Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42819400›Full record

ArticleJACS Au2026

Learning Gains in Organic Chemistry from Full and Hybrid Specifications Grading.

Joseph D Houck, Brandon J Yik, Eric D Nacsa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACS Au, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joseph D HouckDepartment of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States.
Brandon J YikDepartment of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8124-8451
Eric D NacsaDepartment of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8543-7193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, alternative grading strategies to traditional points-based systems have gained popularity, particularly in STEM. Specifications grading is one type of alternative grading that focuses students on meeting course learning objectives rather than accumulating points, sets a threshold for satisfactory work, and often includes frequent, low-stakes assessments, feedback, and opportunities for reattempts or revision. However, the contribution of these features to student learning in authentic courses remains difficult to isolate. This study provides course-scale evidence that frequent, feedback-rich, reattemptable learning-target assessment is associated with higher standardized exam performance in large-enrollment Organic Chemistry I. Students in multiple sections that adopted this assessment structure, whether embedded in full specifications grading or in a hybrid points-based system, scored significantly higher on the same custom ACS Organic Chemistry Exam than students in a traditionally graded comparison section. Higher scores were observed in both same-instructor and cross-instructor comparisons. Improvements were concentrated among students with lower incoming preparation, as well as among women and students who did not identify exclusively as white. No corresponding losses were observed among students with higher incoming preparation, men, or students who identified exclusively as white. Overall, these findings suggest that frequent, feedback-rich, reattemptable learning-target assessments may be a useful mechanism within alternative grading systems for supporting student performance in organic chemistry.

Indexed as

alternative gradingchemical educationspecifications grading

Identifiers

PMID42819400
PMCPMC13625744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.