A traditional tiered grading system is typically used in post-secondary settings by nurse educators to rank learners using a final letter, percentage, or numerical grade. In Canada, grades currently serve as the primary means of representing a learner’s understanding of relevant course content and achievement of learning outcomes in these organizations (DeLuca et al., 2017). However, significant issues may arise from using traditional assessment methods, such as the absence of actionable feedback for learners, a lack of intrinsic motivation to learn, inconsistent and inaccurate grades, and a potential resulting lack of transferable competence in learners. Heavily weighted traditional assignments and examinations, such as essays, multiple-choice, and short-answer questions, typically lack actionable feedback that learners can use to improve and demonstrate an increased comprehension of the course content (Cain et al., 2022; Yik et al., 2024). Additionally, the use of grades can undermine intrinsic motivation and reinforce extrinsic incentives for learning (Yik et al., 2024). A lack of consistency in meaning and allocation of marks between graders, courses, programs, and organizations can result in inequities, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of a learner’s achievement of course outcomes (Howitz et al., 2020). Grades can further invoke significant stress for both learners who strive for the best possible mark in a course and educators who often must manage any concerns or conflicts associated with these efforts (Yik et al., 2024). Most significantly, grades do not always result in transferable skills for each learner, which is essential in nursing practice.
While the inherent challenges associated with a traditional grading system are evident to many in the profession (Cain et al., 2022; Hackerson et al., 2024), faculty may not know how to implement alternative assessment methods, such as specifications grading, into their classroom practices (Hackerson et al., 2024). To add to this problem, there is a lack of published information about the use of specifications grading in nursing education (Dabney & VanDerWoude, 2023). A specifications grading approach can be used in post-secondary practice by educators to offer an alternative assessment method that minimizes potential issues in course design while maintaining high standards of learner performance.
The purpose of this paper is to share the steps used to redesign an elective fourth-year online nursing course from a traditional grading format to a specifications grading approach and provide ideas for practitioners on implementing alternative methods of assessment into practice. The rationale for the design decisions and the obstacles encountered throughout the process are highlighted, along with recommendations for practitioners. A formative evaluation of the course redesign was conducted to help ensure that the project changes are effective and meet learners' needs.
Specifications grading was introduced into Workplace Health, Safety, and Wellbeing of the Nurse, an online course beginning in the Winter 2025 semester, at a mid-sized university in Canada. This fourth-year elective nursing course is offered over a 12-week semester through a fully online delivery format to a maximum of 35 learners. In May 2024, a collaboration between the course instructor and designer and an e-learning design specialist from the Teaching Commons support team began work on the redevelopment of six course modules, using specifications and grading principles. Prior to describing the project details, it is essential to understand the key terms used.
Traditional grading involves an instructor assigning points to various one-time assessments and aggregating those points into a letter grade for the course (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Noell et al., 2023). For the purposes of this project, traditional grading refers to pre-established, required assignments or assessments in an online post-secondary nursing course that are typically heavily weighted and based on learners earning full or partial credit for each, toward a cumulative final percentage and grade. Since traditional grading practices began, the use and consideration of alternative grading models have grown (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Hackerson et al., 2024).
Alternative grading comprises a family of assessment systems that depart from traditional grading by organizing evaluation around explicit, demonstrable mastery of defined learning outcomes or competencies. Common elements of alternative grading include clearly defined standards, enhanced feedback, marks that indicate progress, and reattempts without penalty (Clark & Talbert, 2023). The overarching goal is to align assessment with authentic learning, reduce stress and inequities associated with traditional grading, and cultivate long-term competencies relevant to professional practice (Hartman & Eichler, 2024; Leslie & Lundblom, 2020). Embedded in alternative assessment practices, specifications grading is one form available to use.
Specifications grading is rooted in mastery learning principles (Nilson, 2015). At the core of specifications grading is the establishment of specific learning outcomes or pre-specified specifications for each assignment or activity in the course, closely aligned with the instructional objectives (Toledo & Dubas, 2017). The instructor assesses whether the learner meets or exceeds all the requirements or specifications for each activity, and the learner earns full credit. Whereas, if the activity submitted does not meet all specifications, no credit is received (Nilson, 2015; Noell et al., 2023).
A specifications grading approach includes essential elements such as grading individual assignments on a pass/fail basis and providing a detailed articulation of passing requirements or specifications (Nilson, 2015). Providing learners with opportunities to drop or revise assignments that do not meet specifications is recommended as a safety net to minimize anxiety and stress associated with this unfamiliar grading practice. Converting specifications' pass/fail indicators into final letter grades can be achieved through assignment bundles or a point system that corresponds to varying course grades, the levels of cognition required for completion, and learning outcomes (Nilson, 2015). Given the organization's existing grading processes and learners' familiarity with grades, a points-based system was used to support this change and help learners feel more comfortable with the new approach. Using a points-based system has been found to minimize the complexity of change for learners (Carlislie, 2020). Before describing the project, it is essential to identify the benefits and rationale for using specification grading methods in practice.
There are many benefits associated with the use of specifications grading in post-secondary education, such as increased intrinsic motivation, control, active engagement, and improved performance among learners in the course (Gay & Poproski, 2023; Prasad, 2020). As a result, this helps minimize associated grading stress for both learners and faculty by offering transparency and consistency in the process. One of the primary benefits of specifications grading is its ability to foster intrinsic motivation among learners (Howitz et al., 2020; Katzman et al., 2021). By focusing on mastery rather than extrinsic rewards, such as grades, learners are encouraged to engage deeply with the material. This can lead to improved student attitudes and learning outcomes, as it aligns with the principles of mastery learning, which emphasize outcomes, understanding, and competency over merely completing tasks (Howitz et al., 2020; Katzman et al., 2021).
Intrinsic motivation can be particularly beneficial in online learning environments, where learners may feel isolated and disconnected from traditional classroom dynamics. Learner anxiety and stress can be related to a lack of control over their success in a course (Nilson, 2015). Furthermore, empowering learners with choice and control over their final grades has been linked to improved satisfaction and performance in an online setting (Bloomberg, 2021; Davidoff & Jayusi, 2024). Integrating specifications grading can also promote accountability among students. Aligning learning goals with measurable outcomes encourages students to understand what is required for success and to take responsibility for their achievement (Vitale & Concepción, 2021).
Specifications grading encourages learners to engage actively with course materials by requiring them to demonstrate mastery of specific outcomes. Active learning and student-centred approaches have demonstrated benefits for engagement and knowledge integration when new information is applied in authentic tasks or through reflective practice (Fahruddin et al., 2024). Active learning is vital in online education, where passive learning can be a significant challenge. Active engagement in online learning activities significantly predicted academic success, suggesting that participation is critical to learner performance (Davidoff & Jayusi, 2024; Mingoia & Busque, 2022).
Finally, specifications grading has been linked to improved learner outcomes and success in an online course (Carlislie, 2020; Katzman et al., 2021; McKnelly et al., 2023). Implementing instructional strategies, such as low-stakes activities (e.g. Read and Reflect) and well-timed feedback into a course design has been linked to improved academic performance among learners (Katzman et al., 2021). Considering these possible benefits of specifications grading, the project process details emerged.
Following departmental approval, a fourth-year online nursing course was redesigned from a traditionally weighted grading system with three main course assignments to a specifications approach. The 12-week online course was divided into six modules, each lasting two weeks. Traditionally graded assignments grounded in course outcomes were restructured into key and other activities, each worth a predetermined number of module points based on its cognitive complexity and time commitment. Cognitive complexity was determined by assigning a cognitive level to each learning objective based on Bloom's Taxonomy (1956). Therefore, course activities that required higher-order thinking skills were worth more points than those based on knowledge recall (see Table 1 for highlights). This was then balanced by considering the approximate time required to complete each task. This format was used instead of typical bundled assignments or token systems to minimize the potential difficulties of monitoring assignment completion throughout the semester for both faculty and learners. Using this design further promotes learner choice and flexibility in selecting activities to meet the module objectives.
Within each of these modules, both the key activities (italicized in Figure 1) and other activities related to the learning objectives were established. Each activity is worth a set number of points toward the final course grade, up to a maximum of 100 points equivalent to 100 percent for the semester. For example, modules one and six were allotted a maximum of 10 points, and modules two, three, four, and five had a maximum of 20 points each, totalling 100 points for the semester (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Module and Activity Points System (100 points/semester)
Learners are free to select the activities to complete within each module, up to the preset maximum. Any combination of key and other activities can be chosen and completed by students to earn their course grade.
Key activities were developed based on previous course assignments and course outcomes and were therefore allotted more points based on their complexity and the time required to complete each. This process of assigning different point values to activities is intended to encourage learners to complete more complex course activities and ultimately meet the learning outcomes. Key activity points were set up to total 75%, as italicized in Figure 1. This aligns with maintaining at minimum, B-level criteria, suggested for a specifications-based grading approach (Nilson, 2015).
As the primary key activity, the Project Proposal is worth the most points because it requires applying course concepts to demonstrate higher-order thinking skills. Thus, to encourage learners to select and complete this activity, it was allotted 20 points towards the module maximum. Flexibility in assignment submission timelines was used for both parts of this primary activity to avoid late penalties. An extended timeline was provided for those requiring up to a one-week extension to the original due date to submit for consideration and without penalties. Such flexible assessment approaches support increased self-regulation, self-efficacy, academic engagement, and performance (Jopp & Cohen, 2020). To supplement these key activities, existing readings, resources, and questions from the original course design formed the basis for the other activities in the course.
Opportunities for learners to earn points toward their final grade included activities such as “Read and Reflect,” “Explore and Explain,” “Search and Share,” and “Activity, Quiz, or Question.” Considering the lesser cognitive complexity of these activities, and time required to complete, only 1 point or % was allotted for each, up to a maximum number per module. Recommended readings and websites from previous course offerings served as the basis for some of these activities to maintain focus on the module objectives. The new “Search and Share” section was added to enhance exploration and sharing of resources within the class. It is anticipated that these new resources can be used by instructors to enhance information for learners and to inform future course offerings with updated sources. Figure 2 illustrates an example combination of the key and other activities required to obtain an 85% in the course.
Figure 2
Learner Example (85% Final Grade – Key * and Other Activities)
Once the points for each activity and module were established, the specifications for each activity and the grading methods to be used by faculty needed to be identified. Existing assignment guidelines and the previous three-level rubric content were merged into a one-level rubric format, as described by Nilson (2015), with met (pass) or not met (a grade of zero for the activity) indicated in separate columns (see Table 1). The specifications of this one-level rubric aligned with existing grade-level B assignment expectations for fourth-year learners in the program.
The discussion forums or Project Building Sessions provide an example of the specifications developed for one activity option used in the course redesign. Project Building Sessions are a key activity that provides a low-risk learning environment for learners to share ideas and learn from one another. For example, two Project Building Sessions in the course serve as opportunities for learners to discuss the key concepts of the primary course activity, the Project Proposal, in a subsequent module. Using the main assignment topics as the point of discussion in these sessions offers an opportunity for faculty to provide formative feedback on the topic ideas to learners, so that appropriate revisions can be made in their future final activity submission. Learner postings must meet all the specifications for each Project Building Session Post (see Table 1) to obtain a met status and associated points. As described previously, these specifications are based on the objectives or, in this case, the goals of the activity.
All activities within the course, including Project Building Sessions, are designed as structured opportunities for learners to apply course concepts rather than to create entirely separate or independent products. In this context, “other activities” refer to low-stakes, scaffolded tasks (e.g., Read and Reflect, Search and Share) that support incremental engagement with course material and preparation for higher-stakes key activities. Within the discussion-based Project Building Sessions, learners are expected to apply course concepts to practice-based scenarios and generate original insights grounded in evidence. These insights are not separate deliverables but rather demonstrate higher-order thinking embedded within the discussion contributions themselves.
To further enhance clarity and alignment, the learning objectives associated with each activity were deconstructed to reflect distinct levels of cognitive engagement. For example, the compound objective requiring learners to “apply and create” was separated into two measurable components within the rubric. The application of course concepts is assessed through the relevance criterion, which evaluates the learner’s ability to appropriately connect discussion content to course materials and guiding questions. The creation of new ideas is reflected in the insight criterion, which requires learners to generate original, thoughtful contributions that go beyond surface-level responses. Additional rubric dimensions, including support, substance, and presentation skills, align with complementary objectives related to evidence-informed practice, depth of engagement, and professional communication. Learning objectives are provided at the beginning of each module to ensure transparency and to support learners in understanding how their contributions will be evaluated within the specifications grading framework.
The specifications in the one-level rubric were intentionally derived from the course learning objectives and serve as observable indicators of outcome achievement. For example, the relevance and insight criteria evaluate learners’ ability to interpret and apply course concepts related to workplace health and safety. The support criterion reflects the objective that learners critically integrate current nursing scholarship into professional discussions. Finally, substance and presentation criteria correspond with objectives related to professional communication and reflective practice. Through this structure, the rubric functions not only as an evaluation tool but also as a transparent representation of how individual activities contribute to the course's broader learning outcomes.
Table 1
Project Building Session Goals and Specifications
The goal of each Project Building Session is to provide an opportunity for you, as the learner, to share (Bloom's cognitive levels: remember and understand) experiences, ideas, knowledge, and resources, based upon your learning in the course and practicum placements (where applicable) with classmates. Through this sharing, you will apply (Bloom's cognitive levels: apply and analyze) what you have learned to contribute to the community of learners and build (Bloom's cognitive levels: evaluate and create) ideas for other course activities.
Project Building Session Posting Specifications | MET | NOT MET | |||||||||||||||||
Relevance The posting directly addressed key issues, questions, or problems related to the questions posed and the discussion activity. The posting applied course concepts correctly overall with sufficient depth, relevance, and analysis of the topic in the thread. | |||||||||||||||||||
Insight The posting offered some original or thoughtful insight, analysis, or observation that demonstrated a grasp of course concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic. Clinical or personal examples are linked to evidence to demonstrate understanding. | |||||||||||||||||||
Support The posting generally supports claims and opinions with rationale, arguments, and evidence as needed. Nursing-specific journal literature is included as part of scholarly evidence used in post. Evidence is within 10 years old, unless seminal in nature. | |||||||||||||||||||
Substance The responses generally offered some insight by either an extension or elaboration on the original posting or an alternative point of view that fosters further thinking, reflection, or response on the discussion topic. Question(s) integrated for reflection and further discussion on topic. | |||||||||||||||||||
Presentation Skills Overall, ideas are expressed clearly using appropriate flow of narration, grammar, spelling, and citations with APA formatting as needed. Few errors that do not distract from grasping key points in post. |
The six online modules were consistently formatted into two weekly segments in the Learning Management System (LMS) to support learners’ ease of navigation through the content. Consistent formatting in an online setting supports the accessibility of course material (Bloomberg, 2021; Davidoff & Jayusi, 2024). In each module, the instructor provided a video overview of the material, followed by the learning objectives. Content highlights included relevant links to articles and videos, offering multiple ways to present the information. Integrating multiple means of content representation has been associated with supporting diverse online learner needs (Bloomberg, 2021; Davidoff & Jayusi, 2024; Meyer et al., 2014). A summary of points and a themed breaktime song were used to end the module and reinforce principal ideas before moving on to the next section. Access to the course activities and associated assessment drop boxes was located after each module's content to support consistency and ease of navigation, rather than having to search for links in other sections of the LMS.
In addition to these six modules, a separate section on the course site with specifications grading was created to house the details of the process, with audio directions by the instructor throughout. Examples of combinations of activities necessary to achieve a desired grade were included to help learners suggest ways to obtain specific grades in the course. Previous learner examples of acceptable work were posted on the LMS to provide additional guidance on the more complex key activities in this new design format. Providing examples of successfully completed work has been shown to help learners better understand the expectations of an assignment or activity and support transparency of expectations (Bloomberg, 2021; Nilson, 2015). All activities were graded at the end of each module, based on whether each specification in the one-level rubric was met. When met, nothing further is added, and the learner receives the full points allotted for that activity. However, when a specification is not met, the instructor highlights the incomplete, missing, or incorrect specifications and provides details for improvement or revision as necessary.
Challenges related to linking specifications principles to the existing grading system, establishing reasonable grade allocations, maintaining a manageable workload, and ensuring ease of navigation for both learners and educators were encountered. Connecting specifications grading to the existing traditional points-based method proved a significant challenge initially. Interdisciplinary collaboration with a colleague was essential to the process. This permitted an opportunity to discuss and plan for possible issues with the format and implementation process in the LMS. At this institution, faculty are required to assign 25% of the grade to learners prior to the course drop date to avoid penalties when dropping a course. This was also taken into account when determining the maximum points per module and the timelines for completing activities. The institution also requires instructors to hold back on returning the learners’ final assignment or examination in a course. Thus, to meet this requirement, the points for the last module were kept hidden from students, with only final grades released. A total of 100 points across the modules was used to align with the organization’s grading system.
Establishing reasonable grade allocations for each activity was also a challenge. Activity point values were weighted based on the cognitive complexity of each. Consideration of the course timeline and other workload in the program can help determine whether it is reasonable for a learner to complete each activity.
Grade allocations for each activity must be considered within the context of a learner’s workload. Content and activities were scaffolded throughout the semester to minimize the workload and support self-regulated practices among learners (Hofer et al., 2021). However, a delicate balance of these resources is necessary to avoid overloading the learner with an unmanageable workload. To navigate this balance, designers must consider the approximate time needed to reasonably complete each activity in the context of the semester and a learner’s overall program workload. By linking other course activities to previous-semester readings, the time learners spent researching relevant articles was minimized, since learners are awarded points for readings that would otherwise be expected or completed in a traditional course format.
The ease of specifications grading and course site navigation for educators and learners using this approach was a substantial consideration in the course design. While there are numerous software tools (e.g., H5P, VoiceThread) available to educators in the course, limitations in linking compatibility with the gradebook portion of the LMS made it difficult to determine the best format to use. Setting up the activities and related drop boxes created the biggest challenge, considering the number of activities due in each module throughout the semester. A common area within each module for submitting activities was established, and instructions for submission were posted. Further, a consistent module format was used throughout the course to organize the various instructor videos, audio, and text-based content. Examples were also used in the course site as signposts to support learner navigation. A detailed syllabus, calendar with timelines, and frequent announcements were incorporated to guide learner navigation, as instructor presence is critical in an online learning environment for direction, clarification, and support (Bloomberg, 2021). Following the redesign process, a formative evaluation was completed.
The development team conducted an internal formative evaluation using a standardized rubric (see Appendix A) to assess the quality of online courses within the institution. The rubric was completed by the faculty developer, the e-learning design specialist, an e-learning technician within the Teaching Commons and a student evaluator. Each party reviewed their respective criteria and determined whether they were met. Results of the formative evaluation indicated that most of the rubric criteria were met, supporting the overall alignment and effectiveness of the course design. However, two areas were identified as lacking. First, the criterion that learners should have multiple opportunities to provide descriptive feedback on course design, content, experience, and ease of use of online technology was not fully addressed. To remediate this gap, a structured “Start, Stop, Continue” survey was implemented at the midpoint of the course, providing learners with an opportunity to offer formative feedback that could inform real-time course adjustments. Second, the evaluation identified that tables included in the course materials did not consistently meet accessibility standards, specifically lacking appropriate titles and summary descriptions. In response, all tables were revised to include clear titles, properly formatted headers, and accompanying descriptions to enhance accessibility and usability. These targeted revisions ensured that previously unmet criteria were addressed and aligned the course more closely with best practices in accessible and responsive online course design.
An online nursing course based on traditional grading practices can be redesigned by nurse educators using specification grading principles that link directly to anticipated learning objectives. Trying alternative grading methods is sure to come with some challenges for faculty. Therefore, careful planning and informal feedback between colleagues and learners throughout this process are paramount to redesign efforts. Establishing and communicating clear guidelines for learners to help navigate the new format and support the transition from traditional methods is important. A purposeful discussion with colleagues, using a formative evaluation framework, helped to identify issues, provide direction for any changes needed, and establish consistency in the quality of redesign efforts.
Course redesign is an ongoing, iterative process that involves targeted improvements to benefit learners while continually enhancing the quality and delivery of content. It is anticipated that revisions to this grading format will evolve as insight into the implementation phase unfolds and additional feedback is received from learners and faculty. Thus, it is recommended that educators begin planning the redesign early, collaborate with colleagues and students, and allow for time to incorporate formative feedback throughout the process prior to implementation. Future research on the implementation and impact of this redesigned course on learners is underway.
OVERALL NARRATIVE
This Rubric has been adapted from the OSCQR - SUNY online course quality rubric available at https://oscqr.suny.edu/ The OSCQR Rubric, Dashboard, and Process are made available by the Online Learning Consortium, Inc. (OLC - http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC By 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The OSCQR Rubric, Dashboard, and Process were originally developed by the State University of New York, through SUNY Online, Online Teaching (https://online.suny.edu/onlineteaching/). SUNY Online and its logo are registered trademarks of the State University of New York.
EdTech Archives