Can Alternative Grading Work with Required Grading Standards?
How to Build Student Trust and Maintain Institutional Grading Expectations
Today’s guest post is written by Natalie M. Schneider, a Clinical Assistant Professor at Purdue University in the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Department for the Mitch Daniels School of Business. She also serves as the Academic Director of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management undergraduate programs. In her free time, she can be found competing with her miniature schnauzer in canine agility! Thoughts and opinions in this post are of her own.
Are alternative grading practices possible with a required grading standard? In this week’s post, I share how I maintained a required grading standard in an undergraduate human resources course through embracing a hybrid system, transparency with students, and using strategic resubmissions. This course was taught at Purdue University, a large, public land-grant institution in central Indiana. The Mitch Daniels School of Business serves a highly motivated student body within a STEM-infused business environment.
First, I’ll clarify the purpose of this post. While the alternative grading community has often defined averaged GPA standards (sometimes referred to as a curve) to be outside its scope, my goal is not to deconstruct the role of a required grading standard itself. Rather, I want to discuss how to implement alternative grading while adhering to institutional requirements beyond the instructor’s control, offering the grading standard as a primary example.
I’ll also offer some background on how the required grading standard worked in my context. The business school’s required grading standard represents the targeted average GPA for final course grades. For instance, the average final GPA for this course was required to be a 3.3, or B+ average across all students in the class. In practice, the required standard represents a target for the instructor to measure themselves and the class against a preset expectation. We are encouraged to adjust course rigor throughout the semester so that the GPA standard is a natural result of the final grade distribution, avoiding abrupt changes to final grades. Students at my institution are socialized to this experience, viewing rigor adjustments as a normal part of the academic process.
Embrace a hybrid system
A hybrid system best supported my experiment in using alternative grading. I utilized clear, scaffolded objectives (the kind one would find in standards-based grading), combined with specifying quality expectations (specifications grading). My goal was to define standards regarding what students would learn, and specifications of how well students have to learn it.
I implemented a project-based grading system with four projects (three of which had opportunities for reassessment) and a “bin-system” grading opportunity for course participation. In the bin system, students had 60 different opportunities to earn up to 40 demonstrations of participation, with pre-defined numerical thresholds equalling letter grades (e.g., 32 = B). Opportunities included participation in class meetings and pre- and post-class writing assignments. All four projects were graded qualitatively where students would receive a letter grade (A, B, or C). I did not assign a + or - for single assessment grades. At the end of the course, the student received a final letter grade equivalent to the average of all five course grades. For instance, a student who received two A’s, two B’s, and one C earned a B as their final grade. I did assign a + or - for final grades.
My students were familiar with letter grades and how to translate to GPA equivalents (i.e., 3.0 = “B”). Thus, I chose to utilize letter grades rather than qualitative labels (such as “exceeds expectations” or “meets expectations”) so that students could still have a way to calculate their final grades in a GPA format. This was vital for student buy-in for the grading system; using their same vocabulary for grades helped students understand what their assignment grades meant for their final grade.
Be transparent with students
Being transparent with students is perhaps the most important factor when experimenting with a grading system. With my students, communication was constant. Most students at an institution with a required grading standard are aware of it and perceive the required standard as a norm, so discussing the required adherence to the standard was not an issue. I did spend significant time explaining exactly how everything was going to be graded when assignments were assigned. Each project had certain key scaffolded objectives. Students who missed one of those made a “major error”, which caused a drop in letter grade. For instance, in our interview analysis project, students who were unable to accurately differentiate behavioral and situational questions made a major error. However, smaller technicalities like providing nine of ten (i.e., forgetting one) required analysis comments was a “minor error,” not reducing their letter grade.
When delivering project grades, I gave each student qualitative commentary feedback to define what exactly the student could do to improve their grade and learning on the assessment. In class, I transparently communicated how I assessed work, which typically included that names were anonymized, the order of students was randomized, and reporting how many I graded per day to prevent fatigue affecting their grade. This transparency earned student trust. At the end of the course, I clearly stated the course’s average final grade. In my case, the course naturally fell at the expected GPA requirement, meeting the intended goal, so no major adjustments to final grades were required.
Strategically limit resubmissions
I partially converted to alternative grading in the sense of resubmissions. Students were allowed to resubmit only one major assessment (participation and project 4 could not be re-submitted due to end-of-semester timing). In a course with four major assessments, students received three major assessment grades before they had a deadline for a resubmission of one. Having even just one re-submission opportunity was a relief for students to know that if they had a bad week or learning challenge, they could revisit the opportunity.
From the instructor’s perspective, this worked in some ways, and failed in others. While a resubmission opportunity met the central purpose of giving students a chance for non-time-based learning achievement, the limited resubmission somewhat defeated that purpose. Students became focused on which project to resubmit, rather than learning from the resubmission. Given that the resubmission deadline was after the third project of four, students who chose to resubmit the first project were less likely to demonstrate improvement due to time lag.
Open dialogue when requirements conflict
In any alternative grading system, the goal is to shift the focus from playing the grading game to mastering the material. But what happens when the institutional expectations directly conflict with a criterion of alternative grading? I found that the only way through is an open, honest conversation with the students. Instead of trying to hide the mechanics of the required standard behind the scenes, I brought the students into the process. The most significant test of this transparency came during our third project, through which about one third of students made a minor error with technology that was trained in class. In a pure alternative grading system, I could ask them to fix the issue and resubmit. However, doing so would essentially grant one third of the class an additional resubmission opportunity that the other students didn’t receive, risking the standard’s target and fairness to all students. So, I had to retroactively redefine the minor error into a major one.
I opened up this conversation with the class and laid out the dilemma. Together, we acknowledged that giving an additional resubmit on this technicality would artificially inflate grades, potentially forcing me to grade the final project much more harshly to compensate and meet the mandate. I explained that because we had covered these settings in class, the minor error would now be recategorized as a major error, meaning a letter grade drop for the assignment. Because we had established a culture of honesty from day one, the students didn’t see this as a “gotcha” moment. Students saw a professor navigating a complex system alongside them. By bringing them into the process, I maintained the trust we had built, and the students accepted the adjustment as a matter of collective fairness.
Reflecting
As I reflect on this experience, some questions remain.
How did this alternative grading approach impact quality of work? Compared to the last time I taught the class with a points-based system, the quality of work skyrocketed. Overall, the work submitted was equivalent, if not stronger than what I would expect from practitioners. Conversations with students were no longer about point negotiation, but instead about learning achievement.
If student quality of work increased, was there a domino effect pressuring me to grade more harshly? As expressed earlier, the one time this problem actually arose was during the third project, and I brought students into this decision-making process before assigning project grades. Otherwise, since the grading policy encourages rigor adjustments during the course, I adjusted project expectations prior to assigning them. This avoided a long-term domino effect.
What feedback did students have for this alternative grading approach? Students shared their appreciation for the grading system, particularly for how the removal of cumulating points made them feel like they could focus on learning. The grading system presented an intrinsically motivating challenge. Students also appreciated the qualitative feedback provided from my assignment comments, stating that they had never received such in-depth feedback from a professor until then. The qualitative comments helped them interpret their letter grade and understand how to improve, and several were able to translate their feedback into changes in their actual work or internship roles.
If your average hadn’t met the expected average in the end, what would you have done? I acknowledge this was a fear of mine. In any case, I encourage you to consider the “what ifs” of your own school’s expectations before experimenting with alternative grading. Before entering the semester, I decided that if the target was higher than the average, I’d manage the risk and post grades as-is. My interpretation of my school’s culture encourages us to try different things, and to learn from it for the next semester. So, I would’ve done just that; admit my alternative grading experiment did not meet this mandate, post grades as-is, seek feedback with our teaching development personnel, and develop an improvement plan for the next semester.
Would you do this again? If so, what would you change? I would pursue this alternative grading system again. I would reconsider the timeline of resubmissions so that students were not holding onto a first project resubmission until the end of semester. This time lag worked against the purpose of resubmissions. Since students were not resubmitting close to receiving their original grade, they operated throughout the semester without fixing their mistakes from prior content. And, by the time students resubmitted, they often did not recognize how to fix their mistakes, leading to no grade change from the resubmission. In the future, I would maintain one resubmission option, but ask students to resubmit for a limited time after a project was graded.
Practical Steps for Your Class
If you are operating under an institutional expectation that does not fit the total narrative of alternative grading, here is how you can start:
Speak the same language students need to understand their grade: I used a hybrid system by keeping traditional letter grade labels, but removing points. This helped student buy-in, as they could predict their final placement. I re-designed the grading system to combine the positives of both institutional and alternative grading goals.
Communicate why you’re trying something different: Be upfront with your students about what you’re trying to do and why. Students particularly appreciate when a professor explains their decisions and why the professor is trying something outside the norm.
Be open to feedback: Students will tell you whether your experiment is working. Create a space where students feel comfortable flagging parts of the system that feel confusing or unfair. By treating them as partners, you build the trust necessary to navigate challenges that arise.
 | A guest post by
|