Alternative Grading in Speech Class
How grading for growth, not perfection, fosters confidence and learning in an introductory speech class.
Today’s guest post is by Tina Shanahan, a writing and communications instructor at Gateway Technical College in Kenosha, Wisconsin. She holds an M.A. in Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse and a Ph.D. in Language and Literacy. Since 2008, Tina has been teaching college-level reading, writing, and communications courses. From 2021 to 2023, she served as a Teaching and Learning Fellow at Gateway Technical College, where she led a faculty learning community focused on alternative grading. Tina began exploring alternative grading in 2017, initially using portfolio assessments and continuously refining her approach as she gained new insights. In her free time, she enjoys aerial yoga, reading, and spending time with her family. You can reach her at shanahant@gtc.edu.
I teach Speech, the dreaded introductory public speaking course, at Gateway Technical College in southeast Wisconsin. Our school is an open-access, two-year institution focused primarily on career and technical education with a growing emphasis on transfer to four-year universities. We serve a diverse student population, 41% students of color, with an average age of 29. Students are also diverse in their interests, worldviews, goals, and level of academic preparation. The one thing they all have in common is that none of them are at Gateway because they want to take my Speech class.
For many of my students, public speaking isn’t just intimidating—it’s a source of severe anxiety. Glossophobia, or the fear of public speaking, leaves some students viewing the required Speech class as a barrier to overcome on their way to their academic and career goals rather than an opportunity to learn and grow. It’s not uncommon for students to approach me in tears, unsure how they’ll manage to get through the course.
In these moments, I’ve often found myself repeating the usual reassurances: “Fear of speaking can be overcome with practice.” Or, “Everyone else in the class is in the same boat—they’re here to support you, not judge you.” Yet, the reality is that my role is to evaluate. I’m the teacher, and providing feedback and assigning grades is part of my job.
For a long time, my rubric reflected that evaluative stance. For example, it included criteria like:
Delivery: The speech is delivered with an appearance of confidence and enthusiasm, suggesting preparation and practice.
But after a series of conversations with teary-eyed, anxious students, I started to question my methods. Was I really helping students develop their voices by dissecting their speeches and pointing out their faults? Or was I inadvertently making their fear worse?
A Turning Point
One semester, a student with disability accommodations for anxiety approached me, terrified about an upcoming speech. In a moment of experimentation, I told them that they would receive full credit if they met a limited set of criteria such as speech focus, length, and resource use. That small change worked wonders. The student delivered their speech with significantly less fear and more confidence.
This success made me wonder: Why limit this approach to one student? What about the students who might not have the courage—or the knowledge of the system—to request accommodations? I realized that I could create a more equitable and learning-focused classroom by extending this practice to everyone.
A New Grading System
The result was an alternative grading system based on a blend of contract grading and specifications grading. Here’s how it works:
Students must complete four major speeches and several minor speaking roles throughout the semester. Completing all required speeches and roles earns them a baseline B+ grade.
A menu of optional assignments is available for students to work up to an A grade.
The speeches and roles along with the menu of assignments is available to students as a contract. They are encouraged to use the contract as a checklist to track their progress throughout the semester.
Students sign up for their daily roles and speech delivery dates on a role sign-up sheet. The sign-up sheet outlines the daily schedule for class, with a section of instructor-guided lecture and activities coming after the students’ chapter summaries and before the scheduled speeches. I adjust the sign-up sheet according to class size (typically 20 at Gateway) and class format. For classes that meet twice a week for an hour and a half each session, there are fewer roles each day. When a class meets for three hours each week, I adjust the sign-up sheet so there are more slots for each role. Through all of the roles and activities, each student speaks in class every session, even when they are not delivering a major speech.
Speech assignments are assessed as Complete or Revision Required based on clearly defined, objective specifications. For example, the persuasive speech is considered Complete when it:
Attempts to persuade the audience to accept a position, point of view, or proposal.
Is 5–8 minutes long.
Refers to and orally cites at least four sources.
Incorporates slides.
Is prepared with a formal, written outline in MLA format.
Is presented with a keyword speaking outline.
Feedback is provided on each speech. Classmates and I complete a simple feedback form to help speakers see how their message is being received by members of the audience. Providing peer feedback is also a helpful skill for the provider and it reinforces course outcomes such as “demonstrate active listening” and “evaluate presentations.” If a speech misses one or more of the specifications, I reach out to students with more detailed feedback about how to revise to meet the criteria. In most cases, a speech that needs revision can be fine-tuned and re-delivered or the missing materials can be submitted. Feedback helps students who need to revise know what to do, and it helps students who don’t need to revise know what they did well and what they could continue working on next time.
In addition to feedback from others, students set individual goals and self-assess. Early in the semester, students write 2-3 SMART goals related to their speaking skills. For some students, simply making it through a presentation without panic is a huge personal success. Others set much more detailed goals about their speaking skills like reducing their reliance on notes gradually through the course or creating smooth transitions between speech parts. To help track progress throughout the semester, students reflect on each speech on a speech log.
I collect the term-start smart goals and redistribute them to students after their first two speeches so they can reflect on their progress. As goals are met, students set new goals to continue challenging themselves. Students review and reflect on their goals again after the final two speeches. I have found that students are honest about their efforts and the outcome when there is not a grade attached to the reflection.
Troubleshooting with the Four Pillars of Alternative Grading
While implementing this system was transformative, it wasn’t without its challenges. Over time, I found that many of the obstacles I encountered and my path forward aligned with the four pillars of alternative grading:
Pillar #1: Clearly Defined Standards
Choosing the specifications for each speech and role was one of the toughest parts of the process. I had to ask myself: What are the non-negotiable skills I want students to leave this class with? This forced me to distill each assignment to its essentials, while ensuring that rigor remained intact.
Challenging students to perform well and push themselves to expand their speaking skill set is important to me. At first, laying out the objective specifications for a speech felt a bit like setting the bar at the bare minimum. I worried that I was doing a disservice by not evaluating the “effectiveness” of a presentation. Then, I took into account the amount of self-reflection involved and the feedback speakers receive from me and other students.
Because of feedback and reflection, students don’t need me to give them a number or letter grade on each assignment to know how they’re doing! They are tuned into their challenges and successes, and they have agency in making the progress they want to see in their public speaking skills. The degree of effectiveness for a speech, accompanying visuals, and delivery is addressed in areas outside of the specifications.
With much consideration and revision, I settled on specifications for each speech that remained objective while providing practice with essential speaking skills (meeting time frames, outlining, using visuals, citing sources, etc.). The specifications indicate what a student should be able to do when they successfully complete the introductory speech class.1
The result? Students must meet these essential skills, even if it takes multiple attempts. This leads directly to the next pillar.
Pillar #2: Reattempts Without Penalty
Allowing revisions in a speech class presents unique challenges, particularly when it comes to time. Speech instructors already face a tight schedule, balancing instruction with time for student presentations. At Gateway, our Speech classes are capped at 20 students, each giving four major speeches, which accounts for a significant portion of class time.
To address this, I designed the course with built-in flexibility. Each class session includes time for both instruction and speeches. We start with brief student speaking roles (e.g., daily inspiration, word of the day, and chapter summaries), followed by a lecture or activity, and then dedicate the remaining time to speeches. I schedule a few slots for make-ups and revisions on the daily sign-up sheet. Most days, the slots aren’t needed and I can use the time for additional instructional activities. When there are several speech revisions plus a full schedule of roles and speeches, I keep my instructional portion of class brief and let students have the floor for the majority of class.
Revisions aren’t limited to in-class speeches, either. Students can choose to re-deliver a speech in class or submit a video version (the latter option is available only after an in-person delivery). If the issue lies in the outline or citations rather than delivery, students can revise only the written components to meet the requirements.
Revision helps ensure students meet the speech specifications and course outcomes, and clear feedback helps them get there.
Pillar #3: Helpful Feedback
Each student needs to meet the specifications for a speech to be considered complete. When revision is needed, the revising process is a valuable learning opportunity. For speeches that hit the mark the first time, feedback is the vehicle for constructive critique and suggestions for honing specific speaking skills. Whether the speech needed to be revised or not, feedback is central to improvement.
Peer feedback is a core part of the process that helps students reflect and improve as speakers. The audience of classmates is just as important as the instructor. I complete the same feedback form as classmates, blending my comments with those of the class.
While peer comments focus on audience reception, my feedback also addresses how well the speech meets the specifications. For any required revisions, I send students a detailed email with:
The specifications checklist.
Suggestions for improvement.
Revision options (re-delivery in class or via video, resubmission of speech materials, etc.).
A note in the learning management system to track progress.
Pillar #4: Marks Indicate Progress
To help students track their progress, I provide both print and digital copies of the grade contract. However, integrating this system into the learning management software (LMS) proved tricky.
In the LMS my school was using when I started contract grading, I was limited to numeric grading, which forced me to assign arbitrary point values to speeches, using a binary system of zero or full credit. While functional, this approach was clunky and often confusing. Students were demotivated when they saw a zero for a speech that was written and delivered, even though they would earn full credit as soon as they revised the speech to meet the required specifications.
Thankfully, my college switched to Brightspace this year, which solved the issue. Brightspace allows users to create a custom grading scheme consisting of labels instead of arbitrary numbers. I now use a custom grading scheme with three clear marks:
Complete
Revision Required
Not Submitted.
This clarity benefits both students and me, providing an immediate snapshot of where each assignment stands. Speeches that meet requirements receive a general comment in the LMS noting their completion according to the criteria and direct students to the feedback sheets completed during their speech delivery for specific comments and suggestions. Speeches that need revision receive a more personalized note highlighting the criteria that was not met with suggestions for revision and a note to see the feedback sheets from class and/or meet with me for more ideas.
Conclusion: Confidence Over Perfection
This system isn’t perfect, and I continue to tweak it each semester. But alternative grading has allowed me to shift my focus from evaluating performance to fostering growth.
Students have responded positively to the format and grade system. During our last class, I have students leave advice for future classmates on a Padlet, and students often comment that the contract grading and opportunity to revise help them feel more at ease with the course.
The key to my approach was asking myself: “What’s the ultimate goal for students in an introductory speech class?”
For me, it’s about building confidence and competence—not perfection. I want students to explore their ideas, find their voices, and express themselves authentically. They shouldn’t be bogged down by the pressure to deliver a flawless, A+ speech, as judged by me alone.
By adopting an alternative grading approach, I hope that I have created a classroom environment that prioritizes progress over performance and gives students the space to grow.
If you’re considering trying alternative grading, do your best to think it through, but don’t worry if you have to iron out some details along the way. I suggest adopting the same mantra toward your teaching that I use with my students: progress over perfection.
 | A guest post by |
It is so great to see a two-year technical college represented on this blog! Thank you for taking the time to explain your strategy and provide detailed examples.