Today’s guest post is from Prof. Calee Cecconi (she/they), an assistant professor in the graphic design and interactive media program at the University of Wisconsin–Stout in Menomonie, WI. UW–Stout is a medium-sized public university with a polytechnic mission. She holds an MFA in graphic design from Iowa State University. Like many faculty, they began exploring alternative grading practices during the pandemic, with a formal introduction to Grading for Growth in 2022. In addition to teaching, Calee maintains an active art and design practice with interests including accessibility, on- and off-screen user experience, surface and repeat pattern design, and code as an artistic medium. Outside of academia, Calee enjoys spending time with their partner, being outdoors, knitting and crocheting, baking, and concocting unique ice cream flavors.
Introduction
I’ve taught art and design courses for more than a decade, specializing in tech-heavy interactive design courses. I have encountered the persistent challenge of students producing “safe” design projects—work that conforms to perceived instructor expectations, leading to a lack of originality and stifled creativity. “Safe” design projects can jeopardize students’ portfolio diversity and, thus, their future employability. (And, on a personal level, it gets boring to look at the same “safe” work every semester.)
Discussions with students revealed that grade anxiety, coupled with subjective grading criteria that we use in art and design, fuels this “safe” approach. Students often feel compelled to rigidly adhere to instructor feedback to secure good grades. With this in mind, I attempted to steer students towards more interesting work through various creativity-enhancing methodologies and adjustments to my rubrics. Oddly enough, my attempts to clarify rubrics worsened the issue by essentially outlining a “safe” project outcome. Regardless of my attempts at change, students remained fixated on achieving high grades, prioritizing their perceptions of my personal preferences over true creative exploration.
A turning point came when my colleague Curt Lund introduced me to his version of specifications grading. One of the goals of Curt’s objective-criteria-based system is to foster divergent thinking and reduce “safe” design choices—exactly what I had been trying to do. I implemented Curt’s method one semester, which yielded a marked increase in student engagement with the design process and unique (even risky!) design work. My experience with trying Curt’s system introduced me to the power of objective, measurable criteria in art and design assessment and I have been trying to infuse objective criteria into my design classes ever since.
Today I am going to focus on three alternative grading methods with objective, measurable criteria that I use in my intermediate-level user experience (UX) design course at the University of Wisconsin–Stout. These methods aim to encourage creative experimentation and engagement with the UX design process. My hope is that you’ll take something away from this post that you can apply to your class, whether it’s an art and design course or another subject.
So much content, so little time.
My program is part of the NASAD-accredited School of Art and Design. We are tasked with providing my students an art-school level education with exceptional workforce skills all at a public university price. Within this setting, I teach DES 370 UX Design, a required studio course for graphic design undergraduates that typically has 20 students. This course is jam-packed with content—it’s a workhorse of learning outcomes for our program. It covers design thinking, user research methods, prototyping techniques and software, and UI design, culminating in portfolio-ready projects. Given the course’s heavy content load, a grading system that promotes experimentation, engagement, and allows for failure and multiple attempts is essential.
After a few semesters of trying different objective-criteria-based alternative grading methods, I have found success with three grading methods in this class: pass/fail, ungraded project milestones, and specifications grading. While I employ these methods, this course is still point based, with two large projects worth 50 points each and warm-up activities worth 25 points total.
Changing the Stakes with Pass/Fail Warm-Ups
After teaching this course a few times, I noticed a common comment on my teaching evaluations: “I wish I knew how to use (the software) better.” I was baffled. I taught them how to use the software in class and gave them several hours’ worth of tutorials as homework assignments. Additionally, students were not producing projects reflective of the quality I wanted to see, likely due to students’ lack of skill with the required software.
Recognizing a need for better software proficiency, I shifted to pass/fail warm-ups. I created a guided case study that allowed students to practice and learn the software and research methods they will need to use to complete their projects in a low-risk environment. These warm-ups have enough points to entice students to complete the exercises. Since they are graded only on completeness, students are less worried about making mistakes. It’s through that trial and error process that students learn things within the software that my previous students did not. Additionally, because students receive full points even if they make mistakes, they are more receptive to my feedback. Following strategies for fostering a growth mindset, I tell students what they did not do correctly and how they can improve when they are working on their own (higher stakes) projects.
Here is an example of a warm-up assignment where I ask students to create a wireframe in Figma, the software they need to learn to complete their projects. For this assignment, I give them a finished design to recreate. Since everyone is following the same example project, we begin the assignment together in class. I then ask them to complete the assignment on their own and provide them with additional tutorials that they need to complete it.
This is the first time that I implemented a new grading method that seemed to do exactly what I intended the first time I tried it. This method achieved a 100% submission rate the first semester I applied it. Additionally, students seem to be motivated by the “all or nothing” nature of the grading and are more receptive to feedback. Finally, because students are engaging in learning the elements they need to build their own projects, the portfolio outcomes for this course have vastly improved.
Here is an example of some screens from an above-average project outcome from before I implemented the pass/fail warm-ups. This is a welcome screen and scanning screen from a tracking-style app. The design and interactive elements are basic, which reflect the students’ lack of familiarity with the software.
Next is an example of some screens from an above-average project outcome for a similar app after I implemented the pass/fail warm-ups. The design and interactive elements better reflect the skill-level of the students in this course because the students are better able to execute their designs using the software.
Helping Students Stay on Track with Ungraded Milestones
Professional design projects are often broken into milestones, so I mirrored that professional practice in my classroom by breaking large projects into milestones. When I used traditional grading methods, I would request a graded submission for each milestone. Due to the course timeframe, milestones sometimes happened multiple times in a week. Not only did this result in too many submissions to evaluate in a timely manner, but the quick pacing of graded milestone requests also stressed out my students. Furthermore, often if a student missed one graded milestone, resulting in a failing grade on that assignment, they became discouraged and would fall farther behind. I recognized the need to break down large projects into smaller steps to help students stay on track, but what I was doing did not work for anyone.
I decided to try ungraded milestones. I broke up my projects in the same way that I had been, keeping a graded milestone at the large junctures: proposal, research, and design. Between those larger project milestones there are smaller, ungraded milestones that students must complete to get to the larger, graded milestones. These are items that are important to project development, such as user research, sketches and ideation, wireframes, and rough prototypes.
Here is an example of a project broken down into these graded and ungraded milestone assignments, with graded items denoted using a ✳️ symbol.
Instead of asking students to submit the work for a grade at each milestone, I ask them to put the work in a process document that we discuss in class. Ultimately, they submit that process portfolio at the graded milestones for evaluation. Although I’m using the same assignments and pacing, this format helps students along with the design process and produces less stress.
Here is example text from an ungraded milestone assignment that tells students what to include in their process slide deck for that project milestone.
After a few semesters of trying ungraded milestones, it’s clear that this method addressed my big concerns: it kept students on track with the project, helped students who fall behind stay engaged, and it created a more manageable workload for me. Additionally, because I’m not bogged down with the business of grading, I am able to give students copious amounts of feedback during our class sessions. Because grades are not attached, students have been more receptive to the feedback and apply it to their work. Finally, students who are most at risk for falling behind are able to stick more closely to the project development process. Since I’m not grading the milestones these students are not pressured to get the work done on time, which, oddly, seems to help those students get the work done on time.
Although I’m generally pleased with the outcome, ungraded milestones do pose a couple of issues. First, as with many alternative grading methods this one can be confusing to students at first. Despite clearly marking assignments as graded or ungraded, students don’t always understand which assignments are graded and worry about not submitting work. Students also sometimes have trouble keeping track of what they need to put in their process document, despite clear instructions in each milestone assignment.
One unanticipated, but welcome, outcome of using ungraded milestones is that they allow me to be flexible with students who fall behind. Since I am not spending my time grading, I can work with students who need more flexible deadlines. Since the milestones are ungraded, students have the flexibility to miss a milestone and come back to it later in the project. While that flexibility doesn’t help the student learn the UX design process, it does encourage them to continue to engage with class and allows them to complete the work and ultimately learn something from the class they can apply at a future job.
Mirroring Professional Design Practice with Specifications Grading
Because this class is heavily focused on students learning the UX design process, I wanted to use a system for the graded milestones that evaluated students’ level of engagement and understanding of that process. For that reason, I returned to and adapted the system that my colleague Curt from Hamline shared with me. Curt’s system, in short, focused on the levels of student engagement with the design process. I additionally ask students to reflect on their learning at the end of a project.
How I Apply Specifications to UX Design Projects
At the start of a project, students receive a self-grading form. This form serves as both a final submission for grading and a checklist outlining the specifications for each project level. Students use this form to self-select the grade level they aim to achieve and check the items they have completed.
Students follow project assignments, including the previously discussed ungraded milestones, to develop their work. At the project’s conclusion, they submit the required documents for their desired grade. I check for completion and effort of the requested items when I grade.
Project grade specifications are as follows:
D — Complete the project
To earn a D or above, students must complete the project to the given specifications.
For example, if the project is a research presentation, students must ensure they submit the correct files with no errors and with attention paid to design elements such as typography and color. I look at the design elements for effort to ensure that the student made design choices reflective of the average skill level for the course. Although their design choices don’t impact their grade, I give in-depth feedback so that students can improve their skills. Here is an example of the D-grade requirements from the self-grading form that I use for a website project.
C — Engage with the design process
To earn a C or above, students must produce a process document documenting all milestone work. Like with the D-level requirements, I check this work for completeness and effort.
Note: I decided that a C-level (passing) should emphasize process, as most learning outcomes for this course relate to the UX design process. Students should demonstrate a tangible understanding of this process.
B — Understand and implement feedback
To earn a B or above, students must participate in critiques and reflect on the feedback received. After each critique, students produce a revision memo where they summarize that feedback, reflect on it, and describe how they responded to it within their project.
Again, I check this work for completeness and effort. Students do not get credit for a list of feedback received that does not summarize their response to it.
A — Reflect on the learning experience
To earn an A, students must submit a project reflection addressing:
How the project fits into the scope of their degree.
How they strengthened their interactive and graphic design skills through the project.
What they would do differently if they could do the project over again.
How they could expand the project into a larger body of work.
Skills that they need to make the project better.
As with the other grade-level specifications, I check this work for completeness and effort.
Participation Grades
Building upon these grade levels, I additionally incorporate student participation as a weighted component for each project. Similar to Curt’s practice, I chose to integrate participation weighting into individual assignments, providing students with the opportunity to adjust their participation and, consequently, their grade on a project-by-project basis.
Students self-assign a participation letter grade on the project (which I may adjust), which leads to the following modification to their overall project letter grade:
D = Lowers project grade one full level
C = Lowers project grade one half level
B = No change in grade (most students are B-level participators)
A = Increases grade one half level.
Given that collaboration is a core learning outcome of this course, I incorporate group projects. For these, students also self-assign participation grades. To further encourage active engagement among group members, I’ve implemented a higher weighting for participation grades in these group assignments.
Although this system has many positive outcomes, it presents challenges. First, students who produce B-level portfolio work may earn a higher grade, while those who produce A-level portfolio work may earn lower grades if they don’t submit work for the A-level grade. While this prevents students from coasting, it doesn’t accurately reflect their portfolio quality. Consequently, I am currently working to improve the system’s assessment of aesthetics.
Conclusion
I intend to continue developing this specifications grading system, adapting it to the courses I teach. Its suitability varies; it excels in certain courses more than others. Notably, it is highly effective for non-major or elective courses with students of diverse backgrounds and skill levels, where assessment requires more than aesthetic judgment. Additionally, it seems to work well in upper-level and graduate courses, where students are typically more mature and motivated.
Just as design itself is an iterative process, my journey towards objective-criteria-based grading in art and design has been an ongoing process of refinement. While the methods presented here have shown significant promise in steering students away from “safe” projects, fostering student engagement and reducing grade anxiety, they are not without their challenges. Attempting to balance objective criteria with the subjective nature of creative work is a complex undertaking. By remaining committed to thoughtful experimentation and open to feedback, we can continue to cultivate learning environments where students thrive, not just in their grades, but in their creative growth and professional readiness.
 | A guest post by
|