19 - Student Perceptions of a Specifications Grading System in a Graduate Level Gross Anatomy Course

Poster Board Number: 19
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : In 2022, we changed the grading system in a graduate dissection-based anatomy course at Indiana University from using a traditional grading (TG) system, where grades are determined by points earned, to a specifications grading (SG) system, where grades are determined by mastery of learning outcomes, assessments are graded categorically (Excellent, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory), and students are provided multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery of the learning outcomes. In SG systems, students are provided an opportunity to reassess their knowledge and focus on learning and information retention. Like with a TG system, students are evaluated against a set of mastery standards and are provided guidelines for achieving a base grade (e.g. A, B, C). However, SG allows modifications to the base grade through the use of engagement credits (EC). The ECs are optional assignments that encourage students to practice course content in a way that best benefits their learning, and gives students more control to achieve their desired outcome in the class. In this anatomy course, base grades were determined using lecture workbooks and exams, and EC opportunities included a comprehensive written exam, donor presentations, written reflections, and application-based quiz questions. While every student utilized the EC opportunities, we wanted to know what they thought of our application of a SG system to this gross anatomy course. The goal of this study is to explore student perceptions of a SG system and the EC assignments to inform course development.

In this IRB exempt study (#2005568291), we provided students with an open-response reflection question at the conclusion of the course to collect their views on the course and SG. Out of 42 students, 33 completed the reflection. Responses were de-identified and analyzed using thematic analysis to find commonalities among student perspectives. Responses were separated into Positive (PF) or Constructive Feedback (CF) and then coded inductively by two reviewers. The reviewers discussed any coding discrepancies and reviewed categories to form a list of themes.

We identified three themes in PF responses: Reduced Anxiety and Stress, Knowledge Acquisition, and Control. Within these themes, we further identified the following subthemes: EC Tasks Facilitating Learning, Focus on Learning and Information Retention, Flexibility in EC Tasks, and Shift to Internal Locus of Control. Three themes among CF responses included: Basics of Grading System, Suggestions for Change, and Critiques with EC Activities. Subthemes included: Issues with Base Grade Guidelines, Confusion, Limits on Redeemable ECs, Activity Limits, and Workbook Critiques.

These themes highlight the SG system as a promising grading alternative that allows students more control over how they learn and reduces the stress associated with taking exams in a rigorous course like that in this study. Another key benefit is an appreciation and yearn for learning without much of the stress about assignment performance. Overall, students seem to view SG positively, but also have some suggestions to improve the implementation of the system in this anatomy course. These suggestions will be used to inform development of future iterations of this course. This study further shows promising results for the implementation of SG in the graduate-level anatomical sciences, however, additional studies are needed to generate a better idea of how anatomy courses can benefit from using SG over a TG system.