Alternate Grading Systems

What to Do Instead?

Changing everything about grading is intimidating, but it is possible. There are faculty at SCC and SFCC using these approaches right now. I want to highlight three options, but I want to stress that these aren’t the only approaches. Consider a hybrid or re-mix of the best parts of different systems, and trust that a totally new system is probably in development as we speak. Grading innovation continues. 

 

Portfolio Grading

One likely to sound familiar is portfolio grading. At its heart, portfolio grading systems emphasize revision and allow individuals time to learn at their own pace.

With portfolios, student work is submitted throughout the term and returned with feedback, not grades. Students usually continue to work on assignments and learning throughout the term. At the end of the course, students have the chance to submit learning that demonstrates their competency with a portfolio, a collection of revised work.

Final grades can be based entirely on that collection of work instead of earlier drafts submitted during the term,  or the portfolio can simply be one additional grade to the overall course points.

It allows for students to be in the “not yet” area of mastery. The approach makes room for students to learn on their own timeline within course start and end dates, and it values the end rather than arbitrary dates set by the instructor.  

Specifications Grading

Next, specifications grading is also know as "specs" grading. The approach came out of computer programming - either a program worked or didn’t. It had to meet specs to count as successful.

In specs grading systems, students complete work according to specifications, or characteristics or expectations similar to rubric criteria. Those might include the number of hours worked on assignments, the submission of certain number of drafts, or a specific outcome (such as the performance of a computer program).

With specs grading, grades are often all or nothing: Pass/Fail or A/F grades. For assignments submitted that do not yet meet specs, there is space and time for second chances. The focus is on (eventual) learning mastery. Linda Nilson, author of Specification Grading, writes “The real beauty of this approach is that it helps students take responsibility for their learning by holding them accountable for doing the work of learning.” (169)

Frequently, instructors using specifications grading calculate grades based on assignment/unit/module/"bundle" completion. For example, if five out of seven assignment groups are completed to specifications, the student earns a "C," six out of seven earns a "B," and seven earns a "A." Instructors align work with course outcomes, and communicate clear expectations for passing, but they do not have to determine the difference between a 78% or 82% on individual assignments. 

For examples of courses built around specs grading, see these links:

 

Labor-Based Grading

Finally, labor-based grading. These are similar to specs grading, but the labor-contracts including specifications that are not only about the final product. Labor-based contacts emphasize the work done to complete assignments. One of the early advocates for this approach comes from the field of composition, Asao B. Inuoe. His book, Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom Links to an external site. is available online or for checkout through the TLC. Inoue argues for these contracts as part of compassionate classroom practices grounded in social justice work. 

Often, students work with instructors to design a personal “grade” goal - identifying the work they are willing to dedicate to the class - and agree to a grading contract that stipulates how many assignments have to be completed, how many can be missed. Work must meet grading expectations, but the approach values students at whatever stage of learning they are in the class. Typically, work is returned with feedback but not a grade. Work not meeting expectations can be resubmitted.

Labor contracts allows students to focus on ideas, write for themselves, takes risks, have a do-over. It values time spent on learning or academic labor. 

For more information on labor-based grading classrooms, see these links:

Get Involved

The TLC regularly offers communities of practice (CoP) to support grading innovation. Look for invitations to join an Ungrading CoP to work on your class along with your colleagues. Contact Angela Rasmussen (angela.rasmussen@scc.spokane.edu) for more information.