Alternative Grading: A Teaser

Competency-Based Grading or CBG: Specific competencies (skills or knowledge in the course) are developed (sometimes based on industry standards) and tied directly to course outcomes. (Each outcome typically houses several competencies.) Students can reattempt assessments, with the instructor indicating progress using a binary system: not met/net, not yet/pass, reattempt/move on, etc. Often, a course grade is derived from the number of competencies the student has demonstrated.

Contract Grading: Much like what it sounds, students and the instructor collaborate to determine one or more important parameters of the course: what constitutes quality, how many assignments should be completed, how many revisions are allowed, how many assignments can be missed, what to do about absences, what happens under breach of contract, etc. Most importantly, they decide what will constitute different letter grades at the end of the term, and which grade they’ll try to earn. Feedback is robust and regular, often through viz-a-viz consultations, and contracts can be modified partway through the semester. Contracts can be developed with students at the individual, group, or course level. The upside is the enhanced clarity of these systems and the agency students have in selecting a grade to strive for.

Game-Based LearningGBL: Distinct from gamification, game-based learning embeds one or more games—established or invented—as the basis for learning. The idea in game-based learning is that the game provides the context in which students apply various skills or knowledge. Formats are unrestricted: Think role-playing games, online games, card games, board games, strategy games, and more. As an example, students learning the basics of epidemiology and disease dynamics in a biology course might play the board game “Pandemic,” and, after familiarizing themselves with the mechanics through several rounds of play, they dissect how the game does and does not reflect reality. Perhaps they go further to create new mechanics that add some missing realism. These systems often leverage productive failure as the primary form of learning. Somewhat obviously, the games and how students think about them should be directly aligned to the course’s learning outcomes.

Gamification: Distinct from game-based learning, gamification applies the mechanics of board or other gaming systems to a course’s entire structure. Two important features that are usually present: 1) Students are allowed reattempts and 2) There are multiple pathways for students to succeed. In contrast to many other alternative grading approaches, this system leans into extrinsic rewards but in entertaining or otherwise meaningful ways. Students might go on “quests” that lead them to acquire particular skills, earn badges or tokens that symbolize accomplishment, “level-up” in a tiered system of difficulty or effort, see their relative progress on a leaderboard, etc. At its best, a created narrative helps students “suspend reality” and fully buy in to the system.

Labor-Based Grading: Labor-based grading recognizes that prior learning and resources vary considerably among students. In this system, grades emphasize student labor, as reflected in time-on-task, task completion, and process as documented by the student through such mechanisms as work logs, reflection pieces, work-in-progress (drafts), etc. Note that the grades are often pre-negotiated with the instructor in the form of a contract: what constitutes labor and how much labor results in which course grade. Feedback tends to be tailored and narrative, with students moving from “incomplete” to “complete” status on assignments. This can be an attractive option where process has the same or greater value as product, such as arts and humanities.

Mastery Grading: This involves the instructor declaring a threshold of performance or mastery for student work (e.g., 80%), and students may not move to the next item in the course until they meet this threshold; multiple, if not unlimited, reattempts are permitted. Mastery grading is often encountered in asynchronous online courses, where the pace of learning is set by the student, rather than the instructor. That said, mastery grading can be used in any context. It is imperative in these schemes that students encounter simpler, supporting skills and knowledge before moving onto more advanced skills and knowledge in the course. Accordingly, instructors might think deeply about hierarchies of cognition, such as Bloom’s taxonomy.

Specifications Grading or "specs" grading: Specifications grading is a competency-based system (see above) that emphasizes student agency. Assignments are “bundled” into groups that signal different levels of achievement, and students select the bundles they wish to complete. Assignments come with a detailed set of specifications (standards.) Feedback on individual assignments is binary (e.g., not yet/pass), along with an indication (often just a circling) of which specifications were unmet. Generally, completing larger and more challenging bundles is connected to a higher course grade. Note that reattempts on assignments are limited and involve a token system, making specifications grading attractive for moderate- to high-enrollment courses.

Standards-Based Grading or SBG: This is nearly synonymous with competency-based grading. The standards instructors develop at the course level (course outcomes, standards for individual assignments) are often tied to external educational standards (professional accreditation standards, state education standards, etc.) SBG also often involves graduated systems of simple feedback, so students have a better sense of progress. A common system is “beginning,” “developing,” “proficient,” and “advanced.”

UNgrading: Much like it sounds, ungrading eliminates points, letters, or other simple and declarative marks from individual assignments. Robust and regular feedback comes from the instructor, peers, and self; a prevalent structure in UNgrading is one-on-one consultations with the instructor. UNgrading recognizes that learning is constructed. To that end, students monitor their progress in an instructor-supported way through reflection prompts, learning journals, feedback logs, etc. Often, they refer to a portfolio of their work to recognize and showcase their growth. Final course grades are generally determined in collaboration with the instructor, with the student offering evidence of learning in their portfolio.