Holding specifications grading to account
Does it really do everything it promises to do?
Linda B. Nilson is the semi-retired Director Emerita of the Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation at Clemson University and author of a number of books on teaching and assessment.
This post is quite unlike those you typically enjoy on this blog. It doesn’t describe an application of an alternative grading system in a faculty member’s course. Rather, it presents the results of using one alternative grading system, specifications (specs) grading, in many dozens of courses—most classroom but some online, most undergraduate but some graduate, taught in colleges and universities across the U.S. and in two other countries.
Specs grading has promised a lot to the academy, so I should hold it to account. In my subtitle, the first edition of Specifications Grading (2015) pledged to restore rigor, motivate students, and save faculty time. The second edition, Specifications Grading 2.0 (2026) with Joe Packowski, swore to develop career competencies as well. It made good on its initial promises in the first edition, but that was essentially a pilot study with only 17 Clemson University faculty. The second edition subjected specs grading to a tougher assessment involving 120 faculty across the disciplines teaching 120 different courses: 21 survey respondents, 100 authors of 44 research articles, and 16 creators of web-posted videos; several of these faculty overlapped categories. So how did specs grading do?
First, let’s review the three primary features of the grading system:
Pass/fail grading (credit/no-credit, complete/not yet, satisfactory/unsatisfactory, or however you want to phrase it) of assignments and tests, where a pass requires meeting all the specs for assignments and least a B-level (80 percent) performance on tests;
A limited number of tokens, typically within the two to five range, that students can use to redo an unsatisfactory assignment, take a make-up test, write an in-depth corrective reflection, or obtain an extension on an assignment; instructors can give students the chance to earn more tokens by completing an extra assignment, submitting a credit-worthy assignment early, or doing something else;
Bundles of passed assignments and tests linked to different final course grades as well as lists of outcomes achieved. Students can aspire to the grade they want based on their need, interest, desired outcomes, and the required workload and challenge. Wouldn’t chairs and deans appreciate not having to measure graduating students’ outcomes and achievements for accreditation purposes?
Restoring Rigor
Rigor is simply high standards. It doesn’t mean just more work. It means more thoughtful, more polished, more learning-rich products. It means work that students can take pride in as the best that they can do. Did specs grading move the needle toward this goal?1
Of the 120 courses in the second edition study, 111 of them offered data on changes in the quality of student work after the instructor(s) switched to specs grading. In 101 of those 111 courses (91%), the quality of student work went up—enough for the instructor(s) to notice. Among the 10 courses with no change (9%), the students in one course never understood the new grading system, according to the instructor. In some of the other nine, the faculty noted that their students seemed to work harder.
So how does specs grading increase rigor?
Over the last decade, many instructors have grown receptive to alternative grading systems, all of which in their purest form eliminate points and partial credit. Both these hallmarks of traditional grading discourage students from doing their best and pushing themselves to excel. With specs grading, a student has to excel—at least respect all the specifications given and outcomes targeted—to pass any graded assessment.
This is one way specs grading restores rigor, but there is another.
Passing doesn’t happen with C-level work. It requires meeting all the specs for assignments and at least a B-level (80 percent) performance on tests. For example, specs for the solution to a mathematically based problem typically require the student to show 1) the solution, 2) each step to the solution, and 3) an explanation for each step. For another, a reflection on one’s performance in a simulation must answer six given questions, each in 100-150 words. For a final example, an affirmative statement in a debate must cite at least 10 articles or books published in the last 15 years and be at least 700 words long. There is no partial credit for incomplete or half-baked work and no slide-by’s on mercy points. Even though a token may allow for a revision, students can’t afford to miss any of the specs if they can help it.
As instructors, our own work should show rigor as well. For every assessment and test, we should consider what we want our students to show that they can do. What exactly are we trying to assess, and what features in students’ work will show us what we want them to be able to do? For guidance, we should consult our course outcomes and, if necessary, modify them to include what our assessments ask our students to do. These are your specs. For assignments that follow a formula or template, we need to list the elements and organization of that template (e.g., a research proposal, a corporate annual report, a literature review, a research article). For creative assignments, we should lay out the minimum requirements of the different acceptable modalities (e.g., a 30-minute documentary video, four six-panel informational pamphlets pitched towards different readerships, a 2000-word persuasive article for a particular magazine or blog, a script with stage directions for a one-act play).
In summary, yes, specs grading restores rigor for both sides of the lectern.
Motivating Students
Of our 120 courses in the second edition study, 100 of them presented data on changes in student motivation after the switch to specs grading. In 96 of these courses (96%), either the faculty or the students (in instructor surveys) or both reported higher student motivation to learn. Among the four courses that showed no change in student motivation (4%) were the course in which the students never grasped specs grading and three courses (one in Taiwan) in which the students arrived highly motivated.
So how does specs grading motivate students to learn?
There are many theories of motivation—self-efficacy, goal-setting, expectancy-value of goal achievement, self-determination, and goal orientation (performance versus learning) —and two aspects of specs grading feed into all of them: the clear expectations for success communicated in well-written specs and the high standards set for student performance. The former enhances students’ confidence in their ability and sense of control to achieve their desired academic goal because they know what they have to do to meet the specs. According to the motivation theories of self-efficacy, goal-setting, and expectancy-value of goal achievement, this student confidence and control generate the motivation to work harder and boost their sense of autonomy and competence, strengthening their self-determination and learning orientation. They are able to focus on learning because they don’t have to stress about their performance or fear taking risks within parameters of creative assignments.
In addition, holding students to high standards pays off in continuing motivation after students reach a goal. They feel more self-efficacious and self-determining. In fact, communicating high expectations is one of Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. As they put it, “Expect more and you will get more.”
But let’s hear from the students. Of our 120 courses, 104 courses had data on student reactions to specs grading. These data came from instructor surveys and the comments in end-of-semester student rating forms. (I don’t trust student ratings for personnel decisions because the negative ratings and comments, not the positive ones, are particularly prone to misrepresenting the qualities of teaching and assessments.) In 103 of the 104 courses, most students had positive reactions. In only 20 of these courses did a minority have negative reactions, primarily initial resistance to a new grading system. In only one course did a majority have negative reactions, and the instructor blamed students’ conditioning to points.
What did students say that they liked about specs grading? In order of the frequency of responses, they mentioned these features:
the opportunity to revise unsatisfactory work
the clear expectations
lower stress
empowerment/control over their grade
the greater focus they could give to learning
their ability to learn at their own pace
feeling pushed/challenged to do their best
their greater motivation to learn, work harder, and take on more ambitious projects
their pride in doing better work
Therefore, yes, specs grading increases student motivation to learn.
Saving Faculty Time
With specs grading, faculty reported that they spent much less time grading than they did before with the traditional system and almost no time dealing with grade complaints. Co-author Joe said that only five out of his 1386 students over seven semesters (0.36%) protested a grade. However, a few tasks added time: transitioning from traditional to specs grading before the term, but only the first time for each course, and assessing revisions if instructors allowed many or an unlimited number. Surprisingly, some faculty allowed many more revisions than the recommended three or four total revisions across all assignments. Not surprisingly, this indulgent approach encourages students to procrastinate doing their best on assessments.
Another more worthy use of faculty time that the reduced grading time made available went to voluntarily providing feedback to students. The students seemed to realize that the feedback was freely given just to promote their success and not to justify subtracting points. Many faculty in the study commented that suddenly their students were reading and even heeding this feedback when they hadn’t before. Additionally, some faculty shared that their office hours shifted away from negotiating points to collaborating on learning—a seismic shift from transactional to transformational.
So, yes, specs grading saves faculty grading time, which they can use for a higher purpose: giving feedback that the students actually value.
Prepping Students for Employment
Unless you’ve worked a while in the corporate world, you might not appreciate the similarities between specs grading and employer performance reviews. Certainly I didn’t, although I did know that licensing exams—from drivers’ to medical, nursing, and law—are pass/fail, with 75% or 80% being the pass level. And those who fail can try again.
But Joe, my co-author of Specifications Grading 2.0, saw the parallels as soon as he started using specs grading in his business classes. He is currently a faculty member in the Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. But before he entered academia, he had over 25 years of experience in the business world working in sales and marketing for huge U.S. corporations. As in the business world, he makes his students keep track of their progress toward whatever grade they aspired to and cautions them that employers prioritize results—not effort, labor, or time—and do not give partial credit. If a work falls short, a supervisor may give an employee a chance to reflect in an “after-action review” and improve the work in a revision. But such chances are limited. And so it is with specs grading. A student must demonstrate in an assignment the competencies laid out in the specs or exchange a token to demonstrate them in a revision. Similarly, with a job interview, one has one opportunity to demonstrate the competencies the employer is seeking, but with no redo opportunity.
Not surprisingly, none of the publications or videos addressed the similarities between specs grading and corporate personnel reviews, but our survey did ask faculty if they saw the resemblances. Not all our respondents answered that question, no doubt because some faculty didn’t know. But of those who did answer it, all but one person believed that specs grading did prepare students for the workplace culture, employee expectations, and employee evaluation procedures. Some of the students commented that they also saw the resemblances between specs grading and the workplace, especially in the evaluation metrics.
So, indeed, specs grading does seem to prepare for real-world employment, even though our evidence from faculty is somewhat thin.
Promises Kept
The data collected and analyzed in Specifications Grading 2.0 held the grading system to account, and specs grading made good on its promises. It not only holds students to higher standards; it also motivates them to rise to the occasion and meet those standards. It turns their focus from grades to learning, induces them to pay attention to instructor feedback, and virtually ends grading protests. Faculty spend less time grading and, if they choose, more time providing feedback. Plus, students grow accustomed to the kind of evaluation they will experience when they are working. As one student in Joe’s course shared, “I think that this grading process will allow me to actually use the information I learned in my everyday life. This is because I wouldn’t be pressured to do an assignment solely because I want a good grade on it.”
What other grading system does all this?
In his April 27, 2026 post (https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/six-things-i-think-i-think-about), Robert defines rigor as “high standards + valid assessments.” I think that somehow Robert and I came to pretty much the same conclusion about rigor. As instructors, we have to know exactly what we’re assessing and how to assess it validly.
 | A guest post by
|