Educators often hear students ask questions such as “What is my grade?” Or “How do I get an A”? Many students are conditioned to focus on getting high grades, and many instructors have used only point-based grading systems. Research has shown that this is not the best method if you are focused on student learning (Butler, 1987; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The origin of A-F grading was not about student learning but about ranking students on the A-F scale (i.e., norm-referenced grading) whereby only a few students could “earn” a grade of A (Schneider & Hutt, 2014). Fortunately, there is an example at Metropolitan State University of Denver of an alternative grading system that supports student learning and deemphasizes letter grades. The system designed by the Mathematics Education group in the Mathematics Department does just that. As you read about it, think about connections to your discipline and steps you might take to focus on student learning.
Reading about this system may challenge your beliefs on grading since many of us have known only the one traditional system. As you read about it, think about how you can, as the instructor, design opportunities for students to self-assess. How can you use formative assessment to know what your students know before the exam? How can you deemphasize grades and emphasize learning?
Take a SIP of This: a grading system that emphasizes learning, not grades.
In Mathematics Education classes (i.e., content courses for preservice elementary and secondary students) at MSU Denver, an evidence-based, point-free system has been used for more than 15 years. Students’ mastery is graded on a defined set of content standards, and revisions by students to meet the standards are allowed after they receive written feedback from the instructor. Students show growth in learning over time through collecting evidence from homework, small-group work, whole-class discussions, teacher-led lectures, individual and group presentations, projects, and reading responses.
Students can select how they want to demonstrate mastery by submitting videos, portfolios and/or essays to showcase their learning. During class, instructors record student questions, insights, connections and contributions as evidence. They aim to expand the idea that being good in mathematics is more than a high test score and grade and that they value the practices that students use to learn mathematics.
Two or three times during the semester, students will self-assess on the standards, use the rubric from the course policies and give themselves a letter grade. The instructor will read their self-assessment, give students feedback and, using the rubric, convert all the evidence to a letter grade. This is an important step as students are conditioned to have letter grades and are uncomfortable without them.
Students can earn an E (Exemplary), M (Meets Standard) or IP (In Progress) on their three or four major assignments each semester. An IP indicates that revisions are needed to raise the score to an M or E. Feedback is given to support the student in making the necessary revision(s). If the student revises their work and still receives an IP, they must meet with the instructor to discuss the assignment before they can revise again.
Moving students from their desire for grades to the desire to provide evidence of mastery of standards takes time, but eventually most students will enjoy focusing on learning and put more effort into it. This idea can be applied to any content area. Think about how you might “ungrade” in your class and focus more on student learning.
Still thirsty? Take another SIP of a grading system that emphasizes learning, not grades
Strategy ideas:
Fill out the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning survey and consider joining the Center for Teaching, Learning and Design Faculty Learning Community in the fall.
History of grading:
Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A-F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 46(2), 201-224.
The fallacy of grading on a curve in STEM classes:
Bowen, R.S., & Cooper, M.M. (2022). Grading on a curve as a systemic issue of equity in Chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education. 99(1), 185-194.
On intrinsic and extrinsic motivation:
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25, 54-77
Alternatives to traditional grading:
Inoue, A.B., (2019). Labor Based grading and grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. University Press of Colorado and WAC Clearinghouse.
References:
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(2), 139-144, 146-148.
Blum, S.D. (ed.) (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead.). West Virginia University Press.
Feldman J. (2019). Grading for equity. Corwin.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
Kohn, A. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership. 69(3), 28-33.
Visit the Well at http://sites.msudenver.edu/sips/ for more great ideas and resources for Strong Instructional Practices in your higher–education classroom.