Elements of Alternative Grading

As we move towards the end of the academic year, grading takes center stage. Many of us have heard about different forms of grading – equity-based grading, mastery grading, contract grading, specs grading, even ungrading. But what do these methods really do that is so different?

Why Change Grading Practices?

First, why does grading need to become “alternative?” What’s wrong with the way higher education has assessed learning?

Scholarship over the last fifty plus years has revealed some universal concerns in the traditional assessment methods of higher education (think of few high-stakes exams or projects, averages of major assignments, little feedback beyond marks provided). There are concerns that traditional grading structures do not give students a chance to recover from a slow start or a disruptive event and are structured to disincentivize learning from mistakes or feedback. That high stakes assessments (when not necessary) cause undue stress and result in risk-aversion. That grades are subjective, include bias, and are considered highly inconsistent across faculty. Also, that letter or number grades, even with rubrics, provide little actionable information about how to improve. Current AI-related concerns only exacerbate these issues.

Many who turn to alternative grading are influenced by the research regarding grades and motivation. For example, in a groundbreaking study by Ruth Butler in the 1980s, students were divided into three groups, receiving: grades only, grades and comments, and comments only. Which groups performed best? Most educators guess that grades with comments provide students with the best support. Yet surprisingly, the comments-only group outperformed both of the other groups. These studies have been replicated over the years, suggesting that grades activate a comparative-focused rather than a learning-focused mindset, undermining intrinsic motivation.

When faculty become discouraged with traditional grading and look towards changes or solutions, they are met with numerous options. Rather than promoting a particular method, here we explore common elements that are intended to address these universal concerns.

What Exactly is Alternative Grading?

Much work around alternative grading falls under the catchy term, ungrading. In an ideal world, we would provide timely constructive individual feedback to each of our students without grades. But in our current higher education context, we still give grades at the end of the semester, and it feels disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Additionally, students emerge from a K-12 education system highly conditioned to focus on weekly, if not daily, points and grades.

Encouragingly, alternative grading proponents are realistic and do not typically suggest “no grades.” Rather, the intent is to focus less on points and more on feedback and development (both by students and instructors).

Past CTLD book discussions about Ungrading and Grading for Equity have focused on ways to incorporate the spirit of these movements into our unique contexts. Robert Talbert and David Clark (who also have a compelling blog on this topic) provide a useful framework. Their four pillars of alternative grading pull together commonalities from the various alternative grading approaches.

• Clearly Defined Standards – This first pillar emphasizes that students should be aware of the learning goals as well as how they can be achieved. This is not just, “what you need to know or do,” but also, “how you can show that you know it/can do it,” and perhaps most commonly missing, “why this is worth doing.” The TILT framework is a great resource for making assignments and assessment transparent in purpose, task, and criteria. Even at the end of the semester, we can still reinforce for students the “why” behind what they are being asked to do, taking some time to help students understand how the learning they develop will help in their future lives and careers.
• Helpful Feedback – Alternative grading puts strong emphasis on feedback. This pillar emphasizes that students should be given honest and actionable feedback (which points or grades alone do not do) that they use to improve their learning. The feedback should not just focus on past performance, but also future improvement and growth. Feedback that is provided with warmth and respect more often invites students to improve, similar to the warm demander ideal of, “I am holding you to high standards because I believe in you and want you to succeed.” Feedback should focus on the most important aspects to help students improve. For example, rather than marking up an entire paper, feedback could focus on the three most valuable elements for a student to work on next.
• Marks that Indicate Progress – Talbert and Clark use the term “marks” (instead of grades) to indicate a number, symbol, or comment that serves as an indicator of the progress students are making towards the clearly defined standards. Marks are different from feedback. Rather, marks help students interpret feedback. A score of 82 or a B- does not by itself help the student improve. Ungrading advocates would urge minimal use of marks (grades) but always accompanied by feedback to help the student interpret and improve.
• Reattempts Without Penalty – The final pillar is also the most contended. It urges faculty to, whenever possible and any time when it would help learning, allow students to revise or reattempt work without penalty. This does not mean reattempts without limits, as there do need to be guardrails both for the students as well as for faculty time and focus. And reattempts do not make sense in every situation. But when they are possible and helpful, allowing and incentivizing students to learn and grow from feedback is the whole point of formal education.

Small Steps

The pillars of alternative grading are broad enough to allow faculty to adapt to their own situations, disciplines, and course contexts. The authors urge faculty who want to adopt such practices to start small with one pillar, slowly building in these elements over time.

Faculty at MSU Denver are doing this work. A study conducted by a recent Scholarship of Teaching and Learning FLC found numerous examples showing how MSUD faculty are providing individualized feedback, using authentic assessments, and giving students choice and autonomy in their learning. But this study also revealed that just over half of instructors have talked with others about their grading or assessment practices. Perhaps talking with your colleagues about successful grading approaches, brainstorming ideas, and discussing challenges is another small way to start.

As the grading season arrives, you might look for those assessments that you avoid or dread grading. Could you take one of those and rethink its purpose, clarity, and efficacy, and how well it is serving students? Are there opportunities to focus less on points and more on feedback and development? Perhaps there are ways to reinforce an assignments’ purpose, provide additional actionable feedback, incorporate self-assessment, or allow students to resubmit and show mastery in a manageable way.

If you are looking for examples, or want to brainstorm ideas, contact us at the CTLD.

References

Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00874.x

Koenka, A. C., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Moshontz, H., Atkinson, K. M., Sanchez, C. E., & Cooper, H. (2021). A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: A case for written feedback. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 922–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1659939

Talbert, R. (2025, November 10). The four pillars of alternative grading. Grading for Growth. https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/the-four-pillars-of-alternative-grading

Generative AI disclosure: After writing this piece I used generative AI to suggest changes in grammar and structure.