Description:

The issues

Introduction to Measure Theory is a 2nd year compulsory course in our BSc of Mathematics. Yearly some 55 students take it with relatively many taking it more than twice. These students report loss of motivation and confidence and lots of stress. Most of them try to pass the course by scraping together enough partial credits on the exam. Of course these issues are not unique for this course. To address them, I redesigned the grading method in the hope of achieving the following goals:
1.      Put emphasis on learning rather than passing the course;
2.      Reduce student stress;
3.      Only pass students who satisfy learning objectives at a sufficient level;
4.      Increase feelings of autonomy and competence as in Deci and Ryan’s self determination theory.

Setup of grading method

The design is based on Grading for Growth by Clark and Talbert and Specifications Grading by Nelson (which I found through the Better than Blackboard columns by Nelly Litvak). I split the learning objectives into two categories: 16 core (C) and 5 overarching (O). C-objectives are straightforward, such as `I can verify whether a given object is a sigma-algebra’. O-objectives combine different C-objectives and ask to recognise suitable methods of proof. An example is `I can compute limits of Riemann integrals by correctly applying the right convergence theorems and the theorems relating Riemann and Lebesgue integrals’.

During the semester students were offered five smaller (30 mins) and four larger (1 hour and 25 mins) non-compulsory on site quizzes. Each question was linked to learning objectives. If an answer showed sufficient understanding the student scored the corresponding objective. The exam and resit had the same format.
To evaluate objectives we used letters: T(ry again), G(ood) and E(xcellent). E was given to nearly perfect solutions (cf. grade 9.5). G was given to answers that reflect sufficient understanding, but not at the level of E. Sufficient understanding meant that an answer left no doubt about whether an objective was met (cf. grade 8). T was given to all other answers. The final grade was assigned according to the following table:

Results

In 2024/2025 together with a colleague we ran a pilot with 15 students with an evaluation meeting at the end. In 2025/2026 I implemented the grading method for the whole course, which was evaluated with an evaluation meeting and anonymous evaluations completed by 30 students. The evaluations yielded the following positive feedback.
1.      Most students acknowledged that the grading method made them think more about their learning and the contents of the course.
2.      Most students experienced less stress for the final exam preparation.
3.      Most students found the transparency in their progress as well as in what was expected of them to pass the course helpful.
4.      A good number of students found that the grading method encouraged them to keep up with the pace of the course and study more during the semester.
5.      A good number of students appreciated the agency they felt.

I also received the following feedback.
a.      Several students remarked that it is difficult to score learning objectives in the first quizzes, since all questions are at exam level and they have not yet had time to get familiar with the material.
b.      Several students experienced more stress during the semester due to the many tests. Some students attributed this to the testing itself. Some felt forced to study for the course on moments that did not suit them. Some indicated that not participating in a quiz made them feel they were missing out.

Final thoughts

The method clearly made discussions with students center more around course content and student learning. I am also much more confident that all students who passed the course had sufficient understanding of the material than before. Overall students agree that the method addresses autonomy and competence more.

Many students felt significantly less stress during the course. A considerable group however felt more stress during the semester. While I see how a. from above could contribute to that, I feel some of the reasons mentioned in b. should have been mitigated by having the quizzes optional.

Organisationally, finding enough good questions of the same level for each objective was challenging and I think the number of quizzes can be reduced. Giving each student three possibilities to resubmit an R-graded question worked well and students found it reasonable.

References:

Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education. Stylus Publishing.

Nilson, L. B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing.