Here’s hoping it answers all your questions!

The CTE is prioritizing candidates who are seasoned educational developers who embrace the Center’s mission and core values, who thrive in work settings that encourage autonomy, creativity and teamwork and who wish to engage deeply in meaningful work in a supportive environment.

The ADIPI will be a steadfast champion and advocate for inclusive pedagogical practices within the CTE, at UVA, and beyond.

2. Specs grading is likely to decrease common challenges and tensions in student–instructor relationships.

Recommendations for practice are included.

Two key conclusions:
1. The attitudes and approaches to learning that instructors typically wish to see in their students are the same as the reasons students provide for appreciating specs grading and recommending it to their peers.

Yes, those of us adopting alternative grading approaches invite students to approach their learning differently, but they have been burned too many times. “Take risks, be more creative, you can choose.” Invariably their grades suffers when they follow their instructors advice and they lose trust.

Academics ask all sorts of variations of these questions: “Can I see an award winning proposal? Can you look at my manuscript to see if it’s a good fit for your journal?” The last I looked, calls from NSF run 100+ pages. Why are we surprised/frustrated when students ask such questions?

What I hear in these questions is: “Please help me understand what it is you value in this assignment/project/activity.”

There’s plenty of evidence about the harmful affects of traditional grading methods. There are copious documented philosophical, practical, ethical, and mathematical problems. Really, even in the absence of evidence, could any alternative grading system be worse?