Alternative Forms of Grading

Many instructors and educational developers have begun giving new consideration to specifications gradingcontract grading and/or labor-based grading and how they may help support more equitable assessments and grading policies. One potential benefit to these approaches is that it allows instructors to maintain a series of low-stakes assessments without overburdening students with criteria-heavy weekly assignments that can feel like “busy-work.”

In Specs- and labor-based grading, you can retain well-aligned formative assessments and activities, but alleviate some of the anxiety that these may provoke amongst students (e.g., their focus is on the outcome versus their grade)—particularly if you provide students some choice in which assessments students may complete or revise.

In his book on contract grading, Asao B. Inoue argues that labor-based grading contracts support anti-racist and social justice-oriented assessment that enhance equity in the writing classroom. Other scholars have made similar arguments about contract-based and specifications grading, all of which provide more agency to students and remove the emphasis on “grading” and “grades.”  Though there are some differences between these approaches, we encourage you to worry less about those, and focus more on whether there are elements to these approaches to grading that may work well for your class. Here are some of the core elements of “ungrading” that you may wish to consider:

  • Assignments and activities are all graded as satisfactory/unsatisfactory (or acceptable/not yet, etc.).
    • Instructors provide very transparent about what constitutes acceptable work for each assignment. In labor-based grading systems, effort is central; for specifications grading, instructors often use standards that align with work that might garner a “B” in traditional schemas.
  • Students are allowed to revise unacceptable work at least once.
  • Students have some agency or choice in the assessments/assignments they complete for the course or even for each unit/module. “Bundles” of assessments and/or grading contracts are still linked to learning outcomes.

If you’re intrigued by the possibilities offered by these approaches to grading, consider reading a bit more about each before you make a decision. Check out this presentation from UNC Wilmington’s CTE for a brief overview of these alternative grading formats.

Created by: Virginia M. Schwarz

Questions for Critiquing

  1. What course is the contract for? Are the decisions appropriate for that context, audience, purpose?
  2. How might teacher identity and identities of students impact contract grading?
  3. What assignments, behaviors, and/or labor requirements are included in the tiers?
  4. Thinking in terms of importance (essential vs optional), do you agree with placement on those tiers?
  5. Build up? (C start) or Begin high? (A start) What are the benefits of each?
  6. Is this contract negotiated with students?
  7. Is peer review and self-assessment discussed?
  8. How does the instructor present/ explain this to students, if at all?
  9. Does this contract appear to be embedded into the culture and/or assignments of the course? In what ways does this respond to a larger teaching philosophy?
  10. Is “rigor” addressed? If so, how?
  11. Is student labor on assignments accounted for? (see Asao Inoue)
  12. What are the choices in length, tone, language, naming?
  13. What design choices did the teacher make? (for example, is the contract part of the syllabus)
  14. What degree of flexibility do you perceive, and are “violations/ negotiations/ surprises” addressed?
  15. How does/doesn’t this contract address the needs of traditionally high-achieving and low-achieving students according to your perception?
  16. How might the contract potentially further the working relationship with students? Students relationships to one another?
  17. How does the contract make you feel?

Questions for Composing

  1. What are the goals and outcomes of the course?
  2. How might I/ we account for teacher and student identity?
  3. What assignments, behaviors, and/or labor requirements actually help students learn and how are those incorporated into the class? [defamiliarize learning]
  4. Which of those are absolutely essential and what could be optional? [for making tiers or designing optional projects]
  5. Build up? (C start) or Begin high? (A start)
  6. Am I ready to negotiate this contract with students?
  7. How might I incorporate peer and self-assessment (process steps)?
  8. How do I plan to present/ explain this to students (and colleagues, and admin)?
  9. How do I plan to embed this in our classroom/ program culture? In what ways does this respond to a larger philosophy?
  10. How do I talk about “rigor”—do I even include that in my rationale?
  11. Do I account for student labor and if so then how? (see Asao Inoue)
  12. What should I do in terms of length, tone, language for the syllabus/ contract?
  13. What design choices did the teacher make? (for example, is the contract part of the syllabus)
  14. What degree of flexibility should I offer, and should I discuss violations, incorporate negotiations?
  15. How does/doesn’t this contract address the needs of all students?
  16. How does the contract potentially further my working relationship with students? Students relationships to one another?
  17. How do I hope students feel after reading?

Don’t Let the Canvas Gradebook Stop You

As you contemplate each of these approaches, CATL can help you deal with navigating the Gradebook so that doesn’t hold you or your students back should you wish to use a form of labor-based, specs, or contract grading.

Schedule a CATL consultation on alternative forms of grading.