In this approach, every assignment is assigned a score and a weight, usually on a 100 point scale. At the end of the term the weighted scores received by each student are summed, and the resulting score is converted to a letter grade based on a pre-identified scale. In this system, if every student demonstrated the learning to earn all available points, they could all receive the top grade.

Where are there equity threats in this grading system?

Although grading out of 100 points is mathematically convenient, there are some nuances that may result in inequities. These include:

• The 100-point scale is biased towards failure: 11 percentage points (90-100) map to the letter A, 10 percentage points map to each of the grades B through D, but 59 percentage points map to the failing grade E. So if a student earns a zero in an assignment (e.g., because they did not submit it on time), it is very difficult for them to recover.
• Taking the average of assignments/assessments over time benefits the people who entered the class with better prior knowledge (who would have performed better in the initial assignments).
• The 100-point system often includes a mix of content and behavioral items. These latter items–like penalties for late work or coming late to class–introduce bias into learning measurement (Feldman, p. 40). While these behaviors might be desirable, and might even be correlated with learning, they are not the same as learning. Moreover, the burden of these penalties can fall disproportionately on students who must balance other commitments with school (such as working, family care-taking, or dealing with their own chronic health challenges).
• This scale can exaggerate very fine degrees of differences in performance. For example, a student with an 89% gets a B, the same as a student who earned 80% (9 fewer points); yet a student with 90% (only one point higher than the first student) gets an A.
• It is not possible to judge student learning to a 1% degree of accuracy.

Practices to promote equity in the 100-point grading system

Some of the following practices can improve use of the 100-point grading system:

• Eliminate “zero” from your gradebook and assignment rubrics. Recalibrate failure so that 50 points is the lowest possible score and the score for missing assignments.
• Allow students to drop their lowest scoring assignment or test
• Create opportunities for students to retake tests or revise assignments

Another traditional approach to grading involves “norming” or “curving” grades. In these approaches, students’ are awarded grades in relation to one another (or to a historical distribution of past students) rather than to a fixed set of criteria.  

Complicating this discussion is the fact that curving can be done in several ways. One situation is often valued by students. For example, imagine an instructor has given a 100-point test and expects to give all students who score 93 points or above an A. What then to do if no student scores more than 80 points? Is the highest grade on this test a B- ? Often what happens is that an instructor “curves” the grades. In this version of curving, the entire scale is adjusted, and 80 points becomes the highest achievable point value and the rest of the scores are remapped onto the grading scale, sometimes using “clusters” of similar scores to create the boundaries between grades. While this approach is often a relief to students (and can be an important one-time corrective to an exam that just didn’t work as expected), it does have drawbacks for student motivation since it can convey a very low level of mastery, even for students who receive passing letter grades. This student quote from Seymour and Hewitt’s Talking About Leaving (1997) illustrates this point:

In the weed-out courses, they make the exams so needlessly difficult that people just drop out. They study as hard as they can, go to class every day, try to get their homework, and then they take the exam and get a 65 on it -- and the class average is 63. And it makes you feel terrible. But, even if you get wise, and realize that you’re going to get a B out of it, what’s the point, if I feel like I learned nothing from the course? (p. 111)

Less valued by students, and more problematic from a learning perspective, is when a course or program sets restrictions on the number of students who can receive the highest grades and requires that a certain percentage of students be assigned the lowest grades. This fixed-curve grading system is one where the allocation of grades might be based on the “bell-shaped” curve of the normal distribution, or some other distribution identified by the course or program.  

Where are there equity threats in a fixed-curve grading system?

There are several:

1. Curved grading can increase competitiveness between students, as individual students are less likely to collaborate because helping others could impact their final grade negatively. Further, this system can create a hypercompetitive culture, sending students the message that education is a zero-sum game: Your success means my failure. Evidence suggests that once a competitive culture emerges in a group, it is difficult to undo, and students can fall into a pattern of “cutthroat cooperation.”10
2. Research indicates that this system, particularly the competitive environment it fosters, can have a negative impact on underrepresented minority students.11 It can exacerbate social isolation and lack of peer support, contributing to higher levels of stress, depression, anxiety, and burnout.12
3. This system measures relative, rather than absolute, individual achievement or progress. As a result, it does not necessarily provide a clear indication of whether students have mastered the class materials.13
4. Curved grading restricts the number of students who can excel in a class.14 If the forced curve used in the class allows for only seven As, but ten students have mastered the material, three of them will be unfairly punished.15
5. This system can have negative social consequences for exceptional students, as top performing students may be seen by their peers as the ones responsible for lowering their grades.16
6. A mathematical simulation analysis modeling students at highly selective institutions indicates that implementing a forced curve using the normal distribution may result in test scores that are not correlated with student preparation. In a highly competitive environment, getting a low grade when you were extremely well prepared for the exam can be very discouraging. Evidence suggests that women may be disproportionately impacted by this discrepancy.17
7. Rank-based grades can become meaningless when taken out of the context of a given class or school.18 To understand what a rank-based grade indicates, it is necessary to understand the overall performance of the entire group on an absolute scale.19

Transitioning away from curved/normed grading

If you are interested in moving away from a fixed curve grading system, we encourage you to use this website to explore other types of grading systems. Whether you can immediately make such a change likely depends on your own positionality in your department or teaching unit. If the fixed-curve system has been determined at the department level, or at the course level in a multi-sectioned coordinated course, then change will require larger conversations. CRLT is happy to consult with instructional teams or units wanting to make this change.

For those without the autonomy to move away from a fixed curve system, there is one minor change to consider. By increasing the number of assignments in your course, you make it less likely that a student’s performance on a single assignment will determine their relative position in the class.

Alternative approaches seek to foster more equitable classroom assessment. They can improve transparency (through clearly defined standards), flexibility (by allowing for re-assessment and, for many strategies, student agency in assignment choice), and academic belonging (by helping students learn how they learn and giving them agency in their learning process). They can also facilitate re-attempts or revisions, which helps solidify learning through feedback and can support students who might be coming into the class with different levels of experience. There are several common alternative grading approaches.

Any alternative grading approach should:

• Shift focus away from grades and focus on growth
• Give students more feedback and opportunity to implement that feedback
• Allow for creativity and for learning through failure
• Give students more agency in their learning
• Help students learn more about how they learn

In general, alternative approaches can help lower student stress. It is worth noting that these approaches can also add stress if they are not explained clearly to students at the beginning of the class with the opportunity to ask questions and fully understand how it will lead to their final grade. If you opt for an alternative grading approach, you should set aside time to talk through the specifics of that approach with students, why it will help student learning, and how grading will measure that learning. You and your students know a letter grade is required at the end of the course, regardless of grading approach. It is best to acknowledge that fact and state how that grade will be determined so that students understand how their learning will be measured and reported.

Below, you will find sections on five common alternatives instructors might consider:

• Gameful Learning, in which students start with zero points and earn points through completion of a choice of assignments.
• Standards-Based Grading, in which assignments are designed to assess a set of standards that are then graded as either “met” or “not yet met.” Progress is assessed by the number of standards that are mastered.
• Specifications Grading, in which assignments are grouped into bundles demonstrating levels of mastery. Assignments are graded using specifications that are either “met” or “not yet met.”
• Contract and Labor-Based Grading, in which assignments are grouped into bundles, and students and the instructor negotiate a contract based on quality or quantity of work completed that will earn specific grades.
• Ungrading, in which students primarily receive qualitative feedback and engage in reflection individually and with the instructor to determine progress and a final course grade.

How do you choose which approach is best? There is no one right answer to which approach is best. It will depend on the course you’re teaching, students who will be in the class, and your goals as an instructor. Different approaches emphasize the principles behind alternative grading to different degrees. Thinking about what exactly you’re hoping to bring into your class can help determine what strategy to look towards. For example:

• If student agency, contract grading might be a good starting point
• If transparency, specifications and standards-based grading are worth checking out
• If you want to focus solely on feedback, ungrading could be for you

As you determine what approach (or approaches) you want to try, it may help to reflect on the questions from Robert Talbert’s “What to do before you do alternative grading?”

Do you have to commit fully to one approach? No! You can commit to one approach if that is the best choice for your course(s). You can also use an approach for one assignment or can use bits and pieces of different approaches throughout a course. Trying out an approach on one assignment may be a good way to test out how an approach could be applied in specific courses. David Clark has compiled a selection of small changes that instructors can make in their courses that fit under the Four Pillars model discussed above.

How much time do you have for course planning? Many of these grading approaches involve either frontloading work in preparation to implement the approach or additional time devoted to giving feedback during the semester. Consider how much time you can reasonably commit and whether there is support you can take advantage of, for example colleagues who have implemented similar approaches or are considering it. As always, CRLT consultants are available to work with you as you think through alternative approaches.

What do you need to consider about explaining my approach to students? Offer plenty of explanation for the grading structure that you’re using, including not only how it works but why you’re using it in the course. Students may be resistant to the change. It looks different than what they’re used to. Being able to explain the structure and its purpose can help curb some of this resistance. For an example of syllabus language for specifications grading, see this resource from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Teaching and Learning.

Definition: “Gameful pedagogy incorporates design elements of games, such as choice and safe failure, to motivate students to engage with course content. As such, it requires instructors to fundamentally rethink their course design, especially their assignments and grading systems. Courses that take a gameful approach are defined by some amount of assignment choice, as well as an additive point system in which students build their grade up from zero. That is, their final grade is a sum of all of their assignment grades rather than an average of those grades. This framework allows students the freedom to fail because there is room to recover from setbacks by completing additional work.” (CRLT Occasional Paper No. 40 “Motivating Students to Learn: Transforming Courses Using a Gameful Approach”)

Key components

• Assignment options students can choose from (structured autonomy)
• Points spread across those assignments
• A starting point of zero points for all students (as opposed to a maximum they lose points from)

Benefits and Drawbacks

Example(s) and Resources

• Example syllabi and planning resources (gamefulpedagogy.com)
• SOC 221: “Social Inequality” at U-M (Fabian Pfeffer)
• CRLT Occasional Paper No. 40 “Motivating Students to Learn: Transforming Courses Using a Gameful Approach”
• Spotlight blog posts about experiences using gameful learning by Jeff Bouwman at U-M Dearborn and Greta Turnbull at Gonzaga University
• Information about Gradecraft

Definition: “A type of alternative grading in which each assignment addresses one or more clear, specific, and fine-grained standards. Separate marks are assigned for each standard rather than for the entire assignment. The same work may lead to different marks on different standards. Final grades are determined by how many, or which, standards have been successfully completed. SBG works well in settings where there are multiple discrete skills that can be practiced and demonstrated separately.” (Alternative Grading Glossary)

As a type of mastery grading, this grading approach focuses on explicitly named skills and knowledge that students are to gain mastery of throughout the course. Mastery is achieved through assessment of skill level and progress (e.g., “not yet met,” “proficient”) rather than abstract number and letter grades.

Key components

• A set of standards
• Two-tiered grading system
• A plan for re-assessment

Benefits and Drawbacks

Example(s) and Resources

• “General Biology II” at North Dakota State University (Jennifer Momsen)
• “Mathematical Thought & Practice” at Bridgewater State (Matt Salomone)
• Elsinger, Jason. & Lewis, Drew. (2020). “Applying a Standards-Based Grading Framework Across Lower Level Mathematics Courses,” PRIMUS, 30, 8-10, 885-907. DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2019.1674430.
• Boesdorfer, Sarah B., Baldwin, Emilee, & Lieberum, Kyle A. (2018). “Emphasizing Learning: Using Standards-Based Grading in a Large Nonmajors’ General Chemistry Survey Course.” Journal of Chemical Education, 95, 1291-1300. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00251
• Beatty, Ian D. (2013). “Standards-based grading in introductory university physics.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1-22.

Definition: “A type of alternative grading described by Linda Nilson in her book Specifications Grading. Each assignment includes a list of specifications: a clear description of what a successful submission includes, typically set at a “B” level (a high bar, but not perfect). Submissions are graded holistically on whether they meet all of the specs or not, earning a single mark (for example, “Satisfactory” or “Not Yet”). Final grades are determined by meeting specs on related ‘bundles’ of assignments. Specifications grading works especially well with essays, proofs, portfolios, and other larger-scale assignments that are meant to show synthesis and integrated understanding.” (Alternative Grading Glossary) (See also Linda Nilson’s book Specifications Grading, Robert Talbert’s “Specifications grading: We may have a winner”, and Breana Bayraktar’s “Tip: Specs Grading”)

Key components

• Specifications for what is needed to earn a proficient mark on each assignment
• Bundles (or modules) of assignments for each letter grade
• Two-tiered grading structure for assignments
• A plan for re-assessment of assignments that are not yet satisfactory after one submission

Benefits and Drawbacks

Example(s) and Resources

• History/Polish 331: “Poland in the Modern World” course at U-M (Brian Porter-Szucs, UM)
• Math 325: “Discrete Structures for Computer Science 2” course at Grand Valley State University (Robert Talbert)
• Political Science 5332: “Problems in American Foreign Relations” course at Texas State (Jeremy L. Wells)
• “Television and American Culture” course at Middlebury College (Jason Mittell)
• “Regulatory Affairs - Medical Devices” (biomedical engineering) at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (Kay C Dee)
• A collection of samples from University of Virginia

Definition (Contract): “A type of alternative grading in which each student signs a contract with the instructor that specifies what the student must do to earn a specific grade. These contracts can be written by the instructor, but are often negotiated individually by each student and can vary between students. Contracts cover specific assignments to be completed, levels at which to complete them, and any other requirements that the instructor and student agree on. Closely related to Specifications grading.” (Alternative Grading Glossary)

Definition (Labor-Based): “A specific type of contract grading in which the contracts focus entirely on the amount of work (labor) a student completes. Often used in writing classes, there is no judgment or requirement placed on the quality of writing. Labor-based grading aims to refocus the power dynamic between instructors and students and encourages students to develop the habits of successful writers.”

Key components

• A contract
• An element of negotiation or student agency
• For labor-based, a definition of course-related labor

Benefits and Drawbacks

Equity Tips

• Make sure negotiation is equitable. Instructors should be transparent about what is on the table for negotiation and how the assignments in the contract connect to their learning for the course. Transparency in the negotiation process helps students understand the purpose of assignments and the links to different objectives so they can make the best decisions for their learning. Transparency will also help students with less experience (and/or comfort) with this grading structure navigate the process. 
• For labor-based grading, think about what labor is and how time relates to that (with equity in mind). Labor considerations often do not account for students with disabilities, neurodiverse students, students with jobs and families, etc.
  • Carillo (2022) asks “How has this standard of labor been arrived at and by whom? How is this standard different from the static single standard of quality that labor-based grading contracts are intended to challenge?” (pg. 12)
  • For more equity considerations for labor-based grading, see Carillo 2022.

Example(s) and Resources

• A general example of contract grading (Jennifer Hurley, Ohlone College)
• Learning Contracts: University of Waterloo (from 2017 Provost’s Seminar on Teaching)
• “Technologies of Text” (Ryan Cordell, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
  • How I Contract Grade provides Dr. Cordell’s commentary on his experience and process of contract grading For a graduate course example, see “Reading Machines”
• Asao Inoue’s Labor-Based Grading Resources, including a labor log template and a labor planning document
  • Labor-Based Grading Contract example for course with default B (Asao Inoue)
• “Visions of the World: Power, Place, and Community” labor contract (Shokoofeh Rajabzadeh, UC Berkeley 2017)

Definition: “A specific form of alternative grading that seeks to remove grades from assignments to the extent possible and to focus instead on feedback. Ungrading often involves regular meetings with students to discuss their progress, leading to an increasingly common name: ‘collaborative grading,’ a term championed by Lindsay Masland.”

Key components

• Formative feedback and revision
  • No grades are given for the duration of the course
• Self-assessment and/or other metacognitive techniques

Benefits and Drawbacks

Example(s) and Resources

• Modern Algebra (Robert Talbert, Grand Valley State University) using proof-based problem sets (Inside Higher Ed allows 5 free articles reads per month)
• Chemistry courses (Clarissa Sorensen-Unruh) (this page will provide links to a set of blog posts Dr. Sorensen-Unruh wrote about her experience with ungrading as well as other materials she has created)
  • Another post about equity considerations
• Jesse Stommel’s webpage discussing how to ungrade
• Ungrading bibliography (as of June 2019)
• Experience using ungrading in political science (Emily Luxon, U-M Dearborn)