This is definitely a useful explanation of the distinction between these two types and it gives us some conceptual tools to know when to apply either (or both!). However I can’t help but feeling that the most important portion (for me) of standards based/ specs based grading or all ungrading for that matter, is left out here, which is actionable feedback. I know this is not ignored in this blog and I’m sure it is throughly covered elsewhere (whether that be in the substack or the book I have yet to read) but I find that the greatest benefit of ungrading comes from the fact that students receive feedback that contributes to growth in ways that regular grading does not. Without clear detailed feedback, I find there’s no real distinction between “ungrading” and grading.
Absolutely, helpful feedback is essential! That's just not the focus of this particular post. Indeed, helpful feedback can be given in terms of standards or specifications -- whatever you have.
My impression is that most people feel like helpful feedback is familiar and doable, even if they need practice or time to do it, but there is more anxiety and confusion about standards, specifications, etc.
My area is language and literacy, but I had an informal brief conversation with a math ed colleague who said (more accurately, I heard him say through my own filters) math teachers are better at evaluating than assessing. The distinction hinged specifically on feedback in theoretical alignment with models of formative and summative assessment (getting and giving feedback vs making an overall holistic evaluation). Some studies in secondary math classrooms are showing that the reason carefully structured collaborative groups are showing promising results is this: Learners get more actionable and understandable feedback from peers than teachers. Why, I have no idea, and we didn’t talk about it at length. But something seemed askew when I read your assumption about teachers and their needs. I thought I would share not as critique (I’m not an expert) but as food for thought.
Giving good feedback is a skill, and one that many of us need to practice! But my point wasn't actually about whether instructors *are* good at giving feedback, or even what good feedback involves (although those are all important things!).
Rather, it's about what instructors *think* they need to worry about, and worry enough to bring it up unprompted on many occasions. For new folks, that tends to be an unwarranted worry about choosing the "right" approach between Standards and Specifications. Hence this one post, out of many, trying to address that one issue.
Super-useful explanation of this distinction. And I appreciate the important connection made between standards/specs and ungrading.
This is definitely a useful explanation of the distinction between these two types and it gives us some conceptual tools to know when to apply either (or both!). However I can’t help but feeling that the most important portion (for me) of standards based/ specs based grading or all ungrading for that matter, is left out here, which is actionable feedback. I know this is not ignored in this blog and I’m sure it is throughly covered elsewhere (whether that be in the substack or the book I have yet to read) but I find that the greatest benefit of ungrading comes from the fact that students receive feedback that contributes to growth in ways that regular grading does not. Without clear detailed feedback, I find there’s no real distinction between “ungrading” and grading.
Absolutely, helpful feedback is essential! That's just not the focus of this particular post. Indeed, helpful feedback can be given in terms of standards or specifications -- whatever you have.
My impression is that most people feel like helpful feedback is familiar and doable, even if they need practice or time to do it, but there is more anxiety and confusion about standards, specifications, etc.
My area is language and literacy, but I had an informal brief conversation with a math ed colleague who said (more accurately, I heard him say through my own filters) math teachers are better at evaluating than assessing. The distinction hinged specifically on feedback in theoretical alignment with models of formative and summative assessment (getting and giving feedback vs making an overall holistic evaluation). Some studies in secondary math classrooms are showing that the reason carefully structured collaborative groups are showing promising results is this: Learners get more actionable and understandable feedback from peers than teachers. Why, I have no idea, and we didn’t talk about it at length. But something seemed askew when I read your assumption about teachers and their needs. I thought I would share not as critique (I’m not an expert) but as food for thought.
Giving good feedback is a skill, and one that many of us need to practice! But my point wasn't actually about whether instructors *are* good at giving feedback, or even what good feedback involves (although those are all important things!).
Rather, it's about what instructors *think* they need to worry about, and worry enough to bring it up unprompted on many occasions. For new folks, that tends to be an unwarranted worry about choosing the "right" approach between Standards and Specifications. Hence this one post, out of many, trying to address that one issue.