What is un-grading?

Un-grading is a term that refers to a variety of assessment techniques that do not use traditional percentage, points, or letters scales to rank and rate students. Instead, un-grading methods focus on feedback and learning. Un-grading might also be called going gradeless, grade-free, or de-grading.

Assigning grades at the end of a course is a requirement in many Universities. It is recommended that you learn about pertinent policies and requirements in your specific context.

Can Un-grading work in STEM courses?

Dr. Lauren Singelmann, Iron Range Engineering, Minnesota State University, Mankato responds:

Yes! Un-grading can work in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) courses. However, you may find that certain un-grading strategies may work better in some courses, whereas other un-grading strategies might work better in other courses. When implementing un-grading in any course, it’s important to think about what learning outcomes you hope students take away from your course and choose a grading scheme that supports those learning outcomes. In many STEM courses, there are specific outcomes that you want students to achieve where it is easy to tell if the outcome was met or not (e.g., solving a differential equation, applying Kirchhoff’s Laws to simple circuits, or identifying the muscles in the body). However, there are also outcomes that are more complex than right or wrong (e.g., using problem-solving skills to make a diagnosis, participating in engineering design, or conducting research).

If your course is more focused on helping students develop fundamental knowledge, an alternative grading strategy that might work well is standards-based grading. For this strategy, the course is built around a list of knowledge and procedural skills that you want students to develop, and their grade corresponds to how many of those knowledge and skills they have successfully demonstrated. For example, in an introductory physics course, students may still be taking quizzes to show their learning about kinematics, but they are given multiple chances to show that their learning. Rather than the focus being placed on earning a desired grade, the focus is placed on learning the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in future courses and careers. If a student is missing a key piece of knowledge or a skill, they get more chances to demonstrate their learning rather than just moving on. This strategy gives all students a chance to be successful for both their current course and future courses by clearly communicating the necessary knowledge and skills needed.

If your course is more focused on developing complex skills, an alternative grading strategy that might work well is labor-based grading. For this strategy, students earn a grade based on the amount of work that a student completes. They get feedback on the quality of their work throughout the course, but ultimately their grade is dependent on the time and effort they put into the learning process. This strategy works well when students are working on complex skills where the answer isn’t necessarily right or wrong. For example, if they are working on conducting a research study or completing an engineering design project, learning and success might look different depending on each student’s focus. They are still gaining valuable feedback on their work, but their grade is not dependent on an instructor’s opinion of their final work, but rather on the work they put into their learning process.

What are examples of un-grading?

These are some examples of un-grading practices (See also Blum, 2020 for more examples!).

Feedback, Self-Assessment, and Professional Conduct in Engineering

Dr. Darcie Christensen, faculty in the Iron Range Engineering program at Minnesota State University, Mankato shares some of their un-grading assessment strategies:

The primary focus of all feedback given on deliverables in my course is qualitative formative feedback, which leads up to students being prepared for the summative deliverables of project reports/presentations and oral examinations. The qualitative formative feedback supports the quantitative score that is given for each deliverable.

The feedback (quantitative & qualitative) for these low-stakes deliverables throughout the semester is not impacted by timeliness so that all feedback given on each deliverable is focused on quality of the deliverable, not on student behaviors. At the end of the semester, students are able to do self-evaluation and decide for themselves what their professional conduct score for the course should be.

The factors that contribute to the professional conduct score are timeliness, quality of work, engagement in learning conversations, and communication habits. Students are given time to reflect on this up until their oral exam. After completing their oral exam, the instructor and the student discuss and reflect together on what the agreed upon professional conduct score is and what can be improved on for the future.

The professional conduct score contributes at least 20-25% of their final grade, but no letter grades are calculated for deliverables until the very end of the course. While this approach still includes “grading” and scores, it keeps students’ performance on the individual course deliverables about the actual completion of that deliverable and students are able to assess their own professional conduct to complement the overall course grade.

Below is a sample rubric using a 5-Point scale (which is implemented throughout the Iron Range Engineering program), which students are familiar with the qualitative interpretations of and its translation to a “traditional” grading scale, which will be the final output for transcripted [final] grades.

Labor-Based Grading Contracts

Labor-based grading contracts offer students transparency and choice to earn the grade they want. With labor-based grading contracts, students earn a grade in the course by successfully completing all the criteria/tasks required at the grade level they have chosen.

Students are evaluated based on labor rather than on the quality of their work. Grading based on labor does not mean a lack of rigor. Students are required to meet the criteria for each task for it to be considered complete. However, the criteria do not address the quality of work – they focus on meeting learning goals of the task. And students are offered ample practice and iterative feedback to improve their learning.

Mastery or Standards-Based Grading

To address ambiguity in grading methods and subsequent variable proficiency levels upon course exit, Zimmerman (2020) implemented a standards-based grading (SBG) approach in an undergraduate gateway math course, College Algebra.

At the center of the SBG approach was development of a mastery-based or standards based grading rubric with 4 levels, mastery, proficient, developing, and novice, as well as a no evidence of understanding level.

The SBG rubric was used to assess performance on quizzes which assessed 1 to 3 learning objectives and unit exams which assessed 6-8 objectives. If the exam score on the objective was higher, that score was kept as the grade for the objective. If the quiz score was higher, an average of the two scores is kept as the grade.

The final exam was designed to allow students to re-assess their mastery in a way that was feasible for thousands of students taking these courses. Students were required to re-test on any objectives they had scored a “level 2 developing” or lower and could choose to re-test on other objectives if they chose. Zimmerman (2020) worked with their department to build a custom online gradebook that would provide students’ ownership of the learning process. They also developed a way to use a student completed form and the gradebook scores to generate individualized final exams for students.

Will students understand un-grading?

Getting started reflections on un-grading

Here are some helpful reflections and comments from colleagues on getting started with Un-grading:.

Mastery-Based Grading in Mass Communication

Dr. Rachael Hanel, faculty in Mass Communication at Minnesota State University, Mankato shares their experiences with mastery-grading:

I think my biggest question was, and the question I get from others, is how to set up the D2L Brightspace Grades to accommodate labor-based grading. After doing it for a couple of semesters I think I’m getting the hang of it, but it still takes me a little bit of thinking it through.

Another thing I can think of is what about those students who are straddling a line between “A” work and “B” work, or “B” and “C,” etc. I think most students probably fall neatly into their categories, but I suppose there will always be some outliers where the assessment of their labor is a little more complicated.

Labor-Based Grading Contracts in Composition

Dr. Kelly Moreland, program director of composition at Minnesota State University, Mankato shares a reflection on common challenges to implementing labor-based grading contracts:

I think sometimes it’s difficult to wrap our minds around final grades not being based on the quality of assignments produced. I often hear, “but the student wrote such a good paper!” But if they didn’t do the process work for that paper, or if they missed other formative assignments in the class, the missed work is going to be what their grade is based on. It’s a different kind of fair.

Related, the students who tend to be against labor-based grading are ones who have always traditionally done well in school without putting in much work. One of the hardest and most rewarding parts of using this grading system is the opportunity to teach students about inequities in education/grading and help them start to reframe their thinking about the role(s) privilege plays in their experiences. It doesn’t always work, but that’s my go-to response when students express disdain for the grading system.

Also: It’s totally OK to renegotiate your contract during the semester! If mid-semester you see that the contract is not working—e.g., too many students are in danger of not passing the class, or no one is able to earn an A—work with your students to change it. In my experience they come up with pretty reasonable expectations for themselves and others.

Blum, S. D., & Kohn, A. (2020). Un-grading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). (S. D. Blum, Ed.; First edition.). West Virginia University Press. Read for free with a library card at Minnesota State University, Mankato

Burnham, C. “Portfolio Evaluation: Room to Breathe and Grow.” In Charles Bridges (Ed.), Training the Teacher of College Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1986.