Equitable Assessments & Grading Practices

Equitable assessments are directly aligned with a course’s goals and objectives. These assessments utilize a form of criterion-based grading; focusing on evaluating individual student performance based on defined grading criteria versus norm-referenced grading where students are compared to other students’ performances (visit the HOW section for more information).

Equitable assessments and grading practices respect the diversity of students’ social identities as well as the diversity of student interests. These assessments and grading practices recognize that students have varying lived experiences and background knowledge. Instructors who implement these practices seek to meet students where they are and remove barriers to learning. Please visit the teaching guide on Universal Design for Learning for more information on removing barriers.

Equitable assessments focus on measuring learning that was taught during the course without penalizing students for prior gaps in knowledge or skills. And equitable grading focuses on reducing assessment biases (unfairly penalizing students based on their race, gender, socio-economic status, etc.) as well as promoting a growth mindset (a belief that ability is developed over time), self-efficacy (belief in one’s capacity), and student agency (belief in one’s power to attain a goal through action). Please visit the teaching guide on Rubrics for more information on reducing assessment biases and visit the HOW section for information on anonymous grading.

Equitable assessments and grading practices incorporate flexibility by providing student choice.  For example, students can create a learning plan on how they will demonstrate the achievement of the learning objectives. Or students can select from a list of products or performances to demonstrate their proficiency in the learning objectives. Please visit the teaching guide on Authentic Assessments for more information on student choice and authentic assessments.

Flexibility in assessments and grading practices can also involve the level of participation or work students choose to complete during the learning process. For example, creating a contract (labor-based grading) where students select the grade they want to achieve and the corresponding amount of work. Other practices include using tokens (or free passes), dropping the lowest scores, averaging scores from multiple attempts, etc. (please visit the HOW section for more information). These grading practices recognize that learning doesn’t happen once and that events occur outside the learning environment that can impact student performance on assessments.

Equitable assessments are designed as progress indicators for students and instructors to know whether the achievement of the course goals and learning objectives has occurred.

For example, instructors can utilize a rubric to explain how students exceeded, met, or did not meet the course goal or learning objective. Also, equitable assessments give students the opportunity to self-assess, self-regulate, and develop actionable next steps in their learning.

Equitable grading moves beyond just scoring assessments by providing specific, meaningful, and personalized feedback. Equitable assessments create a feedback loop where students engage in learning, produce work to practice, receive feedback, and revise or reattempt work to demonstrate proficiency in the learning objectives.

Students can use feedback to monitor their learning and progress toward their goals. And instructors can use feedback to foster conversations about student-developed goals and next steps.

Equitable assessments and grading practices recognize that assessments should not be a one-and-done experience and should allow for revisions, resubmissions, or reattempts without penalty. Instructors who utilize equitable assessments and grading practices know that failure is just a “first attempt in learning” and encourage students to take risks by providing a safe and supportive learning environment.

For example, students are given multiple opportunities to demonstrate the achievement of the learning objectives for a written assignment allowing students who do not meet the grading criteria to revise and resubmit their assignments.

Personal learning goals can provide improved student agency (belief in one’s power to attain a goal through action) and increased student ownership of their learning. In general education coursework, these goals can help create a more meaningful learning experience for students who don’t see the importance of “required” non-major coursework. Consider developing a few course goals that incorporate the human dimension or caring categories from Fink’s Taxonomy to have students select from. Or consider having students reflect on the instructor-designed course goals and objectives to create their personal learning goal(s).

These goals could be shared with instructors privately in a journal or with the entire class in a discussion forum. Students can then design a summative authentic assessment to demonstrate the achievement of their personal learning goals. Please visit the teaching guide on Authentic Assessments for more information.

For example, a student could decide to write a reflection on knowledge gained for each of the following learning objectives and create a persuasive presentation to advocate for a policy change for their final summative assessment.

• Describe past public policy debates in the United States that exemplify a broad range of historical and contemporary concerns.
• Advocate for particular policy choices using the knowledge and skills gained in this course (from Carnegie Mellon University).

Also, students can reflect on their learning progress throughout the semester to foster metacognition (understanding one’s thought process), self-regulate their learning, and set actionable next steps toward their personal learning goals. Student personal learning goals can also be supported through the use of an equitable grading system like specifications grading and ungrading in both general education coursework and major coursework. Please scroll down to learn more about equitable grading systems and visit the CAST website to learn more about goal setting and monitoring progress.

Executive functions are the mental processes that control the goal-oriented skills and behaviors of students. These skills and behaviors include paying attention, organizing and prioritizing tasks, remembering details, starting tasks, staying focused, managing time, solving problems, and regulating emotions.

Some considerations for supporting executive function skills (visit the Additional Resources section to download a template for supporting executive function skills), including how you organize and communicate the assessment information to students, for example:

• Overview – use this heading to communicate the learning goals and objectives, background information, and the time it will take to complete the assessment. This information provides the why behind your assessment and supports students’ time management skills.
• Instructions – use this heading to communicate the sequential steps or bulleted list of what students need to do for the assessment. This information presented in a list format helps students know what they must accomplish in the assessment and ensures that elements are not missed.
• Submission Requirements – use this heading to communicate a bulleted list of what students will submit. For example, a 2 to 3-page essay with an APA formatted reference page containing three credible sources.

• Grading Criteria (or Rubric) – use this heading to communicate a table or bulleted list of what students will receive feedback on and how their work will be evaluated. This information helps students to understand the expectations of the assessment.
• Resources – use this heading to communicate a bulleted list of support materials for student success, including FAQs, databases, tutorials, and an exemplar (exemplary work sample). This information helps students start the assessment and support students who haven’t developed the research or other skills needed yet. Please visit the teaching guide on Rubrics for more information on how to use exemplars with students.

Other considerations include utilizing the learning management system to place static reminders in the course’s weekly learning modules, create announcements to remind students about important milestones and due dates, utilize a Q&A discussion board for student questions, and host drop-in hours via an online conference tool (Zoom) before the assessment due date for students to attend for support. In on-campus, hybrid, or online synchronous courses, instructors can provide “class time” for questions about upcoming assessments as well as verbal reminders to keep students on track. Please visit the CAST website to learn more about supporting executive function skills and visit the Additional Resources section to download a template for supporting executive function skills.

Instructors who utilize equitable assessments and grading practices know that providing multiple forms of feedback is essential to student success, including:

• Self-evaluation – students assess their own learning and performance with a rubric (or checklist) to determine strengths and weaknesses, as well as the next steps in their learning.
• Peer review – students anonymously provide qualitative feedback to their peers with or without a rubric or checklist.
• Group feedback – students work collaboratively with a group of peers through multiple iterations of work and have synchronous or asynchronous discussions about each other’s work.

• Class feedback – the instructor develops a list of common mistakes or issues for students to evaluate their work against the list.
• Personalized feedback – the instructor provides individual, descriptive feedback to students.

Equitable assessments provide opportunities for students to act after receiving feedback. This action can involve a discussion with the instructor (or group) on how they can reach their learning goals, a revision of the assessment where students can apply the feedback, and/or a summary of the feedback received with a reflection on their learning goals and next steps.

Want to learn more about providing descriptive feedback? Please read the blog post, The care and feeding of Helpful Feedback by Robert Talbert.

Equitable assessments and grading practices allow students to revise, resubmit, or reattempt without penalty. Students can use the received feedback to improve their learning and performance without focusing on or stressing about their grades.

One consideration is to postpone sharing the grades with students if they do not achieve all the grading criteria and provide them with feedback for their reattempts. Students will then be encouraged to utilize the feedback and focus on learning from their mistakes. Students’ grade is then based on the achievement of the grading criteria without penalty for needing a second attempt.

In large class sizes, instructors might limit resubmissions to one or two assessments to ensure the grading is manageable for themselves or TAs. Or instructors of large classes can incorporate peer review on a first draft and have students provide feedback based on the same rubric the instructor will use to grade the final submission.

Another consideration is to allow students unlimited attempts on low-stakes quizzes and provide them with feedback on incorrect answers that directs them to learning materials to review before reattempting. The quizzes can be built from multiple pools of questions so that each attempt is unique. Study groups can address common mistakes and issues from class performance. Students’ highest scores are then recorded in the grade book.

Equitable assessments and grading practices recognize that students need to practice and participate in active learning experiences to demonstrate the achievement of course goals and learning objectives successfully. Student practice is usually in the form of a formative assessment (an assessment that occurs during learning), including polling, quizzing, homework, classroom assessment techniques, etc. Typically, these assessments award points for correct answers and deduct points for incorrect answers reinforcing students’ dependence on extrinsic motivators.

Instead, consider providing feedback on the incorrect answers and use points based on completeness to improve the equity of your formative assessments. For example, during polling questions for a think-pair-share activity, give points for student responses regardless of correctness. In homework assignments, focus your grading on providing feedback for incorrect answers or misconceptions to support student learning and increase intrinsic motivation. Homework can be assigned a set number of points, awarded a pass/fail grade, or marked as complete based on the percentage of correct answers (e.g., students receive all the points, a pass, or it is marked completed if 70% of the questions are answered correctly).

Anonymous grading can help to reduce bias while grading student assignments. It is essential to communicate that you will be implementing anonymous grading before students start working on and submitting assignments so that they don’t include any identifiers (name, NetID, etc.) in their submissions.

Please visit the Blackboard Help website to learn more about Anonymous Grading in Ultra and Anonymous Grading in Original.

Using equitable assessments and grading practices acknowledges that how a student behaves in class does not necessarily reflect the level of learning a student achieves. These practices encourage academic behaviors that support student success, like awarding a token or extra credit for students who attend a student group session and write a reflection on how their learning changed.

Or students attend drop-in office hours to get help with a formative assessment and then resubmit the work without penalty. These practices reinforce academic behaviors and promote intrinsic motivation. Consider how you will define and communicate participation expectations to students to support and encourage academic behaviors without penalizing non-performance and reducing student engagement.

Equitable assessments and grading practices recognize that a student’s life can impact their learning and performance. Instructors can consider adding elements to their assessments and grading practices to increase equity, including tokens, free passes, dropping the lowest score(s), and/or averaging scores.These elements minimize risk, reduce student anxiety and stress, and encourage improvement.

Tokens & Free Passes
A token system can involve students receiving three to four tokens at the beginning of the term. Tokens are then exchanged for an extension on a due date, revision or reattempt on an assessment, missing class, leaving class early, dropping a low score, etc. Also, students can earn more tokens for behaviors like submitting an assessment earlier than the due date, attending campus or community events related to the course, or completing optional assessments for deeper learning (Leslie, 2020). Free passes (similar to tokens) can be given to students at the beginning of the semester for missing a class session or turning in an assignment late.

Dropping Lowest Scores & Averaging Scores
Dropping the lowest score or averaging scores for formative assessments like quizzes or written assignments can also reduce student stress and encourage students to practice and learn from their mistakes. For example, an instructor gives weekly low-stakes quizzes where students’ lowest score is dropped from their total grade. Or the instructor averages all the written assignments in the course, and students receive a set number of points based on that average instead of totaling points for individual assignments (e.g., 90% average earns 250 points, 80% earns 200 points, and so on).

Criterion-referenced grading (also known as competency-based or standards-based grading) focuses on evaluating individual student performance based on defined grading criteria. These criteria can be in the form of learning objectives or competencies, or they are refined further to reflect smaller skill sets or more granular concepts. In criterion-referenced grading, students have multiple opportunities to demonstrate their proficiency. Students receive feedback on whether they “met the criteria” or “did not meet the criteria.” Instructors can utilize a single-point rubric or a checklist to evaluate student learning, communicate progress, and have students self-assess (please visit the teaching guide on Rubrics for more information on single-point rubrics or checklists).

In criterion-referenced grading, student’s grades are based on the percentage of learning objectives that are met (e.g., if students meet 90% or more of the learning objectives they receive an A, for 80% of the learning objectives they receive a B, for 70% of the learning objectives  they receive a C, and so on). Or individual students are assigned grades according to predetermined thresholds for grade cut-offs (“straight-scale”), which correspond to students’ progress towards achievement of the learning objectives. The assessments are not based on how students perform relative to other students in a class, a practice referred to as norm-referenced grading (“grading on a curve”). These assessments involve assigning grades regardless of an individual student’s rank in the class or how many students score above or below the threshold and recognize that not all students benefit from a competitive classroom climate created when norm-referenced grading practices are employed. For more information on criterion-referenced grading, please visit the Additional Resources and References section below.

Labor-based grading (also known as contract grading or grading contracts) focuses on providing student choice and agency. Students select the level of work (or labor) they want to attempt from the instructor-designed assessment bundles. These assessment bundles can contain different assessment types, for example, a bundle for a unit of study might have a written assignment, quiz, and two in-class activities and students must complete 9 of the 10 bundles to get an A, 8 to get a B, and 7 to get a C, etc.

Or bundles can be organized with similar assessments (e.g., a quiz bundle), where students can opt-out of certain bundles. For example, students can choose to omit the participation bundle and only complete the written assignments bundle and the quiz bundle (scoring higher than 75%) to receive a C. In labor-based grading, students receive feedback based on the defined grading criteria, and if they do not meet their selected bundle requirements after revision and reattempts, then they move to the next bundle grade. Please visit the teaching guide on Rubrics for more information on grading criteria and the Additional Resources and References section below for more information on labor-based grading.

Specification grading (or specs grading) combines criterion-referenced grading, labor-based grading, and pass/fail systems to promote student self-efficacy to meet specifications such as the learning objectives or desired competencies. Instructors utilize backward design to create bundles aligned with the learning objectives at different amounts of work and/or levels of complexity. For example, students might have to complete more bundles or more complex bundles to receive an A. Information on the expectations to achieve the bundles is clearly communicated to students. However, unlike contract grading, students are not required to tell their instructor the bundles they aim to achieve.

Student performance is evaluated as either meets or does not meet the specifications. If a student’s performance does not meet the specifications, then the student does not get credit for the work, and can reattempt the assessment until they meet the specifications. Like criterion-referenced grading, instructors can utilize a single-point rubric or a checklist to evaluate student learning and performance, communicate progress, and have students self-assess. Please visit the teaching guide on Rubrics for more information on single-point rubrics or checklists. And for more information on specifications grading, please visit the Additional Resources and References section below.

Ungrading focuses on co-creating assessments with students, where students take ownership of the learning and assessment process. Ungrading utilizes multiple feedback forms (self, peer, and instructor) to encourage students to revise and resubmit work. Instructors who use ungrading do not assign grades for work completed.

Instead, students are expected to reflect on their learning throughout the semester as well as assign their final grade and consult with their instructor based on their self-assessments, reflections, received feedback, and portfolio of work. Please visit the Additional Resources and References section for more information on ungrading.

First, you review your course goals and learning objectives to ensure they are clear and measurable.

Then, identify the grading criteria to measure the achievement of the course goals and learning objectives.

Next, consider how you will incorporate the following elements as you design or redesign assessments and grading practices for equity:

• Allow students to set personal learning goals.
• Add elements to support executive function skills.
• Incorporate multiple forms of feedback (self, peer, group, course, instructor).

• Provide multiple attempts or re-assessment without penalty.
• Consider how you will grade for completeness and not for student participation.
• Utilize anonymous grading features available in the LMS.
• Determine what form of flexibility (tokens, free passes, etc.) you will utilize.

Lastly, review data collected from assessments and grading practices and reflect on the implementation to inform continuous improvements for equitable student outcomes.

Clark, D., Talbert, R. (n.d.) About Grading for Growth [Blog] Grading for Growth

Hall, M. (2018). What is Specifications Grading and Why Should You Consider Using It? [Blog] The Innovative Instructor Blog. Johns Hopkins University.

Louden, K. (2017). Delaying the grade: How to get students to read feedback. [Blog] Cult of Pedagogy

Stommel, J. (2020). Ungrading: an FAQ. [Blog] Jesse Stommel

Blum, S. (2020). Ungrading, why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity, what it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. SAGE Publications.

Inoue, A. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts, building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. University Press of Colorado.

Nilson, L. (2015). Specifications grading. Stylus Publishing.

Nilson, L. (2021). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. [Podcast] Psych Sessions, Convos About Teaching N’ Stuff.

Template for Supporting Executive Function Skills

Carberry, A., Siniawski, M., Atwood, S., Diefes-Dux, H. (2016). Best practices for using standards-based grading in engineering courses. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310589873_
Best_Practices_for_Using_Standards-based_Grading_in_Engineering_Courses

Katzman, S., Hurst-Kennedy, J., Barrera, A., Talley, J., Javazon, E., Diaz, M., Anzovino, M. (2021). The effect of specifications grading on students’ learning and attitudes in an undergraduate-level cell biology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 22. 10.1128/jmbe.00200-21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355767907_
The_Effect_of_Specifications_Grading_on_Students’_
Learning_and_Attitudes_in_an_
Undergraduate-Level_Cell_Biology_Course

Leslie, P., Lundblom, E. (2020). Specifications grading: What it is, and lessons learned. Seminars in Speech and Language. 41. 298-309. 10.1055/s-0040-1713781. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343143573
_Specifications_Grading_What_It_Is_and_Lessons
_Learned

Lindemann, D., Harbke, C. (2011). Use of contract grading to improve grades among college freshmen in introductory psychology. Sage Open. 1. 10.1177/2158244011434103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233408578_
Use_of_Contract_Grading_to_Improve_Grades_Among_
College_Freshmen_in_Introductory_Psychology

Schinske, J., Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014 Summer;13(2):159-66. doi: 10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054.

Talbert, R. (2021). Finding common ground with grading systems. [Blog] Grading for Growth. https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/finding-common-ground-with-grading

Williams, H. (2020). Will students engage if there are no grades? A review of the evidence, and an experiment in ungrading. 10.21125/iceri.2020.0605. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346625604_
Will_Students_Engage_If_There_Are_No_Grades_
A_Review_of_the_Evidence_and_an_Experiment_in
_Ungrading