Grading, for Kevin Platt of Russian Studies, means spending hours reviewing student submissions, offering each student nuanced, thoughtful feedback to help them reflect on their work and learn from it for the next assignment. But in the standard grading system, he felt like students often considered this feedback only as a justification for a grade, rather than as an opportunity to learn and improve their work. And given the realities of grade inflation, in practice the students were only receiving one of two signals anyway: in the course, “They either get the A, or they don’t get the A.”
When he was tasked with leading the design for the new College of Arts and Sciences curriculum's foundational Kite course, he wanted to address this signaling issue. As part of the research process, he discovered specifications grading, a form of alternative grading that actually relies on a similar signaling binary: student work either meets expectations, or it doesn’t.
In the new course, students receive either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” (DNME) on all assignments, which are divided into the categories of “major” and “other” assignments. The revision policy gives students the opportunity to revise assignments that receive a DNME up to 7 times over the course of the semester. Revisions have to be submitted within a week of receiving the DNME and major assignments can be revised only once. Students’ final letter grades are determined by the total number of Meets Expectations they receive in each assignment category.
Platt explains that the new system creates the opportunity for “an honest relationship with the student that is not being confused by the complicated and broken signaling system of the past.” Rather than communicating only, this is an A- or B+, instructor feedback says, “You can do better, I know you can do better, and here is how.” Because of the binary assessment structure and the absence of averaging in calculation of the final grade, students don’t focus on whether they got the A. Instead, they read the instructor feedback.
In the two semesters he has taught the course, students have responded positively. From the beginning of the semester to the very end, he says, students have been “motivated to do this work and are really engaged with the material.”
Platt is not alone in this discovery. Faculty and instructors across Penn are exploring how different grading systems might help students more meaningfully engage with feedback and focus on the productive learning challenges that define their growth at Penn.
