The list below is intended to serve as a resource for those looking to host speakers on topics related to alternative assessment approaches in STEM. We will continue to update this list as we receive additional nominations. We have not reached out to these individuals to determine interest in presenting to SEISMIC. Those interested in inviting these speakers should reach out to them directly. To suggest additional speakers or topics, or request edits to this list, please use the form below.   

Speaker Nomination Form

David Clark

clarkdav@gvsu.edu

Grand Valley State University

Reason for nomination: Co-Author of Grading for Growth (2023).

Melanie Cooper

mmc@msu.edu

Michigan State University

Reason for nomination: Cooper’s very significant work in leading efforts to reform assessments (and thus teaching) in undergraduate STEM courses through the incorporation of 3D Learning.

Robin A. Costello

robincos@buffalo.edu

University at Buffalo

Reason for nomination: Research in the Costello Lab aims to identify systemic barriers to student success in postsecondary biology courses and to empirically evaluate classroom interventions aimed at reducing these barriers. We take an experimental and quantitative approach to research to answer questions centered around the social aspects of learning to ultimately support student persistence in STEM fields.

Daniel (Dan) R. Dries

ddries@chapman.edu

Chapman University

Reason for nomination: Dries was the PI on a multi-year NSF RCN-UBE grant that provided professional development workshops on assessment (including alternative assessment) of course learning objectives. Termed ICABL (Inclusive Community for the Assessment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Learning), his community partnered with minority-serving institutions that served as regional hubs for community development. Furthermore, he recruited participants from these workshops into positions of leadership within the community as a mechanism to transform leadership to better reflect the demographics of their classrooms.

Dries has incorporated alternative grading practices into introductory chemistry courses. This includes standards-based grading in lectures and specifications grading in labs. He has also led the ICABL community in summer reads of Talbert & Clark’s Grading for Growth over the past two summers. This has led to several faculty transforming their classrooms using more equitable grading practices.

Jayme Dyer

https://www.jaymedyer.com/contact

Durham Technical Community Collegeity

Reason for nomination: Dyer presented “Multiple Grading Schemes Benefitting PEERs in STEM courses” at SABER 2025.

Sean Garrett-Roe

sgr@pitt.edu

University of Pittsburgh

Reason for nomination: Demonstrated low-stakes testing in large-enrollment General Chemistry 1.

Daniel Guberman

dguberma@purdue.edu

Purdue University

Reason for nomination: Guberman has been working on alternative assessment practices both in their own teaching and in supporting others for many years including publications, presentations, and workshops and consultations with faculty. Guberman created and taught a class (twice) on grading practices in higher education for undergraduate students and has co-presented with students twice at the Grading Conference based on the class. Guberman can speak to basics about different grading practices, student perspectives on grading practices (which they could do with student collaborators), decision-making practices (they co-developed a framework with colleagues that they have presented at national conferences), and/or the use of self-determination theory (SDT) as an underlying framework to make effective decisions about grading and assessment practices. Guberman is currently co-writing a book under contract with Routledge about course design rooted in SDT, which will be available in summer 2026.

Guberman is also particularly interested in using any of these frames as a launching point for workshops to help instructors make meaningful decisions about grading and assessment frameworks for their classes.

Hosun Kang

hosunk@uci.edu

University of California, Irvine

Reason for nomination: Kang’s research involves investigating the design and impact of innovations that support preservice and in service science teachers’ learning to teach towards a more just, sustainable, and thriving future. She also investigates youth’s engagement and identities in science with a particular focus on youth from non-dominant linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. With the support of the NSF, she is currently partnering with a local school district to transform science teaching through co-design and enactment of an equity/justice-centered science curriculum and assessment.

Pavan Kadandale

pavan.k@uci.edu

University of California, Irvine

Reason for nomination: Kadandale’s research focuses on improving assessments of higher order thinking.

Renée Link

rlink@uci.edu

University of California, Irvine

Reason for nomination: Link has implemented specification grading in a large organic chemistry course and has written about her experiences.

Erin Moody

emoody@umd.edu

University of Maryland

Reason for nomination: Moody has been experimenting with specifications grading in a large introductory economics course and has seen interesting results.

Ben Motz

bmotz@iu.edu

Indiana University

Reason for nomination: Ben Motz leads the INTERACT Incubator, a project focused on identifying research needs for studying teaching practices that improve equity in STEM and creating a detailed design plan for infrastructure that can address these needs comprehensively and at scale. Motz brought together an impressive team of experimental social psychologists who study social cues in STEM, experimental cognitive psychologists who study learning in authentic classroom settings, as well as education stakeholders and technologists with expertise in digital infrastructure for education. Together, this team explored how to develop novel infrastructure to support mid-scale research in STEM education.

Cassandra Paul

cassandra.paul@sjsu.edu

San Jose State University

Reason for nomination: Paul’s research focuses on pedagogy, assessment, feedback, and grading practices.

Clarissa Sorensen-Unruh

csorensen@cnm.edu

Central New Mexico Community College

Reason for nomination: Sorensen-Unruh is an instructor at a community college who has experience implementing ungrading.

Robert Talbert

talbertr@gvsu.edu

Grand Valley State University

Reason for nomination: Author of Grading for Growth (2023).

Crystal Uminski

crystaluminski@towson.edu

Towson University

Reason for nomination: Uminsky’s research focuses on visual literacy in STEM, with focus on gateway courses.

Ben Van Dusen

bvd@iastate.edu

Iowa State University

Reason for nomination: Ben Van Dusen’s Google Scholar page shows several different studies that would be of interest to the SEISMIC community.

David Webb

djwebb@ucdavis.edu

University of California, Davis

Reason for nomination: Webb has examined physics grading scales (100 vs 4 pt scale) and their impact on different groups. His  work is also widely published.

Brandon Yik

byik@uga.edu

University of Georgia

Reason for nomination: Yik studies faculty reasons for using and not using specifications grading and student perspectives on it. 

Updated 3/16/2026