Alternative grading systems like specifications grading, contract grading, and ungrading decenter grades and instead, utilize evaluative feedback to foster metacognitive and critical thinking, bolster student agency, and encourage authentic learning.
This investigation was led by Amanda Valdespino (Instructional Designer) and Solsiree Skarlinsky (Instructional Designer), members of Learning Innovation and Faculty Engagement.
Unlike traditional grade systems like norm-referenced and criterion-referenced grading, alternative grading forgoes a conventional points-based approach to grading and favors holistic and continuous forms of assessment and feedback. Studies have shown that traditional grading systems often play on students’ fear of punishment, lessens their intrinsic motivation and performance, and increases their desire to outcompete peers (Schinske & Tanner, 2017). Conversely, alternative grading systems such as specifications grading, contract grading, and ungrading encourage students to think critically about their own learning and educational goals (Palmer & Streifer, 2020).
Specifications grading relies on transparent and clearly outlined pass/fail criteria (or specifications) and course content structured into modules and bundles. Students have opportunities for revision and both the flexibility and autonomy to determine their final grade by completing the corresponding assignments and bundles.
Contract grading is a more collaborative method of grading that allows students to set goals for the semester via a contract (Hiller, 2001). The contract is developed at the beginning of the semester based on the information provided in the syllabus and specifies what grade the student wants to receive and what assignments the student will complete to attain that grade, and more.
Ungrading is an approach that centers around self-evaluation and decenters grades. Instructors instead emphasize reflection and revision while also providing students detailed feedback. At the end of the semester there are a variety of approaches to official institutional grades such as allowing students to assign themselves a grade.
These three alternative approaches are not the only methods and have evolved over time. Additionally, instructors often blend these grading systems to develop one that better suits their needs and the needs of their students.
Alternative grading emphasizes providing detailed and frequent feedback to students, giving students further agency in how they will be assessed. These methods are meant to reduce students’ anxiety and fixation on grades by emphasizing the learning process. Here is a breakdown of some of the more unique features related to the three alternative grading methods:
Creating Specifications : Instructors create specifications (or “specs”) that outlines what constitutes passing work from students. Instead of multi- level rubrics that try to sparse out differences between a B or B- work, there is just one level of criteria that needs to be written. Instructors need to be selective in which specs to include for assignments as these will be the only criteria they will be looking at in a student's work. It is also crucial to be explicit in specifications, instructions, and provide models of exemplary work so students are able to submit assignments that can receive full marks. If work does not meet specs, students receive zero credit, but instructors can allow for revision and provide feedback on which specs they missed or need to improve. Creating Bundles : Bundles are groups of assessments that students need to complete in order to receive a passing grade. The bundles are differentiated to meet different competencies based on course objectives. As an example, for a student to earn a ‘B’ in the course, they would need to complete a certain “bundle” of assessments such as completing more work at a masterly level versus a ‘C’ bundle.
Token Economy: A common element in specifications grading is for instructors to allocate a select amount of “tokens” for students to use throughout the semester as forms of rewards or free passes. Students can exchange one or more of these tokens for various opportunities such as revising or dropping one piece of work that did not meet specs, submitting one assignment past the required deadline or skipping an assignment altogether (Nilson, 2014). It is up to the instructor on whether or not to provide these tokens to students and what are the different conditions.
Creating Contracts: Similar to specifications grading, instructors should set clear guidelines on how students can earn a particular grade on an assignment or for the class, although the requirements might be broader in their descriptions. For example, an instructor might stipulate that to earn a ‘B’ in the course, students need to attend a majority of classes, submit a certain amount of assignments, provide peer feedback to other students, etc. Percentages or points do not weigh assignments differently; all are of equal importance. Contracts can be solely created by the instructor (non-negotiable) or negotiated by students by making amendments to original criteria or co-creating them as a class (Volk, 2016). To earn a high grade in the class, instructors may specify in the contract whether students need to produce higher quality work and/or complete additional tasks (i.e. labor-based grading). This method works well with writing-intensive courses as it allows for multiple revisions and for students to be assessed on their paper’s progress versus just a final draft. 
Image by Ryan Cordell, University of Illinois
Reflection and Dialogue: Ungrading builds upon similar aspects of specifications and contract grading. Assignments provide clear instructions, although not necessarily criteria or contracts, for students to follow. Instructors should also offer students flexibility with assignment deadlines and provide opportunities for revision. Ungrading does encourage instructors to have more open conversations with students about their performance, whether it is through bi-weekly conferences, feedback surveys, or asking students outright what grade to put in the system at the end of the term (Blum & Kohn, 2020). These conversations in addition to other self-reflective exercises (i.e. minute tickets, process letters, peer feedback, etc.) require students to think critically about what they’ve learned and articulate how they have developed their knowledge and skills throughout the semester. Image by Blum, & Kohn, A. (2020). Ungrading. West Virginia University Press.
"I enjoyed the grading contract because I didn't spend the class focusing on what my instructor was looking for, but instead on the quality of my paper, with respect to the readers. I tried to focus on clarifying my papers throughout this semester and polishing them instead of focusing on what would my teacher like to see. I felt like I wrote personal and individualized papers." -Student Response Since the fall semester of 2020, April Mann has implemented contract grading through an anti-racist pedagogy lens into her two English Composition courses, ENG105 and ENG 107. She was inspired to implement this methodology after attending Asao Inoue’s workshop on anti-racist and social justice practices in writing assessments. Dr. Mann has also been doing this work in collaboration with other colleagues within the English department and has found it helpful to have peers to discuss the process, pros/cons, student feedback, etc. The course contract is developed by Professor Mann to include general guidelines on how to pass the class. If students complete all of the necessary work, they are guaranteed a ‘B’. If they wish for a higher grade, they must complete additional work and/or revisions. To ease students’ apprehension toward contract grading, Professor Mann offers students the opportunity to renegotiate their contracts, develop their own rubrics for each writing assignment, and revise assignments that do not meet passing criteria. Professor Mann also includes language on contract grading in the syllabus, has students read “The Case Against Grades” by Alfie Kohn, and allows them to reflect on their past grading experiences. Based on feedback surveys shared by Professor Mann at the end of the semester, students have found this new grading system to be overall less stressful than traditional grading. Although some students are hesitant or resistant to the approach at first, a majority find it allows them to focus on their writing and produce quality papers they are proud of. Professor Mann has made various adjustments to the course plan since implementing contract grading, including changing deadlines for major assignments and finding ways to be more transparent with students. If anyone is interested in this style of grading, Professor Mann advises finding various ways to be open and to reassure students about the process, and to blend strategies that work best for instructor and student needs.April Mann, Senior Lecturer in English and Director of the Writing Center
Heather Blatt, Department of English As part of our collaborative efforts with the Miami Teaching, Learning, and Technology Collective, we discussed upgrading with Dr. Heather Blatt. Dr.Blatt has integrated both specifications grading and ungrading into her graduate and undergraduate level courses at Florida International University. She first integrated specifications grading during her fall 2016 course Medieval Monstrosity (ENL 4210) and later used it in other undergraduate and graduate classes. To help students better understand specifications grading, she developed a handout called Chart Your Way to Your Final Grade. Students completed the handout three times over the semester to check in on their progress. In her Advanced Research Methods in the Humanities course (ENG 5009), Dr. Blatt used ungrading along with token-based economies, Slack group discussions, social annotations, and more to offer students flexibility and the opportunity to connect during the pandemic. Additionally, Dr.Blatt used qualitative forms of assessment and self-reflection to encourage students to think critically about their learning. To help students better understand alternative grading systems and ease their anxieties, students are also offered an opportunity to read The Case Against Grades by Alfie Kohn and confer with Dr.Blatt throughout the semester. To learn more about Dr. Blatt and her experience with specifications grading and ungrading, please email her at hblatt@fiu.edu.
Eric Reyes, Department of Mathematics For the past five years, Dr. Reyes has been integrating specifications grading into his statistics courses at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. In order to prepare students for his specifications-based grading system and elucidate what specifications mean, Dr. Reyes provided at least 3 annotated examples of assignments that met the specifications and assignments that did not. Additionally, Dr. Reyes uses phrases such as “successfully complete” or “did not successfully complete” instead of pass/fail. He found that altering the language eased students' fears and anxieties regarding alternative grading. This phrasing and grading system better aligns with Dr.Reyes’ course design where assignments and homework are both made to inspire discussion regarding course concepts. Dr.Reyes has also found that for specifications grading to succeed, the specifications must be clearly defined and communicated in advance. As a result, setting the bundle, specifications, and assignments can be time-consuming at first.
Lisa M. Litterio, Department of English In fall 2014, Dr. Litterio piloted an initial study where she examined the implementation of contract grading in her technical writing class at Bridgewater State University. Students were able to generate their own criteria for each assignment, but Dr.Litterio provided students with their final assessment grades. As a result, although students became more involved in the grading process, they experienced difficulty seeing themselves as experts and resisted participation. In 2017, Dr.Litterio revised her contract grading system and completed a secondary study. To mitigate the hurdles students faced in her previous study, Dr.Litterio integrated more opportunities for students to participate in the grading process through student-generated criteria, community-based assessments, and self-assessments. Students were asked to submit a self-assessment with each submitted assignment that prompted students to explain how their writing adhered to the class criteria. Through these opportunities, students not only felt more involved in the grading process but also found that the self-assessments became more than a justification for criteria. Students instead used the opportunity to learn and reflect metacognitively about their writing (Litterio, 2017).
Alternative grading is an attempt to remove the transactional nature of grading and allows instructors and students to engage in more authentic learning. With traditional grading, students can become frustrated at the notion of having to complete assignments only with the purpose to receive a certain score or letter grade, and not for the sake of actual learning. If grades are not as important of a factor or don’t factor in at all, students can better acquire intrinsic motivation for completing assignments. Additional benefits for students include (Center for the Integration of Teaching, Learning and Scholarship, Lafayette College): Although considerable effort is required, there are plenty of benefits for faculty who implement alternative grading in the classroom. With traditional methods, instructors may become stymied in their capability to support students by being preoccupied with the logistics of grading such as making numerous calculations, needing to debate whether to give partial credit or having to justify grades. With alternative grading, there can be more thought put into providing feedback and enjoying the process of conversing with students about their progress. Also, in creating better expectations for students to complete assignments with lesser restrictions in grading, students actually produce a higher quality of work (Blum & Kohn, 2020). Overall, alternative grading can lead to a newfound appreciation in assessing learning and interacting with students.
Although some instructors find that using alternative grading reduces and better distributes their grading load, the upfront preparation to integrate these systems is high. Instructors need to update their syllabus and course objectives. And depending on the system, instructors also need to develop criteria or specifications, rubrics, contract examples, reflective assignments, token opportunities, and more. Additionally, these systems rely on in-depth feedback so students have the opportunity to revise which can be time-consuming.
If students have not taken a class with an alternative grading system, it may take some time for students to adjust. And in some cases, students may display resistance to a new system and experience added anxieties about their progress (Spidell & Thelin, 2006). Instructors can circumvent this by being transparent about the system and why it was adopted. Additionally, instructors should offer students opportunities to request a conference and review their progress.
Alternative grading methodologies not only encourage students to think critically about their own learning but also empower them to make critical choices about how they will be evaluated. Alternative grading systems facilitate collaborative partnerships between students and the instructor and as a result, complements antiracist and decolonizing pedagogies (Stommel, 2020). Unlike traditional grading systems that reinforce teacher/learner hierarchies, alternative grading dismantles them. For example, Asao B. Inoue, professor of Rhetoric and Composition at Arizona State University, incorporates contract grading along with community-based assessment in his writing courses to bolster anti-racist practice in the classroom (Inoue, 2019).
Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., & Boud, D. (2018). Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: A case study in a large class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455 Blum, S., & Kohn, A. (2020). Ungrading. West Virginia University Press. Elbow, P., & Danielewicz, J. (2008). A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching [co-written with Jane Danielewicz]. College Composition and Communication. 3. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=eng_faculty_pubs Flaherty, C. (2020, November 30). Students seek pass-fail options again for fall in light of COVID-19. Inside Higher Ed, Retrieved February 16, 2022. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/11/30/students-seek-pass-fail-options-again-fall-light-covid-19 Hiller, T. B., & Hietapelto, A. B. (2001). Contract Grading: Encouraging Commitment to the Learning Process through Voice in the Evaluation Process. Journal of Management Education, 25(6), 660–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500605 Inoue, Asao B. (2019). Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2019.0216.0 Litterio, L. (2018). Contract grading in the technical writing classroom: Blending community-based assessment and self-assessment. Assessing Writing, 38, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.002 Mueller, J. 2005. “The Authentic Assessment Toolbox: Enhancing Student Learning through Online Faculty Development.” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 1–7. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol1_no1_mueller.htm Nilson, L. (January 19, 2016). Yes, Virginia, There’s a Better Way to Grade. Inside Higher Ed.https://kb.ecampus.uconn.edu/2021/10/07/specifications-grading-a-method-for-improving-student-performance/ Nilson, L. (2014). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Parker, J. (2021). Specifications Grading: A Method for Improving Student Performance, University of Connecticut.https://kb.ecampus.uconn.edu/2021/10/07/specifications-grading-a-method-for-improving-student-performance/ Palmer, M., & Streifer, A. (2020) Alternative Grading: Practices Support Both Equity and Learning. https://cte.virginia.edu/blog/2020/12/04/alternative-grading-practices-support-both-equity-and-learning Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently). CBE life sciences education, 13(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054 Spidell, C., & Thelin, W. (2006). Not ready to let go: A study of resistance to grading contracts. Composition Studies 34(1), 35-68. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/journals/composition-studies/docs/backissues/34-1/Spidell%20and%20Thelin.pdf Stommel, J. (2020). Ungrading: a FAQ. https://www.jessestommel.com/ungrading-an-faq/ Volk, S. (2016, March 27). Contract Improv – Three Approaches to Contract Grading | After Class [Blog]. After Class: Education & Democracy. https://steven-volk.blog/2016/03/27/contract-improv-three-approaches-to-contract-grading/ Why Do Ungrading? · CITLS · Lafayette College. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2022, from https://citls.lafayette.edu/why-do-ungrading/
