Standards-Based Grading (SBG, also sometimes called Mastery Grading) differs from traditional grading in that a student’s final grade is not based on points earned on assignments or an average of all scores on assignments. Instead, a student’s final grade is based on whether the student has met a set of learning objectives (standards). Each individual assignment may assess one or more objectives, and students are usually provided with multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery of each objective, through multiple attempts, or through different types of tasks (multi-modal) that assess the same standards. For example: in a SBG system, a student may not complete an entire category of assignments, such as homework, but may still pass the course, even with a high score, if they are able to demonstrate mastery through other means such as exams or performances. In a traditional grading system, a student may be able to pass a class only by acquiring enough points through tasks such as homework, or even non-academic tasks such as attendance, while failing to show mastery of all learning objectives in major assessments.
SBG systems vary in how assignment re-attempts are managed: not all SBGs allow multiple attempts of the same assignment. Another important consideration is determining how “mastery” of an objective will be determined. Almost all SBG systems are designed to discount early failures. But the instructor must decide when, and how many times, a student must successfully complete a task to have demonstrated mastery. The instructor must also decide, and communicate to the students, what are the criteria for demonstrating mastery. This is usually achieved by presenting rubrics, usually with 3 or more levels of achievement. One of the levels is defined as “mastery” but there are usually levels indicating “exceeding mastery” or “near mastery” (or similar language), rather than a simple binary.
The terms “Contract Grading” and “Labor-based Grading” are sometimes (but not always) used interchangeably. In the most basic implementation of Contract Grading, a contract is created with students at the beginning of a course which spells out what is required of the student to earn a particular grade in the course. Almost all Contract Grading systems encourage at least one re-evaluation of the contract, often at midterm, with an opportunity to make adjustments. The way that the contract is created can vary: in a top-down approach, an instructor can present a suggested contract, and seek adjustments, or merely consent, from the students. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the course can begin as a blank slate, and students can be asked to collaboratively create the contract together.
Most implementations seem to favor these community-based, collaboratively-designed contracts, but an alternative arrangement is to have each student design their own individual contract, based on guidelines presented by the instructor. This is where there could be some overlap with an Ungrading system (see below).
Another axis along which these systems can vary is the extent to which the contract specifies particular levels of mastery (or “quality” of work), or simply how much labor will be put in by the student. Here, there does seem to be some distinction with the term “Labor-Based Grading.” Labor-Based Grading systems always involve a contract, but that contract only specifies quantifiable measures of labor such as words read, words written, time spent completing an assignment, attendance, participation, or adherence to deadlines. So, a true Labor-Based Grading system will not link subjective assessment of quality of work to the grade, while other Contract Grading systems may use varying methods to assess individual assignments, ranging from “traditional grading,” to a holistic approach, to utilizing elements of Standards-Based Grading.
Specifications (Specs) Grading is similar to contract grading with a few adjustments. With Specs Grading, for each assignment there is a list of specifications (criteria) that must be met for the assignment to be marked “Pass” or “Satisfactory”. This list of specifications is somewhat like a rubric except that, unlike a typical rubric, each criterion has only 2 levels of achievement: met/unmet. ALL (or a defined number of) specifications must be met in order for the assignment to be marked Pass (or Satisfactory etc.). Therefore, both the overall assignment grade and each criteria of assessment are scored on a binary pass/fail basis. A student’s final (letter) grade in the course is based on the number of assignments that received a Passing score. The number of assignments required to earn each letter grade are typically referred to as “bundles.” Students are made aware of the required assignments to earn each grade at the outset, and they decide for themselves which grade they intend to work toward. The bundle of assignments required to earn an “A” may include one or more highly advanced assignments that are not required to be completed for the “B” bundle. The specifications grading system was developed by Linda Nilson, a sociology Professor and faculty development expert, taking elements from several different grading systems she had experimented with in her classroom.
The Ungrading system's defining feature is that individual assignments within a course are not assigned a letter or number grade. Instead, each assignment receives only qualitative feedback. The purest form of Ungrading would be the complete elimination of letter or number grades. This is rarely practical for most modern institutions, so instructors usually implement a partially-ungraded system. For example, perhaps only part of the term or only particular assignments are graded. Even in higher-fidelity implementations, in which no assignments are graded, an instructor usually must assign a final letter/number grade. The most common way of assigning final grades in Ungraded courses is to use student self-assessment. This method promotes closer relationships between the instructor and the individual student and allows the student to focus less grades and more on the feedback given.
Resources
Books:
-
Linda B. Nilson. (2015). Specifications Grading : Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. Routledge*
-
Susan D. Blum (Ed.), UNgrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) (Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2020)*
-
Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for Growth: A Guide to Alternative Grading Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003445043
* Available as ebooks through the Henry Whittemore Library
Learn from Peers
- Creating an Ungrading Checklist in Canvas: Webinar Recording (30 min.) presented by Mesa College Online Success Team mentor and Math Professor, Kelly Spoon (San Diego Community College District)
- Alternative Grading and Assessment - Web Page prepared by Center for Teaching and Learning at Amherst College - faculty examples presented.
- Teachers Throwing out Grades (#TTOG) - Facebook group
- Alternative Grading Slack Channel - Active Slack Channel Requires invitation (reach out to eto@framingham.edu to get an invitation).
Implementing Alternative Grading in Canvas
- Using Canvas to Implement Standards-based Grading – A 20-minute video originally presented by ETO at the 2023 Summer Teaching Institute 2023. Provides a deeper explanation of one system, Standards-Based Grading, along with a brief Canvas demonstration
References:
Farah, K. (2021, March 7). How to Set Up Mastery Grading. Cult of Pedagogy. https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/mastery-based-grading/
Center for Teaching and Learning, Amherst College. (n.d.). Alternative Grading and Assessment | A - Z Teaching Resources. https://www.amherst.edu/offices/center-teaching-learning/a---z-resources/alternative-grading-and-assessment
Barnard College. (n.d.). Labor-based grading. https://barnard.edu/labor-based-grading
Larson, M. (2023, January 30). What is Contract Grading? Center for Transformative Teaching, University of Nebraska - Lincoln. https://teaching.unl.edu/resources/grading-feedback/contract-grading/
Linda B. Nilson. (2015). Specifications Grading : Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. Routledge.
Larson, M. (2023, January 30). What is Specification Grading? Center for Transformative Teaching, University of Nebraska - Lincoln. https://teaching.unl.edu/resources/grading-feedback/specifications-grading/
Tsoi, M. et al. (2019). Variations of Specifications Grading in STEM Courses. Georgia Journal of Science, 77(2). https://digitalcommons.gaacademy.org/gjs/vol77/iss2/10
Hall, M. (2018, April 11). What is Specifications Grading and Why Should You Consider Using It? The Innovative Instructor Blog, Center for Teaching Excellence & Innovation, Johns Hopkins University. https://ii.library.jhu.edu/2018/04/11/what-is-specifications-grading-and-why-should-you-consider-using-it/
Stommel, J. (2020, February 6). Ungrading: an FAQ. Jesse Stommel. https://www.jessestommel.com/ungrading-an-faq/