View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Utilizing Specification Grading in Sport Management Classes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Utilizing Specification Grading in Sport Management Classes
Language: English
Authors: Kimberly L. Fierke
Source: Sport Management Education Journal. 2024 18(2):151-156.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/smej/smej-overview.xml
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 6
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Athletics, Administration, Management Development, Grading, Pass Fail Grading, Evaluation Methods, Undergraduate Study, Alternative Assessment
DOI: 10.1123/smej.2023-0018
ISSN: 1938-6974
2163-2367
Abstract: This paper discusses the use of specification grading in sport management courses. The process organizes assignments around grading bundles and evaluates students as either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory in meeting each assignment. A token system is created to provide flexibility to the students. There are advantages to using specification grading. For example, it empowers students to choose their grade, reduces stress and worry over "points," allows students the opportunity to resubmit Unsatisfactory assignments, and provides a sense of freedom to the instructor through the feedback to students. This paper explores the process of creating the specification grading method in a class and reflecting on implementation and utilization of the method in undergraduate sport management classes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1445229
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGqs-_ctMpqjzm__DR-m3DRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKlAd0I_KtbhPn9jdAIBEICBmytRXrvdjqmnDxxnHWvXl5eV_wOE589lcMHV3huE3DovKD-F5_74SIxtS63kantYArqImPsFr0p2WBS5umHS4ERJeo8CYpjJY9NDN9wpSv9wHrFTelVlTbflkxMoovyUahIbxEAEJq8RJbxgq3ZfSH6-DNRDh0czDYolNsFKJ-mxF6RdiD4xATdXRmV7nI6RW61rR7-Mr_9oZdHz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179968121;[egpc]01oct.24;2024Oct01.05:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179968121-1">Utilizing Specification Grading in Sport Management Classes </title> <p>This paper discusses the use of specification grading in sport management courses. The process organizes assignments around grading bundles and evaluates students as either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory in meeting each assignment. A token system is created to provide flexibility to the students. There are advantages to using specification grading. For example, it empowers students to choose their grade, reduces stress and worry over "points," allows students the opportunity to resubmit Unsatisfactory assignments, and provides a sense of freedom to the instructor through the feedback to students. This paper explores the process of creating the specification grading method in a class and reflecting on implementation and utilization of the method in undergraduate sport management classes.</p> <p>Keywords: pedagogies; learning outcomes; assessment; assignments</p> <p>Assigning grades to students is the standard approach to assess whether learning has occurred between a student and the course material. Grading systems were originally developed in the 1700s to foster competition among students for prizes and rank order. Systems continued to develop until the mid-20th century when tiering grades began to define that an A meant students earned at least 90% of the total possible points, a B at least 80%, and an F for points earned below 60% ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). The grades also became qualified with descriptors such as an A indicating "exceptional" level of achievement, a B indicating a "good but not outstanding" level, and a C indicating a "fair" level of understanding ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>This defined grading scheme is not without assumptions that may not be indicators of learning. Cain et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]) highlighted issues with the traditional grading system that may interfere with accurately assessing a student's learning of the course material. Five grading issues exist that many instructors have most likely encountered. First, how an instructor measures grades (points or letter grades) depends on the reliability of the assessment and how detailed the directions are for the students to complete. Second, points for "subjective activities" (classroom participation, homework completion, etc.) may skew a grade that has nothing to do with learning. Third, differences between graded assignments and types of assignments (10-page research paper vs. 1-page reflection) may be only a few points raising doubts that the overall final grade may not be enough to provide an accurate measure of learning. Fourth, variability of grading approaches (rigor vs. leniency) among instructors has an impact. Fifth, traditional grading schemes usually do not factor growth and retainment of knowledge but rather a student's ability to study for a test or accumulate points. These issues with grading tied to student learning often result in dissatisfaction for the student and instructor when all too often the assigned grade is based on trying to quantify a qualitative assignment or exam.</p> <p>As an instructor teaching undergraduate sport management courses, it has been a struggle to objectively assign a grade to a student. Even with the use of carefully crafted rubrics, there was still concern that the grade was not accurately reflecting the learning. During the Fall 2021 semester, when the height of online teaching due to COVID was starting to wear, there was real concern over a lack of connecting with students, especially with students from marginalized communities. A search of alternative pedagogical systems yielded results in alternative grading approaches such as pass/fail, ungraded, and standard-based, among others. An article by Nilson ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]) offered a brief introduction to specification grading which has the potential to put students in control of their grades. In experience, the control that is given to the student removes that sense of responsibility of following up with students and allows the instructor to focus on feedback to assist in learning the content. Since the Spring 2022 semester, specification grading has been utilized in the Leadership in Sport class. This change has been a process and one that this instructor has come to embrace. This paper provides an overview of the specification grading approach, converting a course to specification grading, and reflections on the use of the grading scheme in those sport management classes.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-2">Overview of Specification Grading</hd> <p>Specification grading, created by Nilson ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]), removes the struggle of the faculty member trying to be "fair" when grading students across an assignment. It also removes the time it takes to award points. For the students, it removes the stress they often feel over the points earned. Specification grading ties assignment grades to specific learning outcomes. The approach includes three primary elements:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Assignments are graded as Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory. The requirements to achieve Satisfactory are set by the instructor. The prevailing standard for undergraduate courses is set to a B level expectation; the individual instructor can set the minimum grade that fits their course. To earn a Satisfactory achievement, the academic work must meet all the specifications outlined in the assignment. The instructor must provide clear and detailed direction (specifications) for what qualifies as Satisfactory achievement.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Specification grading allows the student the opportunity to revise Unsatisfactory work and other opportunities with a token system. Students begin the course with a set number of "tokens" that can be redeemed for the opportunity to revise and resubmit Unsatisfactory work, retake an examination or quiz, or receive an extension on an assignment due date.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Course grades are assigned based on groups of assignments (bundles) that the student has completed. The "bundle" is linked to a final course letter grade, and students have the freedom to choose their final grade. The higher grades require completion of bundles with more and/or more challenging expectations.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0179968121-3">Arguments for Adopting Specification Grading</hd> <p>The appeal to adopt specification grading in sport management classes was the desire to be able to connect students to <emph>actual</emph> learning, improve student motivation, reduce the stress of grading, and focus on providing feedback that aids in learning. These seem to be common areas of struggle among instructors while employing the traditional A–F grading scheme.</p> <p>The first concern was students' grades were not accurately reflecting learning of the material. While students were handing in assignments that matched objectives and requirements, it was often difficult to place a grade on their understanding of the assignment concept. Students were more concerned about receiving points and handing in something to produce some points to put toward their grade; the collection of "points," not learning, became the focus. Rom ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]) states that grades represent an "estimate" of student's achievement toward an established parameter, and they can be good if the estimator is accurate, unbiased, and consistent. Utilizing rubrics helped but never quite seemed to achieve an accurate representation of learning as subjectivity in grading was still prevalent. In specification grading, the assignments and grading bundles are directly tied to the learning outcomes and the grade of either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory has removed some subjectivity.</p> <p>Before the incorporation of specification grading, when students would come forward, it was most often to question the points they received rather than the quality of the assignment. The motivation for the student often resides in the achievement of the final grade ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref9">16</reflink>]). This motivation for achieving the highest final grade and not for learning the content was happening across the courses being taught. With specification grading, it is the student who determines what their grade will be based on the established grading bundles. The student can now choose to be as motivated (or not) for their final grade.</p> <p>Grading is often not high on the list of enjoyable activities for instructors. Even when following a detailed rubric, it was still a struggle to decide how many "points" a student deserved on an assignment. The second part of grading that was causing stress was the awareness of bias, especially teaching online during COVID. As the instructor, there was a continual questioning about whether the students who participated in class and forged a connection were receiving higher grades than those students who rarely, if ever, engaged or connected. And while there was a consciousness of trying not to be biased, it does not eliminate bias ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). After adopting specification grading, the stress related to grading was significantly reduced. Rather than focusing on points or the relationship with the student, the grading became a much simpler binary answer. The student either did or did not meet the assignment requirements.</p> <p>Before specification grading, feedback provided to students tended to focus on correcting their mistakes rather than on helping them connect with learning objectives. Once the grade was assigned, feedback provided did not seem to matter. There is evidence that students feel detached from feedback, and it does not necessarily increase learning ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). After incorporating specification grading, the quality and amount of feedback provided to students changed and are now focused on providing insights that help and challenge students to connect to the course material. This is evidenced anecdotally through the end of semester evaluations where several students have expressed the helpfulness of feedback that did not occur with traditional grading.</p> <p>While the feedback has improved, there still exists the concern of instructor bias in grading. Reducing grading bias is approached through two ways. The first is that the grading rubric is standardized. The use of standardized rubrics has been supported through research studies ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). In specification grading, the same rubric is used across all assignments (see Figure 1). The rubric is simple in that the student either does or does not meet the assignment criteria. The second is to incorporate anonymous grading by removing the student's name from the assignment. Anonymous grading has the potential to dismantle grading biases ranging from racial and gender to a student's relationship with instructors, previous work, class attendance, and class participation ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]). The removal of the student's name on the assignment is intentional for the first submission; although, having had some of these students in multiple classes, it does not entirely create anonymity.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 —EMRF rubric example. EMRF = Excellent example, Meets expectations, needs Revision, Fragmentary.</p> <p>Specification grading is not the cure for removing all obstacles pertaining to grades, but it does reduce much of the negativity surrounding evaluating student work, and the quality of student work has increased. Streifer and Palmer ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]) provide a four-part readiness assessment tool that allows instructors to "determine if their teaching context, institutional culture, and identity position them to successfully implement specifications grading" (p. 2). This readiness assessment was helpful to know the skills and knowledge needed were present and the support from the institution was evident in order to make this pedagogical change. Once the decision was made to incorporate specification grading, the next step is to undergo the process of converting a course.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-4">Converting a Course to a Specification-Graded Course</hd> <p>The course chosen was the Leadership in Sport class which is primarily comprised of 25 junior and senior undergraduate students. The conversion involved three steps that had to be thought through prior to the start of class and includes converting assignment specifications to align with learning outcomes, creating the grade bundles, and structuring the token system.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-5">Converting Assignment Specifications to Align With Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>The course components traditionally graded in the Leadership in Sport class include six assignments connected to leadership concepts covered in class, four to personal leadership development, a "Design Your Life" component, and participation/attendance. The homework assignments vary and include written assignments, case studies, and research. The Design Your Life component is based on the work of Burnett and Evans ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]) that is incorporated into a five-part module. There was a careful re-examination of the course learning outcomes with each graded component matched to course learning outcomes; some assignments were removed, some altered, and some new ones added.</p> <p>Stutzman and Race ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]) created a standard-based grading rubric that has become popular among instructors that use specification grading and use it for all the assignments. It is commonly known as the EMRF rubric (<bold>E</bold>xcellent example, <bold>M</bold>eets expectations, needs <bold>R</bold>evision, <bold>F</bold>ragmentary) and is basically a pass/fail rubric with an extra layer on each side. It is also shared with the students at the beginning of the semester.</p> <p>While the EMRF rubric is easy to use while grading, the students still need clear understanding of the contents of what is expected for a Satisfactory assignment. Nilson ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]) recommends a B level standard for Satisfactory work, and for an upper-level undergraduate course, this seemed appropriate. With that grade level in mind, construction of each of the assignment expectations to match B level work while using the EMRF rubric when grading commences. Table 1 is an example of assignment expectations for the book report assignment. Based on the assignment details, the student's submission is evaluated against the EMRF rubric to be either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. All requirements of the assignment must be met for Satisfactory to be assigned.</p> <p>Table 1 Leadership in Sport Book Report Assignment Expectations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Criteria</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Paper requirements</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3–5 pages, typed, double-spaced, 1-in. margins, Times New Roman (or similar) font, Size 12, follows APA proper citations</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Book report criteria must include</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">• The title and author of the book you are reviewing• The author's objective(s) and audience• The author's main arguments or points• Your evaluation of the author's support of their arguments or points (provide examples) Note, more than one argument/point must be evaluated• Your conclusions about the book• Your recommendation (or not) of the book and why</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Grammar and spelling</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Free of grammar and spelling mistakes</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> APA = American Psychological Association.</p> <p>Once assignment objectives have been created, the next step was to map them to the learning objectives ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]). Mapping helps students understand the purpose of the assignments. This mapping of the assignments is an important step for determining the grading bundle.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-6">Creating the Grade Bundles</hd> <p>Once assignment specifications were completed and mapped to course learning objectives, the next step was to create grading bundles. This is the process of determining what academic work will be considered A level, B level, and so on. The bundle begins with first identifying the cognitive level of the assignment and the specific outcomes that assignment will assess ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]). Two key features of bundling grades include understanding that a student must complete every item in the grade bundle to receive that grade and higher cognitive level bundles should include more and/or more difficult work than lower ones ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2 displays the grading bundle used for the Spring 2023 Leadership in Sport class. Each bundle tied directly to one of the corresponding numbered five course learning objectives:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Demonstrate understanding in written and oral communication through the course readings and concepts.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Apply leadership concepts through "real-world" sport scenarios.</item> <p></p> <item> 1. Critical thinking, leadership theory, research, problem solving and complexity of leadership, culture, vision and strategic leadership, change management, and crisis management.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Analyze own personal leadership development.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Create potential futures through Design Your Life concepts.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Preparation and active engagement in the course through reading the material, class participation, and class attendance.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 2 Example of Grading Bundle for a Semester of Leadership in Sport</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Learning outcome</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">A grade bundle</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">B grade bundle</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">C grade bundle</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">D grade bundle</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2,1 Leadership Concepts</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory/Exceptional completion of all six assignments.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete all the assignments with at least four at the Satisfactory level.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete all the assignments.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete four of the assignments.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3,1 Personal Leadership Development</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory/Exceptional completion of all four assignments.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete all the assignments with at least three at the Satisfactory level.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete all the assignments.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete two of the assignments.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4,1 DYL</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete all five of the DYL assignments at the Satisfactory level.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete four of the DYL assignments at the Satisfactory level.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete three of the five DYL assignments.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Complete two of the five DYL assignments.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1,2,5 Course Engagement</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory class engagement with no more than three class absences.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory class engagement with no more than five class absences.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory class engagement with no more than seven class absences.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Satisfactory class engagement with no more than nine class absences.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. DYL = design your life. For A and B bundles, all assignments need to be handed in when due (or at the agreed-upon time). For Course Engagement, students will not receive that letter grade if absent more than the allotted amount, and failure is possible if absent more than nine times.</p> <p>During the four semesters that specification grading has been used in this course, the grading bundle continues to be modified or changed. This is part of adapting to the grading, meeting the needs of students, and being flexible to make changes when something does not work as expected.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-7">Structuring the Token System</hd> <p>One of the positive parts of specification grading that students repeatedly express they appreciate is that they can redo work that is Unsatisfactory. The token system also allows them to hand in an assignment late and to erase one absence. Every student starts the semester with four tokens. They can use these tokens to redo an Unsatisfactory assignment (one token), hand in an assignment late (two tokens), or erase one absence (two tokens). Students also can earn additional tokens for exceptional participation in class or attending a qualified outside event. Additional tokens are distributed similarly where a student might previously have earned extra credit. Experience has shown that additional tokens should be given when it is deserved. After incorporating this for four semesters, it is recommended to keep additional tokens to a total of two to three opportunities throughout the semester.</p> <p>Tracking tokens students redeem has been relatively easy. Instructors may use distinguishable physical tokens that are exchanged, while also tracking them on a spreadsheet. Students are not allowed to give them to another student and must hand back unused tokens at the end of the semester.</p> <p>While it can originally be a bit confusing for students, once they understand the token system, they really appreciate the flexibility it brings them. This limited number of opportunities to revise and resubmit assignments has decreased the students' stress level and the assignments that are redone are consistently of higher academic quality.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-8">Reflections</hd> <p>Overall, this instructor has come to embrace specification grading. Each semester brings adjustments to the grading bundle or a specific assignment, but the more semesters that the grading scheme is incorporated, the less adjustments that have been made. Having used specification grading for three semesters in the Leadership in Sport class and one semester of the senior capstone class, there are three reflections to offer.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-9">Helping Students Understand</hd> <p>Specification grading is very different from the traditional A–F or points system that is familiar to students. Explaining the grading system to them and reviewing multiple times throughout the semester have been beneficial. It is important to take time at the beginning of the semester, after the first assignment, and periodically throughout the semester to explain and reinforce the goals of the grading process. At the beginning of the semester, an entire class period is dedicated to explaining the grading scheme. It starts with a history lesson of how grading came to be, and a discussion of what a grade means, and how it is achieved. This is the first time, for most students, that they have thought about what actual grades mean and the learning that is hopefully tied to the achievement of those grades. During the very beginning of the semester, they still are unsure how the specification grading process works because they have yet to experience it.</p> <p>After the first assignment has been graded is a great opportunity to explain the grading system again and how, for those students who received an Unsatisfactory, tokens can be used to change that grade. This is about the time they begin to understand the token as a commodity. If they did not meet the assignment criteria, the use of a token to resubmit with corrections becomes clear. Students are given a 2-week timeline to resubmit the work and "pay" their token. This 2-week timeline was instituted because it was found that many students would forget and leave the correction until the end of the semester. Setting this 2-week deadline hopefully allows the material to still be relevant to the course progression and helps the instructor stay current with grading. When students resubmit with corrections, they also hand in the original graded assignment so that comparisons can be made.</p> <p>Students do not have to decide the bundle path at the beginning of the semester, and they may change as the semester progresses. This is where periodic check-ins throughout the semester are key to reinforce the grading scheme. One change that will be made for future semesters is to create a grading spreadsheet to give to the students so they can track their progress. The use of the institutional learning management system makes tracking specification grading confusing. The institution requires that faculty input grades into the learning management system (Brightspace). Brightspace does not recognize specification grading as a scheme of choice, and the way the grades are displayed causes stress to the students as it does not match their experience from other courses. The goal of the individual grading spreadsheet is to help them track their progress in the class and reduce their stress level.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-10">Concentrate on Feedback and Not Grades</hd> <p>The ability to provide feedback focused on learning and not just correction has been liberating. Previously, feedback was centered around pointing out all that was incorrect with an assignment to justify the points awarded. Now, since there are no points to consider, the feedback is focused on helping the students understand what they did or did not do well according to the assignment specifications. Feedback now brings students to the office to discuss the assignment and have dialogue that leads to a clearer connection with the course material. Another positive that stems from the feedback is that most assignments that are resubmitted display high academic understanding. It is a joy to grade reworked assignments and compare with the original submission.</p> <p>One change made to the grading scheme is the addition of an Exceptional category; this aligns with the EMRF grading rubric. When a student handed in work that was truly above the B level, there was no way to "reward" them. The designation of Exceptional does not necessarily change anything in the grading bundle; however, it does provide an intrinsic reward on assignments that truly merit that recognition.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-11">Assigning a Final Grade</hd> <p>For most students, it is easy to determine their final grade because they decide how much effort they want to put forth and follow the grading bundle. However, there are always a few students where the final grade is not so transparent. For example, the student may have achieved the A for all bundles except one. The struggle is to then determine what that equates to for a final grade.</p> <p>The assigning of final grades to those few students has been the most difficult part of specification grading. There is stress about being fair and consistent, and the following changes have been made to help with the final grading process. One, the Leadership Concepts bundle is the most important. In essence, it is "weighted" higher than the other bundles and it is explained to students that they will not receive an A in the course without an A in the Leadership Concepts bundle. The second change was to inform students that their absences will also have an impact on their final grade. For example, it is explained that if they miss more than nine classes the highest final grade they will achieve is a D for the course. Now that post-COVID online teaching has diminished, this does not seem to be as much an issue and may warrant adjustment. There are also situations where the ± parts of a letter grade can be used to make "adjustments" that are fair to the student.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-12">Future Research Opportunities</hd> <p>This article has focused on the instructor's design and implementation of specification grading into sport management courses. Future study opportunities will be to better understand the grading scheme from the student's perception, particularly, to assess the value of this type of grading on their learning of the material.</p> <hd id="AN0179968121-13">Conclusions</hd> <p>Overall, utilizing specification grading in sport management courses has been overwhelmingly positive. It really has changed the approach to grading, and now there is an appreciation when reading students' assignments and helping them to connect to the material. The stress of how many points to reward a student for an assignment has been eliminated. They are now in control, which can be liberating to them and to the instructor.</p> <p>The switch from traditional to specification grading was not made quickly. It was through a personal desire to improve the connection of the students to the learning objectives, to have students focus on learning rather than obsess about the points, and through research into various grading schemes that ultimately led to giving specification grading a try. Since this was a completely new grading implementation, it took a few semesters to figure out what works best and make changes as needed; it continues to be a work in progress. The time to change a course to specification grading was not overly consuming. The Fall semester was spent researching, this was followed by contemplating the applicability to a course, and finally the conversion of the scheme to best meet the grading criteria and the learning objectives for the course. The shift was made from Fall 2021 semester to Spring 2022 semester.</p> <p>It does save time grading because the focus has shifted to helping students rather than the assignment completion. This was not something that was expected and took a few semesters to realize had happened. It does not eliminate all grading anxiety, and this is true when sometimes determining the final grade of a student who has not quite met the entire grading bundle. In these situations, the benefit of the doubt rests in the determination of what is best for the student. A confidence with the process now exists, and the implementation of specification grading into all courses taught has happened. This instructor completely recommends giving it a try.</p> <p>Address author correspondence to Kim.Fierke@oneonta.edu</p> <ref id="AN0179968121-14"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref24" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Blackstone, B. & Oldmixon, E. (2019). Specifications grading in political science. Journal of Political Science Education, 15 (2), 191–205. 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.07.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Burnett, B., & Evans, D. (2016). Designing your life: How to build a well-lived, joyful life. Knopf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cain, J., Medina, M., Romoanelli, F., & Persky, A. (2022). Deficiencies of Traditional Grading Systems and Recommendations for the Future. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86 (7) 908–915. 10.5688/ajpe8850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Kalkstein, J. (2015). Anonymous grading, suggested solution to professor grading bias. UWIRE Text 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Leenknecht, M., Wijnia, L., Kohler, M., Fryer, L., Rikers, R., & Loyens, S. (2021). Formative assessment as practice: The role of students' motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (2), 236–255. 10.1080/02602938.2020.1765228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Lusher, J., Clements, H., & Stevens, E. (2021). A qualitative insight into time-poor/grade-hungry health studies students' perceptions of using assessment criteria and feedback in assignment writing. Nurse Education Today, 104, Article 104999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Malouf, J. (2008). Bias in grading. College Teaching, 56 (3), 191–192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Malouff, J.M., Stein, S.J., Lodewicka, N.B., Coulter, K., Emmerton, A.J. (2014). Preventing halo bias in grading the work of university students. Cogent Psychology, 1, Article 988937. 10.1080/23311908.2014.988937</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Nilson, L.B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilson, L.B. (2016). Yes Virginia, there is a better way to grade. Inside Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olexa, M.T. (2016). Anonymous grading: A win/win for faculty and students. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal, 60 (2), Article 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peeters, M.J., Sahloff, E.G., & Stone, G.E. (2010). A standardized rubric to evaluate student presentations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74 (9), Article 171. 10.5688/aj7409171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitt, E., & Norton, L. (2017). 'Now that's the feedback I want!' Students' reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42 (4), 499–516. 10.1080/02602938.2016.1142500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope, L., Parker, H.B., & Ultsch, S. (2020). Assessment of specifications grading in an undergraduate dietetics course. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52 (4) 439–446. 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.07.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, D.M. (2021). How to reduce racial bias in grading: New research supports a simple, low-cost teaching tool. Education Next, 21 (1), 72–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritzer, D.R., & Sleigh, M.J. (2019). College students' comparative focus on grades, career preparation, and educated citizenry. American Psychological Association, 5 (2) 148–161. 10.1037/st10000145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rom, M.C. (2011). Grading more accurately. Journal of Political Science Education, 7, 208–223. 10.1080/15512169.2011.564916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A-F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46 (2), 201–224. 10.1080/00220272.2013.790480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Streifer, A.C., & Palmer, M.S. (2021). Is specifications grading right for me? A readiness assessment to help instructors decide. College Teaching, 71 (4), 244–251. 10.1080/87567555.2021.2018396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stutzman, R.Y., & Race, K.H. (2004). EMRF: Everyday rubric grading. The Mathematics Teacher, 97 (1), 34–39. 10.5951/MT.97.1.0034</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kimberly L. Fierke</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1445229
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Utilizing Specification Grading in Sport Management Classes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kimberly+L%2E+Fierke%22">Kimberly L. Fierke</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Sport+Management+Education+Journal%22"><i>Sport Management Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 18(2):151-156.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/smej/smej-overview.xml
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletics%22">Athletics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administration%22">Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Management+Development%22">Management Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grading%22">Grading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pass+Fail+Grading%22">Pass Fail Grading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alternative+Assessment%22">Alternative Assessment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/smej.2023-0018
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1938-6974<br />2163-2367
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper discusses the use of specification grading in sport management courses. The process organizes assignments around grading bundles and evaluates students as either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory in meeting each assignment. A token system is created to provide flexibility to the students. There are advantages to using specification grading. For example, it empowers students to choose their grade, reduces stress and worry over "points," allows students the opportunity to resubmit Unsatisfactory assignments, and provides a sense of freedom to the instructor through the feedback to students. This paper explores the process of creating the specification grading method in a class and reflecting on implementation and utilization of the method in undergraduate sport management classes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1445229
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1445229
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/smej.2023-0018
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 151
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Management Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pass Fail Grading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alternative Assessment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Utilizing Specification Grading in Sport Management Classes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kimberly L. Fierke
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1938-6974
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-2367
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Sport Management Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1