Grading Alternatives
by Janel Mitchell, Instructional Designer III
Schinske and Tanner (2017) found faculty spend most of their bandwidth on grading, leaving little time for reflection on course structure and pedagogical improvements.
Is there a better way to assess students that gives us a more accurate view of their knowledge and ability while removing barriers to innovation?
History of Traditional Grading
In 1646 Harvard held oral exams to assess student gains in knowledge. The first known grading system with marks was instituted at Yale in 1785 and ranked students Optimi, second Optimi, Inferiores, or Pejores (Hunt 2008). With the onset of the Industrial Revolution, grading was necessary to produce products such as shoes with standard sizes. Factory workers were paid by the piece. This practice influenced teacher pay as well: rather than being paid a flat salary, teachers were paid by the student. William Farish, a 1792 Cambridge University tutor, invented grades to help him quickly process more students (Hartmann 2000). Since that time there has been much experimentation with grades within universities, including letters, numbers, and adjectives.
By the 1870s, there was a push for standardization of grades between schools. This would serve to outwardly communicate aptitude to admission boards, employers, and others more easily (Schneider and Hutt 2013). Even in agriculture the grading of commodities such as wheat was held to a standard grain inspectors relied upon. In 1897 Mount Holyoke combined these experimental grading practices into what we recognize today as A for 4.0, B for 3.0, C for 3.0, and D for 1.0 (Durm 1993). By the 1940’s the A-F grading system had emerged as the dominate grading scheme, along with the 4.0 Scale and the 100 percent system. (Schneider and Hutt 2013). While there are slight variations, our grading scheme has not significantly changed since then.
Problems with Traditional Grading
Just as wheat inspectors must tease out and classify the grade of grain according to their standards, we as educators must do the same, but with human potential and opportunity. Our challenge is like that noted by one observer of the wheat industry in 1908: “Gradations in the grain standards are continuous and if lines are drawn to mark the limits of the grades, it is difficult to determine the grades in cases close to those lines” (Schneider and Hutt 2013).
While grading schemes may be universally used, the actual grading by humans is not necessarily consistent. In Joe Feldman’s book, Grading for Equity, he tells a story of a new high school principal who studied the demographics and grades of students of three teachers, all teaching the same subject. The only variables were the teachers and their grading practices, and the grades varied widely.
Because grades determine so much of our students’ future, from graduate school to employment to many other opportunities, we need to do better at assessing our students and awarding the appropriate grades. It is a big responsibility and one we need to measure carefully.
Alternate Grading Strategies
It is important that our grading methods align not only with the course outcomes but also with our own teaching philosophy.
Most alternative grading methods use a combination of principles from Specifications Grading, Contract Grading, and Un-grading. Here is a quick structure comparison of the three grading strategies:
|
|
Specs Grading |
Contract Grading |
Un-grading |
|
Structure |
|
|
|
These grading methods are gaining traction in our higher education space. If you want to give students more autonomy, help them be more invested in your course, improve their learning experience, and award more appropriate grades, you may want to consider alternative grading.
References
Durm, M. W. (1993). An A is not an A is not an A: a history of grading. The Educational Forum, 57, 1-4. https://www.spsd.org/uploaded/PDFs/Curriculum/PbL/Durm_1993_An_A_Is_Noit_an_A_.pdf
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: what it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin, A SAGE Publishing Company. https://gradingforequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/grading-for-equity-prologue-chp-1.pdf
Hartmann, T. (2000). Thom hartmann’s complete guide to adhd: Help for your family at home, school & work. Nevada City, CA: Underwood Books, 189-192.
Hunt, L. H. (Ed.). (2008). Grade inflation: academic standards in higher education. SUNY Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=cuT_EnGHM9wC&lpg=PA126&dq=1646%20at%20Harvard%20grading%20system&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q=1646%20at%20Harvard%20grading%20system&f=false
Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2017). 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
Schneider, J. and Hutt, E. (2013). Making the grade: a history of the A-F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46:2, 201-244. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220272.2013.790480