Explore alternative grading methods

What is it?

Labour-based grading is also called “contract-based grading” or “contract grading.” Labour-based grading involves the co-creation of a course contract at the start of the term that is used to grade all members of the course.

Originally proposed by Inoue (2022), labour-based grading is an alternative grading method where grades are based on the amount of labour that is agreed upon between students of the course and the course’s instructor. 

Faculty and students return to the contract at midterm to review and make possible changes. This co-created contract focuses only on the labour required for learning, such as the amount of time spent on an assignment, rather than the “quality” of the work that is produced while learning.

In other words, this type of grading focuses more on behaviours than on outcome. For example, in a writing class, if you put the time in then you’ve learned to develop your writing skills, and your attention focuses on the learning as opposed to an arbitrary and subjective grade given to you by your writing teacher. 

Labour-based grading builds off two key assumptions: 

1. All labour can be quantified in words read or written or time spent on an activity/assignment. 
2. Separating the course grade from how and what students learn in the course is ultimately beneficial to student learning (Barnard College, 2025). 

How does it work? 

The course contract has a default grade (generally a “B”), which indicates that if a student does all of the labour that is agreed upon in the contract, they will receive said default grade, no matter what.

In this framework, a student can earn an “A” by engaging in more than the baseline amount of labour for the course. Students assign themselves a grade at the start of term according to the conditions of the contract and can make possible changes to it at the midterm point. Ultimately, the instructor assigns the grade that the student proposes. 

Distinctive features 

• In an effort to decenter a professor’s authority in assigning grades, contracts are co-constructed and negotiated with students (individually or as a class). 
• Contract grading has been adopted more widely in writing classes. A guide written by instructors at UC Davis’ University Writing Program offers a wealth of information in guiding students in this alternative grading method.

What is it?

Also called "Specs grading," this grading method became best known through Linda Nilson 2014 book, Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Nilson’s work outlines a practice that relies on pass/fail grading of assignments and assessments, the structuring of course content into modules linked to learning outcomes, and the bundling or grouping of assignments and assessments within those modules into “bundles.” Final course grades are assigned based on the completion of course modules and bundles (Hall, 2018). 

In “specs grading,” students determine what grade they want and complete the modules and bundles that correspond to that grade. As in contract grading, instructors assign the grade proposed by the student.

How does it work? 

Instructors provide very detailed specifications for what constitutes a passing (acceptable/satisfactory) B-level standard. The “bundles” of assessment tasks in specs grading can be equal to stipulations on the contract; in both cases, they list what the students must satisfactorily complete to earn a specific grade.

Students are allowed one or more opportunities to revise below-standard work, or start the course with a limited number of tokens that they can exchange to revise or drop a task or to submit work late.

Bundles that earn higher course grades require students to demonstrate achievement of more skill or knowledge or higher-order skills (or both).

To see what detailed specifications can look like, see this example by Rebecca E. Kelly at John’s Hopkins University.  

Distinctive features 

• The bundles are determined by the instructor and are tied to the course’s learning outcomes. 
• Given its flexibility, specs grading can be partially integrated into your course planning and design. See A hybrid approach to alternative grading, below.
• Rubrics are required but describe only satisfactory/unsatisfactory criteria. 

What is it? 

Collaborative grading is a model of ungrading in which the instructor collaborates with each student to determine a reasonable course grade for their entire body of work. Like other forms of ungrading, this alternative practice seeks to decenter grades in the learning process (Masland, 2023). For Lindsay Masland, collaborative grading is a pedagogical practice that reflects the assessment philosophy of ungrading. According to this practice, grading is understood as something done with students and not done to them (Pitts Donahue, 2025).  

How does it work? 

The instructor collaborates with each student to determine a reasonable course grade for their entire body of work through a process that combines extensive instructor feedback (but no grades) with regular student self-assessment and opportunities for students to continuously enhance their understanding through revisions, retakes, or resubmissions.

Students use instructor feedback, along with their own assessments of their work, to continue improving their work. Students and instructors determine final course grades through a holistic look at individual students’ performance in achieving the learning outcomes over the course of the semester, usually by reviewing a portfolio or other collection of student work.

Students propose a final course grade for themselves that is then discussed with the instructor based on their collaborative review of the entire body of work (Pitts Donahue, 2025). 

Distinctive features 

The instructor collaborates, often through a one-on-one conference, with each individual student to determine a reasonable course grade for their entire body of work. 

What is it? 

Also called competency-based grading (CBG) and proficiency-based grading, Standards-based grading is a grading system in which students’ achievement and progress are evaluated based on their proficiency in meeting clearly articulated learning standards (Link & Guskey, 2022; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). It takes an iterative approach to assessment of what students know and are able to do, emphasizing their most recent and accurate demonstration of performance relative to said standards (Buckmiller et al., 2017).

It’s the grading system used in Competency-based education (CBE), an outcome-based approach used for entire degree programs that incorporates modes of instructional delivery and assessment efforts designed to evaluate mastery of learning by students through their demonstration of the knowledge, attitudes, values, skills and behaviours required for the degree sought (Gervais, 2016).

It’s widely used in K-12 education but is increasingly being experimented with in higher education given its focus on aligning grades to specific targets or benchmarks of student learning as expressed in the course’s standards.

How does it work?

The standards (also known as the course’s competencies or learning outcomes) are clearly articulated by the instructor. The opportunities of how to meet standards are also set by the instructor. These can vary; for example, they can be set by the instructor in fixed assignments or students can choose the projects and are tasked with the responsibility of showing how they were connected to standards. 

The instructor provides rich, individual formative feedback as to how/why a student did/did not meet a standard. Students have the opportunity to revise and resubmit or use the feedback to meet the standard on a different assignment.

Final grades are determined by dividing the cumulative number of standards a student met by the total number of standards and then giving a corresponding A-F letter grade. In a competency-based degree program, such as Competency-Based Medical Education, degrees are awarded based on a student’s demonstration of mastery on a variety of assessments that are structured to measure the attainment of the course/program competencies and no grades are awarded (Gervais, 2016). 

Distinctive features 

• SBG values students’ demonstration of meeting/achieving the course’s standards, competencies or learning outcomes above effort or behaviour. 
• SBG is highly dependent on feedback so that students can identify where they have not met the standards and work to meet them moving forward. 
• Students can choose how to meet the standards, but they do not determine their own grades. 

• Allows students to focus on learning and not grades. This refocus can be a first step that paves the way for students to wield more control over their learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1999) and build self-efficacy, a highly effective predictor of students’ motivation and learning (Zimmerman, 2000). 
• Can reduce anxiety around grades. Alternative grading methods reflect students’ efforts as opposed to perfect final products and often incorporate opportunities to redo assignments. Both strategies can make the assessment process less stressful. Recognizing students’ efforts to succeed can also boost their self-confidence which is crucial to learning (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Similarly, a focus on process and not product can create a more supportive environment for students to practice in, as well as mitigate students’ reliance on GenAI. 
• Increases attention given to feedback. Eliminating grades from formative and summative assessment tasks, as well as encouraging students to integrate feedback into future assignments to meet course learning outcomes, invites them to learn from feedback (as opposed to having it justify a grade). 
• Privileges human-centred learning. Feedback loops and dialogues around final course grades, both key in alternative grading, emphasize the human element of human-centred learning in the age of GenAI. Seeking and valuing students’ points of view in the assessment process also provides opportunities for building and practicing affective and relational connections. 
• Can be more inclusive. When instructors value students’ effort and whether they’ve met the learning outcomes, students’ backgrounds, identities or prior knowledge are irrelevant. 

• Adds significant workload considerations for instructors. Establishing agreements or engaging in dialogue with every student in a course can place large demand on time. Additionally, changes need to be made to course design as well as to teaching practices. 
• Ensuring academic integrity is challenging. Students generally self-report on their effort, engagement and learning in alternative grading methods with few or no safeguards to ensure that their work is their own. 
• Ineffective feedback jeopardizes the process. Students need to be taught what feedback involves and how to benefit from it and the practice opportunities offered in alternative grading methods. Similarly, instructors need to assure that their feedback is clear and effective to support students’ learning. 
• Students can be resistant as they are used to grades being a motivator. They will likely need frequent reassurance that you have intentionally removed the focus from grades. 
• Students may not self-assess their understanding well. Students are generally able to trace their effort or engagement well but may not be able to gauge how well they have understood course content.