Alternative Grading Models

A workshop titled "Mini-Workshop: Alternative Grading Models" originally presented for CAT+FD on 17 March 2026 by Dr. Jason Todd

Abstract

Traditional grading systems tend to orient students toward point accumulation rather than learning, generate anxiety (particularly for first-generation and underrepresented students), and produce feedback that students rarely engage with once a grade has been assigned. Alternative grading approaches shift the focus toward evidence of learning and reduce adversarial faculty-student dynamics by moving rigor to course design rather than evaluation.

• Contract Grading establishes a written agreement at the start of the semester in which students commit to a defined body of work in exchange for a defined grade. Contracts are typically tiered (C, B, A), with each level requiring progressively more engagement. Grading becomes binary — work is either fulfilled or not — which reduces grade disputes and repositions faculty as coaches rather than judges.
• Specifications Grading assesses work as complete or incomplete against clearly published criteria. Students may revise and resubmit assignments, with "tokens" used to limit revision volume. Because feedback is tied to a subsequent revision opportunity, students have a concrete reason to act on it.
• Ungrading removes grades from individual assignments entirely. Students receive qualitative feedback throughout the semester and complete a self-assessment at the end; the instructor reviews and either confirms or negotiates the final grade. The model centers student metacognition and requires significant structural scaffolding and mutual trust.
• Negotiated Grading involves students and instructor co-determining what will count as evidence of learning and how it will be evaluated. This may include grading conferences — structured conversations in which both parties bring evidence and arrive at a grade collaboratively. The approach increases student ownership but is the most labor-intensive of the four, particularly in course design.

Resources

• Alternative Grading Models Slidedeck (on Gamma.app)

References

• Artze-Vega, I., Darby, F., Dewsbury, B., & Imad, M. (2023). The Norton guide to equity-minded teaching. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Blum, S. D. (Ed.). (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
• Budde, T. (2023, July 24). Why I no longer grade my college students. Grading for Growth. https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/why-i-no-longer-grade-my-college
• Center for Grading Reform. (n.d.). The grading conference. https://www.thegradingconference.com
• Danielewicz, J., & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 244-268.
• Donahoe, E. (2026). Unmaking the Grade. https://emilypittsdonahoe.substack.com
• Eyler, J. (2022, March 7). Grades are at the center of the student mental health crisis. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/grades-are-center-student-mental-health-crisis
• Feldman, J. (2024). Grading for equity (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
• Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/labor/
• McCloud, L. I. (2023, April 17). Keeping receipts: Thoughts on ungrading from a Black woman professor. Zeal: A Journal for Liberal Arts, 1(2). https://zeal.kings.edu/zeal/article/view/25
• Nilson, L. B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing.
• Winkelmes, M. (2026). TILT higher ed. https://www.tilthighered.com
• Winkelmes, M.A., Bernacki, M. Butler, J. Zochowski, M. Golanics, J. Harriss Weavil, K. (2016). A Teaching Intervention that Increases Underserved College Students' Success, Peer Review 18(1/2).

[[