2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Classroom interventions are commonly used to enhance student learning. Changes in assessment methodology are less common, but can be equally impactful. Specifications grading, a new assessment method first introduced by Nilson, has attracted interest for its promise to restore rigor, motivate students, and save faculty time. In specifications grading, work is graded pass/fail based on a detailed rubric. The bar for a passing grade is relatively high, so students are allowed a limited number of revision opportunities. The literature contains a growing collection of case studies on the use of specifications grading in STEM courses. Specifications grading seems well-suited for capstone courses that prepare students for the transition from academia to industry. In engineering practice, codes and standards provide a detailed rubric for assessment, and work is evaluated as pass/fail, with opportunity for revision. Despite the obvious parallels between specifications grading and engineering practice, few instructors have adapted specifications grading for use in capstone design courses and none have documented its impact on learning.

This Academic Practice / Design Intervention paper explores the impact of specifications grading on student learning in a capstone design course. The instructors have developed and provided a clear, detailed set of requirements for the technical content and quality of communication of each major deliverable. Student work is graded satisfactory/needs-revision, with the bar for satisfactory work equivalent to a “high 80’s” grade in a traditional grading system. Full credit is awarded for “satisfactory” work and no credit is given for work that does not meet standard. Students are allowed unlimited revision to the first of each type of deliverable, but the time frame is limited to one week. To encourage quality, timely work, students are only allowed to revise two subsequent deliverables.

The impact of specifications grading on learning is measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. Student attitudes and behaviors are qualitatively documented to determine whether the use of specifications grading yields a shift from grade-centric to learning-centric behaviors. The quality of major deliverables is quantitatively measured using percentage scores. Both qualitative and quantitative results are compared to a control group composed of two years of prior capstone courses that used traditional assessment methods.

The introduction of specifications grading fostered substantive conversations between students and instructors regarding expectations for quality. Students proactively requested formative assessments to guide them in preparing their first major written report. Scores on both major design reports were better than those of the control group. Students shifted from grade-centric to learning-centric behaviors, enabling instructors to serve as mentors rather than mediators and judges.