Alternative Assessment and Grading

“Traditional grading has serious flaws.” 

What we have come to know as “traditional grading” refers primarily to the allocation of points or percentages to discrete assignments (e.g., exams, homework, etc.), the accumulation of which determines the student’s final grade. Unfortunately, grades awarded through such a system, which often includes limited high-stakes exams, “often have no direct connection to learning” (Clark & Talbert, 2023, p. 3). Points-based grading yields false proxies for knowledge and/or skill. It also negatively impacts students from historically marginalized backgrounds (Clark & Talbert, 2023). As Robert Talbert says, "Traditional grading has serious flaws."

Alternative approaches to grading operationalize research which shows that simple changes can increase students' intrinsic motivation and achievement, and shift focus to learning and away from pursuit of points. What follows is a resource on alternative approaches to both assessment and specific grading practices. Its purpose is to support UC Davis instructors who want to implement these alternatives in their courses. 

Alternative assessment

• Collaboration (i.e., Two-Stage Exams) - Individual students take the exam on their own, then work with a group. (The order can be switched.) Grade is based on both stages.
• External Resources & Locations (aka Take-Home, Open-Book Exams) - Students are permitted to use external resources and take the exam in a physical setting of their choice. Strong potential for reducing students’ test anxiety.
• Formative Assessment - Students complete multiple low-stakes formative assignments (e.g., quizzes, homework, etc.), which center learning and making mistakes. Emphasizes learning that develops over time.
• Learning Growth - Students have multiple opportunities to take / retake exams, quizzes, homework as a way of demonstrating mastery of specific learning outcomes / standards.
• Mistakes that Matter - Students reflect on the questions they answered incorrectly by explaining their reasoning. 

Alternative grading

David Clark and Robert Talbert, authors of Grading for Growth: A Guide to Alternative Grading Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education, outline two changes that can rapidly improve grading: 

• Connect grades “directly to demonstrated learning, using clear criteria for what is expected and what is satisfactory” (p. 24); and
• Bring students into the grading process by centering “feedback loops” (pp. 25-26), which are also commonly used in peer evaluation and personnel evaluation. (And, notably, in kindergarten report cards.)

The Four Pillars of Alternative Grading

Clark & Talbert (2023) developed the Four Pillars of Alternative Grading to emphasize the components of alternative grading that center the learner. “The four pillars model illustrates how to move toward humane, informative, and effective methods of grading that focus on growth of learning” (p. 30). The roof of the model emphasizes the importance of feedback loops to the process.

The first pillar provides the starting point for all alternative grading approaches: clearly define and communicate learning standards, also known as criteria, outcomes, and / or specifications. While the nomenclature may differ, the underlying meaning remains constant: effective grading structures depend on clarity of expectations for students’ learning. “Students have a much better chance of succeeding academically when they know what they are expected to do” (Nilson, 2014, p. 19).

Meaningful, helpful, and actionable feedback focuses attention on what students need to do to grow their learning towards competence. Along with helpful feedback, the third pillar calls for marking rather than grading individual assignments. Comments to students don't need to be extensive, just grade- and points-free. Research shows that "the presence of a grade (even when accompanied by meaningful feedback) increases performance avoidance goals" (Lewis, 2022, p. 70). In other words, grades on assignments can deter student motivation to pursue learning. The concept of attainment is very important and relates to the fourth pillar: reattempts without penalty. 

As the grading approaches described below demonstrate, when a student reattempts an assignment, the actionable feedback focuses on their learning (rather than the accumulation of points). When the focus of feedback (both via the rubric and written comments) is on students' learning rather than the assignment of points, faculty report spending less-to-no time in conversations about partial credit or credit for effort. 

Instructors can implement components of each system without needing to revamp their entire course grading structure.

Many instructors find it easiest to incorporate elements of the alternative grading approaches described below at first. Using the principle of starting small, it is possible to implement alternative grading without restructuring an entire course's grading system. For example, integrating opportunities for student to re-attempt (aka retake, revise, reassess, etc.) a low-stakes assignment, like a quiz, is a relatively small adjustment that can yield positive benefits for students (Tripp, Ravi, Pang, & Furrow, 2022). Every change is a step in the right direction.

Several well-known alternative grading systems are described below. 

Standards-Based Grading (SBG)

Also known as Growth-Oriented grading. In SBG, instructors define a clear set of learning standards which are communicated to students; Student assignments are marked on a dichotomous scale (e.g., successful / revision required; meets / not yet; etc.) for the standards associated with the assignment; students have multiple opportunities to demonstrate attainment of the standards; and the final grade is based on how many, and which, of the standards a student meets. See this FAQ about Standards-Based Grading.

Similar to SBG is Competency-Based Grading.

Competency-Based Grading 

Begins with clearly defined expectations for competencies and affords students flexibility and autonomy. Students determine the assignments they will complete to meet the level of competencies they seek to demonstrate. Instructors provide timely, continuous, and actionable feedback to students regarding what they need to do to attain a given competency. Read an example of Competency-Based Grading at scale (i.e., 300 students).

Specifications Grading (“Specs”)

Combines aspects of Contract, Standards-Based, and Competency-Based Grading. The key features of Specs Grading are that individual assignments are evaluated using clearly defined specs that represent B-level work (Nilson, 2014). Each assignment is aligned transparently to course outcomes. Work is marked with rubrics that describe the specifications that must be met to pass the assignment – each spec is marked on a dichotomous scale, such as complete / needs revisions, pass / not yet. Students have multiple opportunities to revise and resubmit assignments until they meet the specifications. To earn a particular grade, students must complete “bundles” or groups of assignments aligned to course outcomes. The final component of specs grading is the token economy through which students can spend tokens to off-set a late assignment, receive an extended deadline, and/or secure additional reassessment opportunities. Watch this video featuring Dr. Renée Link, UC Irvine, to learn about specs grading at scale (i.e., 1000+). 

Contract Grading 

Instructors develop a performance contract which outlines which assignments need to be completed at a specific level to earn a course grade. In discussion with instructors, students decide what grade they’d like to earn and complete the required assignments at a performance level that meets clearly defined expectations. This approach supports student autonomy and motivation. For information about using learning contracts, see this column by Tai Munro (June 2026).

Reference List (dynamic)

Allen, J. D. (2005). Grades as Valid Measures of Academic Achievement of Classroom Learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(5), 218-223. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.5.218-223

Asher, M. W., Hartman, J. D., Blaser, M., Eichler, J. F., & Carvalho, P. F. (2025). The promise of mastery-based testing for promoting student engagement, self-regulated learning, and performance in gateway STEM courses. Computers & Education, 237, 105387. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105387

Beatty, I. D. (2013). Standards-Based Grading in Introductory University Physics. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1-22. 

Blackstone, B., & Oldmixon, E. (2019). Specifications Grading in Political Science. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948

Bowen, R. S., & Cooper, M. M. (2022). Grading on a Curve as a Systemic Issue of Equity in Chemistry Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 185-194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00369

Bruno, B., Engels, J., Ito, G., Gillis-Davis, J., Dulai, H., Carter, G.,…Böttjer-Wilson, D. (2017). Two-Stage Exams: A Powerful Tool for Reducing the Achievement Gap in Undergraduate Oceanography and Geology Classes. Oceanography, 30(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2017.241

Butler, M. (2025). Alternative grading systems and student outcomes: a comparative analysis of motivation, enjoyment, engagement, stress, and perceptions of final grades. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(5), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2475068

Callaghan, K., Milbourne, T., Klales, A., Kestin, G., Arguelles, C., Mccarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026). Two-Stage Final Exams: An Assessment Strategy for Enhanced Collaborative Learning and Reduced Student Stress. Journal of College Science Teaching, 55(2), 115-124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2026.2620442

Carlisle, S. (2020). Simple Specifications Grading. PRIMUS, 30(8-10), 926-951. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1695238

Cilli-Turner, E., Dunmyre, J., Mahoney, T., & Wiley, C. (2020). Mastery Grading: Build-A-Syllabus Workshop. PRIMUS, 30(8-10), 952-978. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1733152

Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for Growth: A Guide to Alternative Grading Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003445043

Elkington, S., & Chesterton, P. (2025). Embedding assessment flexibilities for future authentic learning. Teaching in higher education., 30(3), 700-716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2394605

Fernandez, O. E. (2021). Second Chance Grading: An Equitable, Meaningful, and Easy-to-Implement Grading System that Synergizes the Research on Testing for Learning, Mastery Grading, and Growth Mindsets. PRIMUS, 31(8), 855-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1772915

Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2021). A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy. Review of Education, 9(2), 642-684. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3266

Guberman, D. (2021). Student Perceptions of an Online Ungraded Course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 86-98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.8

Hackerson, E. L., Slominski, T., Johnson, N., Buncher, J. B., Ismael, S., Singelmann, L.,…Momsen, J. L. (2024). Alternative Grading Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Scoping Review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00106-8

Hartman, J. D., & Eichler, J. F. (2024). Implementing Mastery Grading in Large Enrollment General Chemistry: Improving Outcomes and Reducing Equity Gaps. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111224

Heubach, S., & Krinsky, S. (2020). Implementing Mastery-Based Grading at Scale in Introductory Statistics. PRIMUS, 30(8-10), 1054-1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1700576

Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student Motivation and Associated Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis From Self-Determination Theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300-1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

Howitz, W. J., McKnelly, K. J., & Link, R. D. (2025). Delving into the Design and Implementation of Specifications Grading Systems in Higher Education. Education Science (Basel), 15, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010083

Jones, P. A. (2020). Implementing specifications grading in MPA courses: A potential strategy for better work-life balance. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(4), 531-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1773713

Karcher, E., Guberman, D., Bonem, E., & Lumkes, J. (2022). Instructor Perception of Incorporating Active Learning in College of Agriculture Classrooms. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.36

Knierim, K., Turner, H., & Davis, R. K. (2015). Two-Stage Exams Improve Student Learning in an Introductory Geology Course: Logistics, Attendance, and Grades. Journal of Geoscience Education, 63(2), 157-164. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5408/14-051.1

Koretsky, M. D., Mccolley, C. J., Gugel, J. L., & Ekstedt, T. W. (2022). Aligning Classroom Assessment with Engineering Practice: A Design‐based Research Study of a Two‐Stage Exam with Authentic Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education,111(1), 185-213. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20436

Lee, C. (2020, 14 October). What Is the History of Grading?  https://www.turnitin.com/blog/what-is-the-history-of-grading

Lewis, D. (2020). Student Anxiety in Standards-Based Grading in Mathematics Courses. Innovative Higher Education, 45, 153-164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09489-3

Lewis, D. (2022). Impacts of Standards-Based Grading on Students’ Mindset and Test Anxiety. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(2), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v22i2.31308

Link, R. (2026, May 20-21). Specifications Grading Primer [Handout]. SEISMIC Phase Two Kick-Off, Ann Arbor, MI. 

McMurtrie, B. (2026). Teaching: Is it Time to Change How You Grade? Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 29 July from https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/teaching/2026-07-23

Meaders, C. L., & Vega, Y. (2023). Collaborative Two-Stage Exams Benefit Students in a Biology Laboratory Course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00138-22

Morphew, J. W., Silva, M., Herman, G., & West, M. (2020). Frequent mastery testing with second-chance exams leads to enhanced student learning in undergraduate engineering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 168-181. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3605

Nicol, D., & Selvaretnam, G. (2022). Making Internal Feedback Explicit: Harnessing the Comparisons Students Make During Two-Stage Exams. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 507-522. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1934653

Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Disrupting the Power Relations of Grading in Higher Education through Summative Self-Assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 892-907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1753687

Pease, M. (2025). Alternative assessment methods in action: a case history of using specification-based grading in college geography courses. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 49(4), 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2025.2529825

Pennebaker, J. W., Gosling, S. D., & Ferrell, J. D. (2013). Daily Online Testing in Large Classes: Boosting College Performance while Reducing Achievement Gaps. PLOS ONE, 8(11), e79774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079774

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Shaffer, J. F. (2020). Student Performance on and Perceptions of Collaborative Two-Stage Exams in a Material and Energy Balances Course. Chemical Engineering Education, 54(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18260/2-1-370.660-115564

Streifer, A. C., & Palmer, M. S. (2023). Is Specifications Grading Right for Me?: A Readiness Assessment to Help Instructors Decide. College Teaching, 71(4), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.2018396

Tripp, B., Ravi, A., Pang, E., & Furrow, R. E. (2025). Undergraduate STEM Students’ Perceptions of Grading Practices Reveal that Quiz Retakes Positively Impact Drivers of Self-determination. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 24(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-06-0167

Yik, B. J., Machost, H., Streifer, A. C., Palmer, M. S., Morkowchuk, L., & Stains, M. (2024). Students’ Perceptions of Specifications Grading: Development and Evaluation of the Perceptions of Grading Schemes (PGS) Instrument. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(9), 3723-3738. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00698