This resource presents alternative grading approaches with a focus on student learning. Implementing an alternative approach involves rethinking in assessment design and communication with students, such as sharing clearly defined assessment standards, providing timely feedback, indicating ongoing progress for students, and allowing opportunities for reassessment. The intent is to maximize student learning, reduce the stress induced by grades (both for students and for the instructors doing the grading), and ensure that all learners are assessed equitably.
As you embark on rethinking your grading practices, consider the following questions:
- Why do you grade the way that you do?
- How do your current grading practices support your students’ learning?
- What small changes to your grading practice would better support your students’ learning?
The CTL is here to help!
Rethinking your grading approach? The CTL is available for one-on-one consultations to support your assessment, grading, and feedback practices. To request a consultation, email CTLfaculty@columbia.edu or join our live office hours (M-F, 9am-5pm).
The what and why of alternative grading
Let’s first define the term grades. In the conventional grading system, grades, as an inevitable part of assessment, are summative symbols that represent the overall performance of a student and traditionally come in the form of points or letters (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Pike, 2011). There are mainly two types of grades: marks given on individual assignments and the final course outcome given at the end of a semester.
One of the common critiques of the conventional grading system in higher education is that grades reduce an educational experience to a single number or letter and do not reflect the actual learning that students have achieved (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Pike, 2011; Townsley & Schmid, 2020). For example, it is difficult to tell from a grade of 70% exactly how much growth a student has experienced. Especially when there are no opportunities for feedback, revision, or reassessment, as is often the case with high-stakes assignments (e.g., quizzes, exams, final essays), the challenge of accurately representing students’ learning through points or letter grades becomes even greater. The conventional grading system also raises the question of inequity, particularly when grading is done on a curve or when grades reflect nonacademic factors such as extra credit, participation, and meeting deadlines (Feldman, 2018).
Alternative grading approaches are introduced as a way to address some of these challenges of the conventional grading system. Alternative grading allows students to better monitor their ongoing progress and take a more active role in their learning process. Furthermore, it allows instructors to assess all students equitably, by including choice and flexibility within a course and employing assessments appropriate for all students.
Many frameworks exist for alternative grading, and while they have some overlapping areas in the methods, they share four common elements, as shown in the Table 1 (adapted from Clark & Talbert, 2023, p. 28). With these four elements embedded, alternative grading aims to capture and reward the learning process that often gets lost in the conventional grading system.
Table 1: Four elements of alternative grading
| Elements of alternative grading | Description |
|---|---|
| Clearly defined standards | Communicate to your students the standards you have set to identify and assess evidence of their learning. |
| Timely, actionable, and targeted feedback | Provide feedback that guides students on how to improve their learning. |
| Progress indicator | Student work does not need to receive a grade, but if it does, consider giving a progress indicator such as “satisfactory,” “needs revision,” etc., rather than arbitrary points or a letter grade. |
| Reassessment without penalty | Allow students to use the feedback they received and resubmit their work. |
Where do you start?
Start small.
If you are interested in exploring alternative grading approaches but are overwhelmed, start small! There is no need to redesign an entire course. Start with one small assignment (Clark, 2023) and reflect on your assignment design to identify parts of the assignment for improvement. Consider incorporating one or two of the four elements of alternative grading: clearly defined standards, targeted and actionable feedback, ongoing progress indicator, and reassessment without penalty (adapted from Clark & Talbert, 2023, p. 28).
For example, give students the opportunity to revise and resubmit their work or retake an exam, based on targeted and action-oriented feedback you provide, for an updated grade. This creates a feedback loop in the assignments and assessments you give to students. Columbia students have shared how feedback, particularly in science and engineering classes, would provide them with more opportunities to learn from their mistakes as well as guidance on how to improve. This can help ease students’ anxiety over final grades as their first attempts are weighted less and they can learn from their mistakes. Dr. Jenny Davidson, Professor of Comparative Literature at Columbia, also shares the value of providing timely feedback, in her discussion of grading in the Dead Ideas Teaching and Learning podcast (Season 1, Episode 5).
If you’re looking for quick, low-stakes methods to assess student learning and provide feedback without having to assign grades, consider implementing classroom assessment techniques (CATs), which are commonly used to gauge student understanding and knowledge. Through CATs, you can monitor ongoing student learning with timely feedback and guidance. With such support, students are able to become more self-directed learners who actively engage in their learning process.
If you’re looking to manage your grading load, you can set a period of time during which you accept resubmissions up to a certain point in the semester. You can also limit the number of opportunities for revision and resubmission. For example, in specifications grading, a commonly used method is a token system where students are given a set number of tokens or earn additional tokens through extra work (e.g., coming to office hours with relevant questions about course content, taking on a leadership role in class, etc.). These tokens are to be used to resubmit work or extend certain deadlines.
Be transparent with your students about your rationale for alternative grading.
If alternative grading sounds new to you, it will sound new to your students. Students have been socialized to accept grades as one of the determining factors in their academic lives, and it will not be easy to shift their mindset from earning high grades to focusing on learning.
Creating a space for dialogue is thus one important step to get buy-in from your students and build trust. Talk with your students about the meaning of grades. What do grades mean to students and what do they mean to you? As the instructor, how might you want to change the students’ relationship with grades? Clearly communicate your rationale and expectations to students. Share with them that you value a growth mindset, and that you have designed your course and assessments to allow them to learn from mistakes.
For example, Dr. Amy Werman, Lecturer at the Columbia School of Social Work, uses a video recording to introduce the concept of ungrading to her students and to communicate to them her rationale for adopting an alternative grading approach in her classes (presented in a poster at the 2022 Celebration for Teaching and Learning Symposium).
To make your expectations clear across course assessments, consider sharing rubrics with your students to set clear expectations of course assignments and as part of your feedback and grading practices, so that students know the criteria you will use to evaluate their work. Students can also use rubrics to guide their work and for self-assessment, thus playing a more active role in the assessment process.
Build ongoing student engagement and trust in your approach to grading.
To build student engagement and trust in your grading approach, students need to have a sense of community where they are encouraged to collaborate with each other rather than compete. In her reflective narrative, Dr. Rachel Austin, Professor of Chemistry at Barnard College, shares how she intentionally created small spaces for students during the pandemic pivot to remote learning in 2020; she divided her course, which is normally divided into two sections, into five sections to allow smaller spaces for connection for students. She also rethought her assessment methods – by staying away from grading on a curve and sharing a detailed grading rubric with her students (published in the CTL resource: Teaching Transformations: Faculty Reflections and Insights on Pandemic Practices). By reducing unnecessary stress about grades, she aimed to motivate her students to invest their time and attention solely in their learning.
In addition, identify ways in which students can be involved in the assessment process where appropriate. For example, peer review is a great way for students to practice feedback-giving skills and develop metacognitive skills for understanding their own work and learning process. Columbia students also discuss how valuable it is to be able to engage in the assessment process. Through the lens of ungrading, they find that they gain more agency as learners when they are given more active roles in assessment (e.g., design a rubric together), multiple ways to demonstrate their learning, and opportunities to provide feedback on the course (e.g., try the Start-Stop-Continue method).
Seek resources and support from your teaching and learning community.
You are not alone in this endeavor to rethink your grading approach and bring a renewed focus on learning to your students. Reach out to trusted colleagues and ask for their advice and tips. Get inspiration from faculty examples in this resource. Consider applying for the Provost’s Teaching and Learning Grants, which provide funding and in-kind support for Columbia instructors looking to integrate new educational methods and technologies into their classes.
Whether you are interested in discussing challenges in your grading approach or exploring opportunities for rethinking your grading approach, the CTL is available to consult with you. You are always welcome to reach out to us at CTLfaculty@columbia.edu or join our live office hours (M-F, 9am-5pm).
Alternative grading frameworks
As mentioned above (see Table 1), there are many different frameworks for alternative grading, and definitions for such frameworks often overlap and can be used in combination within a given course. The following briefly describes three frameworks and provides tips for implementation as you reconsider your grading approach.
Contract grading
In contract grading (sometimes called labor-based contract grading), students and their instructor agree on a grading contract that details the amount of work that determines the final course grade. Students and the instructor revisit the contract at the midpoint of a semester to reexamine it and make adjustments if necessary. The goal of this approach is to allow students autonomy over their own assessments and the overall process of learning. If course assignments are graded, they are marked as “pass/fail” or “complete/incomplete.” The instructor provides feedback for further improvement, and students can resubmit work to earn a passing grade.
Implementation tips:
- Learning objectives: Clearly articulate the learning objectives for each course assignment.
- Grading standards: Determine a set of criteria that students need to meet for each course assignment in order to receive a passing grade.
- Grading contract: Develop a grading contract that outlines the amount of work that students are expected to complete to receive a final course grade. For examples, see sample grading contracts from Inoue (2023) (example from a writing course) and Lindemann and Harbke (2011) (appendix on p. 6; example from a psychology course).
- Co-creation: Set aside time at the beginning of the semester to introduce the grading contract to students and collectively formalize and agree on it (e.g., anonymously vote for a 2/3 majority), and select a date in the middle of the semester to revisit the contract to make any necessary adjustments.
*To learn more about contract grading, check the additional resources at the end of this resource.
Specifications grading
Specifications grading outlines set bundles of assignments that are directly tied to clear learning objectives and the final course grade. Assignments are generally graded as either “satisfactory/complete” or “needs revision,” and rubrics are provided to define what constitutes a satisfactory achievement. Instructors provide feedback and allow students to revise and resubmit their assignments until students have demonstrated mastery* of the content according to the provided rubrics. Allowing multiple opportunities for resubmission of work further ensures that students develop greater agency in meeting their learning goals. *Note: Specifications grading integrates aspects of other alternative grading frameworks such as mastery-based grading and competency-based grading (e.g., allowing resubmission of work with the aim to demonstrate mastery of target knowledge and skills).
Implementation tips:
- Learning objectives: Start with clearly articulating and refining learning objectives for each assignment in your course. What mastery of knowledge and skills are students expected to demonstrate by completing your course assignments?
- Grading standards: For each assignment type, develop a rubric that defines a clear set of criteria for “satisfactory” or “complete” work (e.g., What counts as “satisfactory” or “complete” work for a lab report, an exam, and an essay?).
- Grading scheme: Develop a grading scheme that details the specifications for earning a final course grade, with specific numbers of assignments that need to receive “satisfactory” or “complete” assessment. For an example grading scheme in a chemistry course, see p. 7 of Supporting Information for McKnelly et al. (2023).
*To learn more about specifications grading, check the additional resources at the end of this resource.
Ungrading
Ungrading is a critique of grades as a system, viewing grades as an inherently flawed and inequitable structural system in higher education. It does not mean not grading but simply deemphasizing grades, helping students refocus on their learning, providing feedback and intentionally engaging students in dialogue about the learning process. As Dr. Jesse Stommel notes in the Dead Ideas Teaching and Learning podcast (Season 2, Episode 2: Ungrading), “at the heart of the work of ungrading is raising an eyebrow at grades and the systems and structures that enable them.”
Implementation tips:
- Learning objectives: In general, make explicit the learning objectives for every task that students are expected to complete. Why are they doing what they are doing, and how does each activity or assignment lead to achieving the overarching learning goals of the course?
- De-emphasis of grades: Determine what part of your course you would like to ungrade, or deemphasize grades. In what assignment or what unit of the course can you remove points or letter grades and instead include opportunities for feedback on student work and dialogue with students on their learning process? The following are two examples of what deemphasizing grades could look like:
- Create opportunities for self-assessment through reflection. Reflection is key to developing metacognitive skills, which enable students to become more self-aware as critical thinkers and problem solvers who can monitor and control their own learning process.
- Consider offering a two-stage exam where students first take the exam individually and then retake the exam in small groups. This allows students to shift their attention from being concerned with points lost or gained on an exam to collaboratively reaching an understanding of the reasoning behind their answers (Miller, 2022). For more details on the step-by-step process of two-stage exams, see these implementation guidelines from the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative.
*To learn more about ungrading, check the additional resources at the end of this resource.
Additional resources
Alternative grading frameworks
Contract grading
- Inoue, A. B. (2022). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom (2nd ed). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
- Grading contract template by Inoue, A. B. (2023)
- Lindemann, D. F., & Harbke, C. R. (2011). Use of contract grading to improve grades among college freshmen in introductory psychology. Sage Open, 1(3), 1-7.
- Litterio, L. M. (2018). Contract grading in the technical writing classroom: Blending community-based assessment and self-assessment. Assessing writing, 38, 1-9.
Specifications grading
- Carlisle, S. (2020). Simple specifications grading. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 30(8-10), 926-951.
- McKnelly, K. J., Howitz, W. J., Thane, T. A., & Link, R. D. (2023). Specifications grading at scale: Improved letter grades and grading-related interactions in a course with over 1,000 students. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(9), 3179-3193.
- Supporting information for McKnelly et al. (2023)
- Nilson, L. B. (2014). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Routledge.
Ungrading
- Blum, S. D. (Ed.). (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
- Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative. (2014, October). Two-stage exams.
- Miller, Michelle D. (2022, August 2). Ungrading light: 4 simple ways to ease the spotlight off points. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- Stommel, J. (2023). Undoing the grade: Why we grade, and how to stop. Hybrid Pedagogy Inc.
Resources on technology-enhanced grading
Gradescope
CourseWorks (Canvas)
CTL resources
Assessing Equitably with All Learners in Mind
Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs): Low-Stakes Strategies to Assess Active Learning
Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning Podcast
- Season 1, Episode 5: Dead Ideas in Grading with Jenny Davidson
- Season 2, Episode 2: Ungrading with Jesse Stommel
Designing Assignments for Learning
Early and Mid-Semester Student Feedback
Feedback for Learning in the Science Classroom
Incorporating Rubrics Into Your Feedback and Grading Practices
Peer Review: Intentional Design for Any Course Context
Teaching Transformations: Faculty Reflections and Insights on Pandemic Practices
- Rachel Narehood Austin’s narrative on rethinking assessment
Ungrading: Reimagining Assessment of Student Learning
2022 Celebration of Teaching and Learning Symposium
- Amy Werman’s poster: Ungrading: A Reimagined Assessment of Student Learning
- Amy Werman’s video: What’s this about “ungrading”?
University resources
Office of the Provost’s Teaching and Learning Grants
References
Clark, D. (2023). Small alternative grading. Grading for Growth.
Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education. Taylor & Francis.
Feldman, J. (2023). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin Press.
Miller, Michelle D. (2022, August 2). Ungrading light: 4 simple ways to ease the spotlight off points. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Pike, D. L. (2011). The tyranny of dead ideas in teaching and learning: Midwest Sociological Society presidential address 2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(1), 1-12.
Townsley, M., & Schmid, D. (2020). Alternative grading practices: An entry point for faculty in competency‐based education. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 5(3), 1-5.
The CTL researches and experiments.
The Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning provides an array of resources and tools for instructional activities.