In summer 2020, I attended a Grading Alternatives webinar put on by the Teaching Innovation Center (TIC) . Josh Caulkins (previous Assistant Director) and Sarah Prosory (Instructional Designer) shared a number of intriguing ideas that, for better or for worse, I decided to try to implement in my spring “boutique” course Parasites and Their Relatives. The big one is specifications grading. This idea has been featured in this Inside Higher Ed article, this Robert Talbert, Ph.D . article, and more fully in the book Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time  by Linda B. Nilson. (No, I did not read the book.) The essential philosophy is to make grades more like badges, like indications of a completed contract, and less like value judgments. All assessments are considered either “complete” or “incomplete” according to a detailed rubric. The final letter grade is based on a predefined basket of completes, with the number and/or level of asse...

Why are some courses a dynamic, meaningful, and lasting experience, while others inspire lukewarm engagement and results despite the instructor’s best efforts? In his excellent new book, Super Courses: The Future of Teaching and Learning , higher-education and pedagogy expert, Ken Bain, goes beyond typical course checklists and explores how teachers foster a natural critical learning environment, where activities and collaborations are designed around questions and challenges that students are intrinsically curious about and find deep and emotional value in solving. The book is filled with stories and syllabi of real-life examples of these super courses and begins with a concise analysis of 18 characteristics that were consistently observed in Bain’s research. Here are the 18 characteristics, paraphrased for brevity, and supplemented with examples that could be used in face-to-face, hybrid, or fully online courses: Core course design and policy: The course is centered around big, inte...