We have many theories of motivation—self-efficacy, goal setting, goal orientation, goal expectancy, and recency—supported by thousands of research articles and literature. You would think that we would have no problem at all motivating our students. But we do—big problems, especially in the last few years, even though our teaching toolbox has expanded dramatically since the 1980s. Perhaps our teaching is neither the problem nor the solution.
In 2024, Joe Packowski, a faculty member in the business school at Indiana University, and I conducted a survey and literature review (print and video) that identified 120 instructors who taught 120 different courses using a specific grading system. The subjects represented every platform, every class size, almost every discipline—including the full range of STEM fields—and every type of institution from research universities to community, denominational and religious colleges, in three countries. One hundred of those studies provided data on student motivation. Instructors collect data from their own surveys of their students after moving from a point-based grading system to another grading system. In 96 studies (96 percent), faculty reported high student motivation—most of these, a lot higher student motivation—than under the traditional system. Both student surveys and faculty opinions documented this increase in motivation. In three of the four lessons without change, students were more motivated. In one subject, students never understood the new grading system, and we can’t blame them for that.
Highly motivated students are more likely to submit high-quality work. Of the 120 studies, 111 had data on the quality of student work, as judged by the faculty themselves. In 101 of those courses (91 percent), teachers reported better student performance after switching to this grading system. In the 10 subjects without change, most teachers said their students worked hard. There was that one lesson where the students did not follow the plan.
What other grading system has pulled off this near miracle? Not demotion, standards-based grading, performance-based grading or contract grading. It was grading procedures (details), even including versions with standard grading features.
Standard grading has three aspects: 1) satisfactory-unsatisfactory (fail) grading of all assignments and tests; 2) a limited number of “tokens” (eg, three to five) that students can use to revise an unsatisfactory piece of work or receive an extension; and 3) a series of assignments and tests that students must complete satisfactorily in order to receive a grade for a given course. Faculty can connect these grade bundles to achieve specific learning outcomes, eliminating the need for chairs or dashes to measure these achievements using other tools.
Grading promises to restore rigor, and here’s how to do it: Satisfactory work doesn’t just represent passing C-level work, but rather work that can earn at least a B on a regular schedule. To pass, the test must achieve 80 percent or higher, and the assignment or essay must satisfy certain “criteria” that the instructor has set as the most important for the job. For example, a graduate-level literature review should be organized around an argument, problem, general question or conflicting finding, which the student must clarify. It must also state three questions that the book raises or fails to answer. Finally, it must cite at least 12 articles or books published in the last 15 years and be between 600 and 900 words. Another example, the assignment is to answer a list of questions given by the teacher. On the other hand, an answer to a mathematical problem must not only show each step in the solution but also explain the reason for it. Don’t miss any details and the work is not satisfactory. No partial credit, period; no student slips through grace points. This means that, as teachers, we must find out exactly what we want students to demonstrate that they can do in each assignment and test.
But surely students can hate the system (no partial credit?!) and rebel, right? It’s wrong. Of the 104 studies with student response data, students in 103 of them responded positively for the following reasons (top nine):
- An opportunity to review unsatisfactory performance
- Clear expectations
- Reduced stress
- Enabling/controlling their range
- Focus on learning
- The ability to learn at their own pace
- Feeling pushed/challenged to do their best work
- Feeling motivated to learn, work hard and take on ambitious projects
- Personal pride in doing a better job
Only 20 of the 104 subjects did anywhere students responded negatively, and these responses were in the minority again from the beginning of the lesson. These were the complaints, listed in chronological order:
- Too much work; it took a long time to read the story and make revisions
- Great stress
- 80 percent pass is very high
- Found tokens or the new system is generally confusing
- The initial adjustment took time
- No partial credit; everything had to be fine
- They are unusual; missed out on a well-known points system
- Missed the external motivation of grades/scores
- Not getting it (all or nothing) “wrong,” even if it helps to learn
Another advantage of intelligence measurement specs that many students and students recognized was its similarity to performance evaluation metrics in the workplace. In both cases, students/employees should monitor their progress towards whatever grade or performance test they intend to achieve. They must also demonstrate the skills necessary to meet the specs or requirements of the assigned job. Employers do not give partial credit for inadequate work, but may allow the employee one chance to redo it. In addition, the failure rate applies to license tests, driving tests, driving tests, graduation tests and dissertation defenses. Students can benefit from practicing these real-world values in college.
You may be wondering how much time spec editing requires in your already over-committed work life. Switching to a spec grade takes more time than staying with the standard, but this is the time you probably have the most during the summer. Your major changes happen only once, followed by occasional tweaks you make with any grading system in any course. You may spend a lot of time reviewing reviews, but only if you let your students get too many, as unfortunately a few specs-grade users did.
However, according to our survey respondents, you will significantly reduce the time you spend grading assignments and assessments and dealing with grading complaints. You’ll no longer waste time making hair-splitting decisions about the number of credit points you can award, or mocking up work that’s already been done to check how many points you’ve awarded for the same job. All you have to do is check your specs on the student work piece. Plus, you won’t see a line of unhappy students outside your office door. For example, of the 1,386 students Packowski taught using the specs over seven semesters, only five (0.36 percent) disagreed with any of his grades. His results were no different.
Over time, many spec users find themselves giving personal feedback to their readers, but this has been their own choice. In addition, they realized that their students paid more attention to any feedback because it came as a free help from their faculty rather than justifying deducting points.
If you’re game for trying to measure specs, you might want to read about the system in more detail and read a bunch of disciplinary examples in my recently published book, co-written with Packowski, Grade Specification 2.0: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, Saving Faculty Time, and Improving Career Skills (Taylor & Francis). I’ve never known of any faculty member who used grading once and then graded again traditionally.
