knowledge in STEM, despite compelling evidence that other assessment paradigms such as mastery learning can improve student learning. Unfortunately, mastery learning can be costly to implement. We explore the use of optional second-chance testing to sustainably reap the benefits of mastery-based learning at scale. Prior work has shown that course policies affect students' studying and learning but have not compared these effects within the same course context. We conducted a quasi-experimental study in a single course to compare the effect of two grading policies for second-chance exams and the effect of increasing the size of the range of dates for students taking asynchronous exams. The first grading policy, called 90-cap, allowed students to optionally take a second-chance exam that would fully replace their score on a first-chance exam except the second-chance exam would be capped at 90% credit. The second grading policy, called 90-10, combined students' first- and second-chance exam scores as a weighted average (90% max score + 10% min score). The 90-10 policy significantly increased the likelihood that marginally competent students would take the second-chance exam. Further, our data suggests that students learned more under the 90-10 policy, providing improved student learning outcomes at no cost to the instructor. Most students took exams on the last day an exam was available, regardless of how many days the exam was available.more » « less
-
Students in entry level CS courses come from diverse backgrounds and are learning study and time management skills. Our belief for their success is that they must master a growth mindset and that the final grade should represent their final mastery of topics in the course. Traditional grading systems tend to be too restrictive and hinder a growth mindset. They require strict deadlines that fail to easily account for student accommodations and learning differences. Furthermore, they run into averaging and scaling issues with 59% of a score counting as failing, making it difficult for students to redeem grades even if they later demonstrate mastery of topics. We designed a formative/summative grading system in our CS0 and CS1 classes for both on-campus and online students to support a structured growth mindset. Students can redo formative assignments and are provided flexible deadlines. They demonstrate their mastery in summative assignments. While being inspired by other grading systems, our system works seamlessly with auto-grading tools used in large, structured courses. Despite the flexibility, the courses provided a level of rigor before allowing students to continue onto the next course. Overall, 65% of students resubmitted assignments increasing their scores, participated in ungraded assignments, and used formative assignments for additional practice without a distinction between race or gender. These students went to the traditional follow-on CS2 course and 94% passed compared with 71% who took CS1 with a traditional grading system.more » « less
