While so-called "alternative" approaches to grading are not new, attention to them has increased in recent years. This has been especially true since 2020, when COVID's disruption of our conventional modes of in-person education forced many instructors to rethink their approaches to assessment. Hand in hand with this more pragmatic rethinking came ethical considerations, as living through a pandemic unfolded alongside ongoing protests throughout the US against systemic racism and police violence, further leading instructors to question the biases inherent in, and efficacy of, the models they had long been using.
Among the alternative grading approaches that have received the most attention are specifications grading, contract grading, mastery grading, and "ungrading." Each of these approaches is "alternative" in so far as it diverges in some way from a so-called traditional model of grading, which in its simplest and oversimplified form generally includes many of the following features:
-
Grades are given by the instructor to each individual student
-
The grade is often, but not necessarily, accompanied by more substantive feedback
-
Graded assignments are "high stakes," often because they are few in number, come later in the term, and/or may not be revised or resubmitted
-
Students have little say in creating assignments or in which assignments they complete
-
Students have little say in setting their own learning goals and few opportunities to reflect on their work in a course.
In practice, these general features of so-called "traditional" grading show up in different combinations in any given course. Overall, courses employing "traditional" grading tend to be more oriented towards product over process, and instructors in these courses hold more power over the assessment process than students do. Nonetheless, courses that employ traditional grading are not uniform in the ways in which student learning is assessed and graded.
We encourage Harvard instructors to learn about and consider adopting some or all of the features of one or more of these alternative approaches to grading not because we consider traditional approaches to be inherently flawed, ineffective, or obsolete, but rather because we believe that contemplating alternative approaches in tandem with more conventional practices inevitably raises valuable questions not only about the particulars of how we are assessing our students' learning, but also about why we are asking students to perform in the ways that we are. To recognize that there are a wide array of plausible approaches to grading is to recognize that perhaps the single most important attribute of successful assessment schemes is their intentionality.
Why Consider Alternative Grading?
Criticisms of traditional grading systems include:
-
Grading systems exacerbate stress and mental health challenges among students (Horowitz and Graf, 2019; Jones, 1993).
-
Grades decrease students' intrinsic motivation (Pulfrey et al, 2011; Chamberlain et al, 2018).
-
Grading decreases students' ability to learn from feedback, as students tend to focus on a letter/numerical grade and not the accompanying feedback (Schinske & Tanner, 2017; Kuepper-Tetzel & Gardner, 2021).
-
Grading perpetuates inequities between students (Link & Guskey 2019; Malouff & Thorsteinsson, 2016; Feldman, 2018).
-
They may encourage students to be risk averse, nudging them towards courses and assignments in which they feel they can do well at the expense of new areas of potential interest and inquiry.
To combat these challenges, in recent years a significant number of individual faculty, educational researchers, and institutions from across higher education have invested in developing alternative approaches to grading—often referred to, broadly, as ungrading. While the exact details vary, these approaches typically:
-
Offer clear learning objectives that are aligned with how assignments are graded.
-
Provide transparent expectations for success.
-
Offer students regular and actionable feedback on their work.
-
Emphasize process over product, by providing students with multiple opportunities to meet expectations. If a student's first effort is not satisfactory, they may be able to revise and resubmit the work or complete another similar assignment.
-
Help students feel responsible for their learning and their grades by providing students with some agency over the breadth and depth of work that they undertake and giving students agency in defining their own goals and reflecting on their own growth as learner.
-
Offer a range of lower-stakes assignments, as opposed to a small number of higher-stakes assessments such as exams.
Overall, alternative grading aspires to recalibrate the way we evaluate and give feedback on students' work to incentivize learning and effort (rather than performance alone). These approaches provide clarity about expectations and provide students with the freedom to make mistakes as part of the natural process of learning.
A Brief Typology of Alternative Grading Approaches
Below we briefly describe four alternative grading strategies, which can be employed in a wide range of disciplines. We note that there is a lot of flexibility as to how instructors might implement any of these approaches, and that the approaches overlap with each other.
Specifications grading
In specifications grading, grades are based on the combination and number of assignments that students satisfactorily complete. The instructor designates bundles of assignments that map to different letter grades. Bundles that require more work and are more challenging correspond to higher grades. Students can choose which bundle(s) they would like to complete.
Similar to mastery grading, the instructor defines clear learning objectives for all aspects of the course. Grading is based on meeting these objectives (satisfactory/unsatisfactory). Students typically have a small number of opportunities to resubmit work that didn't meet the standards.
Contract grading
With contract grading, the criteria for grades are determined by an agreement between the instructor and students at the beginning of the term. Each student signs a contract indicating what grade they plan to work towards, and contracts can be revisited during the term. Grades may correspond to completion of a certain percentage of work or completion of designated bundles of assignments (similar to specifications grading). Contract grading often emphasizes the learning process over the product, and as such, grading schemes may reward completion of activities (such as completing drafts and meeting individually with the instructor) as well as behaviors (such as being thoughtful in peer reviews and participating in discussions). Student work is graded on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis.
Mastery grading
In mastery grading, grades are directly based on the degree to which students have met the course learning objectives. An instructor first develops an extensive list of learning objectives, and then creates assessments that are aligned with these objectives. Student work is assessed on the basis of whether or not it meets a specified subset of the course objectives; partial credit is not awarded. Students are allowed multiple attempts to show mastery; depending on the nature of the assignment, students might revise their original submission or submit new work in response to related questions. The final course grade is based on the total number of objectives that the students has mastered. An instructor might designate essential objectives that everyone must meet to receive a certain grade, as well as bonus objectives that students could meet for a higher grade.
Ungrading
In classes that utilize ungrading, students are responsible for reflecting on and assessing their own learning. Instructors provide regular feedback on student work, but feedback on individual assignments does not include a grade. Instructors provide extensive guidance to help students reflect on their progress towards meeting their own learning goals. At the end of the term (and often at the midterm), students assemble a portfolio of work and assign themselves an overall grade for their course work. Final grades are at the discretion of the instructor; many instructors report that it is more common that they decide to increase—rather than decrease—the grade that students assigned themselves.
Support for Alternative Grading
Harvard faculty members who employ alternative grading strategies see themselves as a mentor and coach; they note that providing extensive feedback and mentoring can be more time-intensive than traditional grading. Faculty also note that alternative grading requires a high degree of trust between students and instructors. Nonetheless, the benefits are great: faculty feel that they can focus on fostering students' growth and learning, without judging or ranking their students. Moreover, students develop a sense of agency about their learning.
The Bok Center would be happy to meet with faculty who are interested in modifying their approaches to grading. We encourage faculty to identify elements that resonate with your goals and to incorporate small changes into your teaching.