Alternative grading practices seek to improve learning and make education more equitable. For the past few years, our community has been exploring these techniques and contextualizing them for use in computing courses. In this panel, we will present various grading techniques with a particular attention to the experience implementing them and pitfalls to be avoided. The presenters all have extensive experience exploring alternative grading techniques. Furthermore, we hope to engage the audience in a conversation about the nuance of implementing these particular techniques in the variety of courses that are typical in computing programs.

The field of computer science has a problem of representation–many groups are not represented in our classroom at levels approaching their composition in society. Unfortunately, the representation issue is a larger societal issue and begins well before students enter our institutions. Though we acknowledge that building inclusive and learner-centered classroom environments cannot increase representation by itself, it can have an impact on retention and inclusion for members of marginalized communities.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson and Joseph A. Packowski in Specifications Grading 2.0: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, Saving Faculty Time, and Developing Career Competencies, Specifications Grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on complete/incomplete grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One intention of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. Many of the features of Specifications Grading make it more equitable. While there has been very visible work in incorporating Specifications Grading in some academic areas (e.g., in mathematics), examples of the use of Specifications Grading in computer science courses are less common, but increasing. The goal of this tutorial is to introduce the concepts of Specifications Grading and explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes. You will learn that it can be implemented on a continuum, and is not an all or nothing approach. Each participant should leave the tutorial with the ability to revise their course syllabus and assignments to incorporate Specifications Grading. Access to many examples and resources will be provided.

The field of computer science has a problem of representation-many groups are not represented in our classroom at levels approaching their composition in society. Unfortunately, the representation issue is a larger societal issue and begins well before students enter our institutions. Though we acknowledge that building inclusive and equitable classroom environments cannot increase representation by itself, it can have an impact on retention and inclusion for members of marginalized communities.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, Specifications Grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One intention of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. Many of the features of Specifications Grading make it more equitable. While there has been very visible work in incorporating Specifications Grading in some academic areas (e.g., in mathematics), examples of the use of Specifications Grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this tutorial is to introduce the concepts of Specifications Grading and explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes. You will learn that it can be implemented on a continuum, and is not an all or nothing approach. Each participant should leave the tutorial with the ability to revise their course syllabus and assignments to incorporate Specifications Grading. Access to many examples and resources will be provided.

The field of computer science has a problem of representation-many groups are not represented in our classroom at levels approaching their composition in society. Unfortunately, the representation issue is a larger societal issue and begins well before students enter our institutions. Though we acknowledge that building inclusive and equitable classroom environments cannot increase representation by itself, it can have an impact on retention and inclusion for members of marginalized communities.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, Specifications Grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One intention of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. Many of the features of Specifications Grading make it more equitable. While there has been very visible work in incorporating Specifications Grading in some academic areas (e.g., in mathematics), examples of the use of Specifications Grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of Specifications Grading and explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes. Each participant should leave the workshop with the ability to revise their course syllabus and assignments to incorporate Specifications Grading. Access to many examples and resources will be provided.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, Specifications Grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One intention of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. Many of the features of Specifications Grading make it more equitable. While there has been very visible work in incorporating Specifications Grading in some academic areas (e.g., in mathematics), examples of the use of Specifications Grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of Specifications Grading and explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes. Each participant should leave the workshop with the ability to revise their course syllabus and assignments to incorporate Specifications Grading. The workshop presenters, having more than twenty-five years of combined experience implementing Specification Grading, will provide access to many examples and resources.

The field of computer science has a problem of representation - many groups are not represented in our classroom at levels approaching their composition in society. Unfortunately, the representation issue is a larger societal issue and begins well before students enter our institutions. Though we acknowledge that building inclusive and equitable classroom environments cannot increase representation by itself, it can have an impact on retention and inclusion for members of marginalized communities.

The goal of this work is to motivate and reward students for engaging in activities that we believe are important for lifelong learners. We are interested in activities that do not follow the simple, closed-form pattern that is common in most college-level assignments. Instead, we draw inspiration from "achievements" in video games, which encourage players to approach situations in new and interesting ways. Just as a videogame achievement might get a player to do something they otherwise wouldn't, we want to encourage our students to stretch into new experiences. We integrated achievements into a required sophomore-level course for Computer Science majors. Each week, in addition to their normal coursework, students can complete an achievement for course credit. Achievements cover a wide variety of themes and topics. Some are tied to course content, encouraging students to re-read texts and reflect on mistakes. Others build community, having students interview seniors about their capstone experiences or attend colloquia. Professional development is encouraged by attending the campus career fair or going to the tutoring center. A student can create their own tailored experience by choosing three or four achievements for course credit that match their interests, goals, and motivations. Our experience with achievements has been mostly positive. Students appreciate the variety of options and can generally find something that interests them. Of course, this same variety of options is intimidating to other students. We have been using achievements since 2013 and have experimented with various methods of articulating and awarding them, including peer review.

Historically, I assigned points to assignments, and determined course grades based on the percentage of points a learner earned. This meant that a learner could do poorly on some assignments and great on others, and effectively generated an "average grade." One could not know, given a grade, what an individual student could or could not do. Also, the method of counting points inevitably leads to students begging for partial or extra credit. Seeking a grading methodology to authentically reflect what a leaner accomplished, I explored the use of specifications grading (SG), as described by Linda Nilson (Nilson, 2015). Basic tenets of SG include providing a very clear, detailed description of what is expected (the specification), and then evaluating submitted work as complete or incomplete against that specification-they either met the specification, or they did not. Simply providing clear expectations can make a significant difference in a learner's ability to submit what their instructor expects. I evaluated assignments as complete/incomplete in a variety of courses. The course grade was based on how many of each assessment category the learner completed. For example, if a learner passed at least five of six quizzes, they earned an "A", provided they had an "A" in all other categories. Safety net provisions, like having a very limited number of "oops bits" learners could use to resubmit an incomplete assignment, were provided. My experience has been mostly positive. I will present changes in how I evaluated assignments, and my positive and negative experiences doing so.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, Specifications Grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One intention of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. While there has been very visible work in incorporating Specifications Grading in some academic areas (e.g., in mathematics), examples of the use of Specifications Grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of Specifications Grading and explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes. Each participant should leave the workshop with the ability to revise their course syllabus and assignments to incorporate Specifications Grading. Access to many examples and resources will be provided.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, specifications grading is an assessment paradigm that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One of the intentions of this type of course grading construct is to align assessment more closely with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. While there has been very visible work in incorporating specifications grading in some academic areas (e.g. in mathematics), examples of the use of specifications grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of specifications grading, explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses and class sizes, and have the participants apply these concepts to one of their current or upcoming computer science courses. Each participant should leave the workshop with at least one revised course syllabus or assignment that incorporates specifications grading. Access to examples and resources will be provided.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time, specifications grading is an assessment construct that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One of the intentions of this type of course grading construct is to more closely align assessment with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. While there has been very visible work in incorporating specifications grading in some academic areas (e.g. in mathematics), examples of the use of specifications grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of specifications grading, explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses, and have the participants apply these concepts to one of their current or upcoming computer science courses. Each participant should leave the workshop with at least one revised course syllabus or assignment that incorporates specifications grading. A laptop computer is recommended, but not required. Access to handouts will be provided.

Media computation provides a context within which computation can more easily be learned, allowing students to be creative while learning fundamental programming building blocks (like sequencing, iteration, selection, and two-dimensional arrays). Focusing on images, students can alter a picture's appearance by selectively changing its pixels. By combining different images, students can create collages. Creativity and success in CS1 have been studied. The effect media computation and an art show might have on student satisfaction and persistence, and promotion of the department is less understood. We articulate our experiences from five years of implementing media computation in CS1, with a strong focus on an accompanying public art show held to showcase the best student work produced each semester. We implemented the art show with a goal of raising visibility of our department within the university, and to highlight the ability to be creative in a CS degree program, with the hope of attracting students. It also allows our students to showcase their work to their peers and others, while motivating them to be creative and engaged. We briefly describe how we implement media computation within CS1 and describe in full detail how we conduct the public art show. Specifics about the student image collage project that is entered into the art show, the selection process, judging, show production, and promotion are provided. We describe how things have evolved over the ten shows spread over five years to provide perspective for others considering implementation of a similar experience for their students.

As proposed by Linda B. Nilson in "Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time", specifications grading is an assessment construct that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling of assignments and assessments within those modules. One of the intentions of this type of course grading construct is to more closely align assessment with student attainment of intended learning outcomes. While there has been very visible work in incorporating specifications grading in some academic areas (e.g. in mathematics), examples of the use of specifications grading in computer science courses are less common. The goal of this workshop is to introduce the concepts of specifications grading, explain how to apply these concepts to a wide range of computing courses, and have the participants apply these concepts to one of their current or upcoming computer science courses. Each participant should leave the workshop with at least one revised course syllabus or assignment that incorporates specifications grading.

To prepare graduates for today's work environment, they must be immersed in positive (and perhaps negative) small group experiences in their courses, which will in turn provide a basic understanding of how teams form and develop over time. In the fall of 2009, we started exploring how software development teams form and interact in a computer science college capstone course setting. Our initial findings were presented at ICER 2010 in Aarhus, Denmark. The focus of our research was on the experiences of computer science college course teams as compared and contrasted to the theory of Bruce Tuckman's stages of small group development model, which he characterized as forming , storming , norming , performing , and adjourning . We continued data collection with the computer science capstone course in the fall of 2010 and added an information systems capstone course as well. At the conclusion of the spring 2014 semester, we have collected and analyzed data for a total of 5 academic years from nine cohorts of students taught by five instructors involving 215 students on 51 teams. Each year, participants repeatedly self-assessed their enthusiasm and skill levels over time using a questionnaire by agreeing or disagreeing to statements. The data shows patterns similar to that of Tuckman's model. Since most people find Tuckman's model easy to understand, it may provide an effective tool to teach teamwork and monitor team development. In addition to briefly presenting our empirical findings in this article, we provide a simple conceptualization of Tuckman's model that can be captured in two data points: enthusiasm and skill level. By comparing changes in these two dimensions over time, team development can be tracked through the various Tuckman stages of small group development. We also provide a minicurriculum which can be used to introduce students to Tuckman's model and provide them insight into what leadership style works best in each of the development stages.

We explored how software development teams form and interact in a computer science college course setting and what an instructor can do to enhance effective teamwork. The experiences of computer science college course's teams are compared and contrasted to the theory of Bruce Tuckman's stages of small group development model, which he characterized as forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Participants repeatedly self-assessed their enthusiasm and skill levels over time using a questionnaire by agreeing or disagreeing to statements utilizing a five-point Likert scale. The data shows patterns similar to that of Tuckman's model. Since most people find his model easy to understand, it may provide an effective tool to teach teamwork and monitor team development. Indicators for which instructors or students can watch to identify a team that is struggling are provided.