Alternative Grading Pillar: Clear Standards
Clear Standards is the first of four pillars of alternative grading. See Clark & Talbert (2023) for more information about the four pillars model. As with any atypical course component, be sure to communicate with students why you're doing this, how it might help them, and what steps you'll take to make it right if it doesn't go they way you hope.
- What It Is
- Starting Small
- Explore More
What It Is: Clear Standards
"Clear Standards" is very much what it sounds: Students get clear information about what they need to do to show their competence or ability, often at the course or module level. Instructors who are familiar with writing learning outcomes, especially within the S.M.A.R.T. framework (Doran, 1981), will recognize parallels here.
Some instructors might say, "But I do that all the time! It doesn't work..." It can be easy, though, for standards to get out of control and become less useful to students. The process will require revision ad nauseum. Edit and edit again; when done editing, edit some more. Clark and Talbert (2023) offer the following guardrails for faculty:
- Write standards about what matters. A common response is, "Everything matters, of course!" This is tantamount to telling a student "If you just do everything right, you'll have nothing to worry about." There's no actual information here. Most people would hear this as lousy advice for non-student humans, so why should it be different for students? Instead, these authors (and many other practitioners) call upon faculty to truly think through what their course or an assignment is about: What do I want students to learn by doing this? At its core, what is it about?
- Aim high for students. When you know what students should learn from the assignment, next consider what quality will look like. Common advice is to write the minimum passing standard to a "B" level, whatever that might mean to you. Write and post it somewhere visible: I write my standards at the "X" level (whatever level X you've chosen, preferably B.) Revisit this statement as you draft the standards; it's easy to drift. The direction and rate of drift will vary from instructor to instructor. One may move slowly to base expectations, while another catapults to unachievable ideals. After drafting, be sure to check your standards for this "drift" phenomenon.
- Use plain language that students can interpret. Academics use big words whenever possible and relish their sesquipedalian flair. To make things worse, even common words can be misunderstood. Students most frequently use "relationship" to mean a romantic situation or to mean how people are familially related to them. Academics most frequently use "relationship" in the abstract: a tie, commonality, or trend between objects, regardless of negative or positive quality. Asking an upper-level student to "describe the relationship between counsel and client" may work great. Asking an incoming freshman the same thing might work better as "describe how a lawyer and a suspect might view one another." The details are a matter of semantics and tastes, but the utility of plain language will be important to consider.
- Create a reasonable number. This is related to writing standards about what matters. It would seem like a disaster to create 93 standards for non-student humans. Instructors who have given research talks to fellow academics know that if too many points are made, even that audience of colleagues can get lost, leave with few or no takeaways, or both. Why would a student audience be different? If practicality is the better argument, consider instead: The standards you create are the standards you evaluate. While creating a reasonable number of standards is important for student learning, it likewise influences how much time you will spend evaluating student work.
Starting Small
It's tempting to think of alternative grading as an all-or-nothing proposition. You fully change your course or else it's not alternative grading. Luckily, this isn't the case. It's possible to incorporate elements of alternative grading, help students, and learn a lot yourself. Below are just a handful of suggestions to help you start small with Clear Standards.
The lowest barrier entry point is at the top, while near-implementation is at the bottom. Note, too, that specifications and standards are described somewhat loosely here. For more information, see "Explore More" below.
Low-stakes, low-effort ways to get started with Clear Standards
Here's a way to dip your toes in: Back away from course-level standards, which can be daunting, and try to understand how students interpret the language you're already using. Take existing specifications on one assignment (think rubric elements, lab report guides, project criteria, etc.) and collect student impressions of what they mean. This can be done any number of ways. (1) Provide the standards to students during class along with a notecard that asks them to paraphrase what the standards mean; collect the notecards at the end. (2) Have a whole-class discussion for 5-10 minutes during class. Alternatively, if you have a TA, ask them to facilitate such a discussion while you're out of the room. (3) Ask students during office hours. (4) Create a survey or a discussion board in Canvas.
An advantage to this: Nothing new is being drafted here. It's a check on how well current standards are working. (This falls under "indirect assessment" for the assessment-inclined.) If students interpret the standards well, no further action is required. Otherwise, you might consider revising in light of what you learn.
BONUS: After collecting these impressions, students will be primed for feedback. Provide them an exemplar and discuss in dialogue with students how the exemplar does or doesn't meet each of your specifications.
This extends "Collect Impressions" above: Work with students to develop the standards (or at the assignment level, the "specifications") their work will be judged against. Like above, this could be done through many channels: surveys or boards in the learning management system (like Canvas), through written comments in class, or through live conversations. Importantly, this helps with the "plain language" component of clear standards: Because students help draft the standards, they're far more likely to understand them. It also provides a layer of motivation: Some students may have more investment to meet the standards if they had a role in their creation.
Note that this doesn't mean a free-for-all. In this model, instructors can set parameters, create requirements, or otherwise shape the standards that students help build. (As one example: "Here are 3 criteria I care about, but I'd like to leave the last two for us to develop together.") This could range from providing beginning standards for students to edit with the instructor's help to providing room for students to create standards with little or no oversight. The level of support is up to the instructor.
The above methods require time investment that some instructors may feel they can't spare. This is for them. Pick one assignment (a particular case study, low-stakes performance, or even a written exam question) -or- pick one type of assignment. Then write specifications for it.
"Oh, I already have a rubric!" Perfect. Identify the B-level descriptions for each dimension, revise them if needed, and then let them stand alone as the assignment specifications. Sometimes less is more. See if students perform the same or better than with the full rubric. If not, you have some options: provide a revision opportunity with the full rubric -or- provide a reattempt, as per another pillar.
Ready to think at the course level but not ready to go all in? Here's a two-part trial where the standard you draft is not being used to evaluate students in a way that contributes to their grade. Rather, this "ghost standard" is about getting a feel for the process and the relationship between a course standard and student work.
(1) Create one standard for the course and identify one or more assignments that address the standard. After students complete each of these assignments, poll them: To what extent does is the standard engendered by the assignment? Is it obvious to students how the standard and the assignment go together? Use this information to revise the standard and make it clear to students. While typical advice is to use backward design (thinking about the standard first before creating assignments), the approach here allows you to make steps toward Clear Standards based on what's already present in the course--no substantial course overhaul at this point.
(2) Next pull a handful of pieces of student work. Can you evaluate them against the standard? Is it clear to you what meeting or not meeting the standard means? Ultimately, the two most important audiences for standards and you and your students. If you can't determine if students are or are not meeting the standard, it needs revision.
When you feel you've written a standard that's clear to you and your students, take what you learned from the experience and try drafting the remaining standards for the course.
Draft course standards and map them to assignments. Then do a scaled-back trial run with students.
In your traditional course, allocate a small fraction of the assignment's value to student use of the standards. They use the standards(s) to evaluate their own work. This can be as easy as saying: "This assignment is meant to determine if you meet the following standard: (Insert your standard(s) here.) Think about your work and this standard. Then assign your work to one of these categories: (Insert your system here - meets standards/does not meet standard; beginning/developing/proficient; etc.) Why do you think your work falls in this category?"
Students derive metacognitive benefit from this, and you get a lens on the alignment between standards and assignments, as well as student understanding of those standards. Take it one step further and pull a handful or more of pieces of student work that you evaluate against the standards yourself. Ask: How often do students and I agree on the quality of their work relative to the standard?
Think of this as Clear Standards training wheels. When this feels comfortable, you're ready to try Clear Standards at full scale. While removing training wheels doesn't guarantee you won't fall, it does mean you're more likely to succeed than not and to catch yourself if you feel unsteady. Give it a try!
Explore More
Below are resources to help you take "Clear Standards" even further.
The Grading for Growth blog by Robert Talbert has a great post on "How to Write Standards." This is a comprehensive but accessible resource. While the whole page is great, the section "Example: First-year seminar" section, the use of "I can..." language, and the section "Mistakes that can be made" are standouts.
Language is important, and this post uses specifications and standards in a very loose way: "specifications" relating to particular deliverables on a student product; "standards" relating to observable learning at a module or course level. Life isn't so simple, and standards apply at the assignment level as well. David Clark has written a great Grading for Growth blog post that clarifies the finer points: "Standards or specifications?" If you're up for a fuller read, Linda Nilson's "Specifications Grading" will illuminate the subject.
For a broader view that incorporates considerations and examples from public education grades 0-12, standardized testing, and more, you can consult the Glossary of Education Reform's "Understanding Standards." This also links to other, related concepts across the educational landscape. The example about learning progression can be particularly helpful for instructors situating their courses within the curriculum.
References and Resources
Clark, D., Talbert, R. (2023) Grading for Growth: A Guide to Alternative Grading Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education. Routledge.
Clark, D. (2024, June 3) Standards or specifications? A Fundamental Choice in Alterative Grading Maybe Isn't So Fundamental. Grading for Growth.https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/standards-or-specifications
Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
NA. (2014) Understanding Standards. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://www.edglossary.org/understanding-standards/
Nilson, L. B. (2015) Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Talbert, R. (2022, Feb. 28) How to Write Standards A Brief Guide to One of the Central Components of Alternative Grading. Grading for Growth.https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/how-to-write-standards