“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 & Talbot, 2023, p. 3). Points-based grading yields false proxies for knowledge and/or skill. It also negatively impacts students from marginalized backgrounds (Clark & Talbot, 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 grading. Its purpose is to support UC Davis instructors who want to implement these alternatives in their courses.
Alternative assessment approaches
Definitions: Alternative Assessment & Grading
Alternative assessment -- Changes to how student learning is assessed. For example, switching from multiple-choice to project-based exams.
Alternative grading -- Changes to how grades are determined. For example, shifting from points-per-assignment to emphasizing learning, mistakes, and ultimate attainment.
- Exam Corrections - Students reflect on the questions they answered incorrectly by explaining their reasoning.
- Exam / Quiz Reassessments - Students have multiple chances at demonstrating mastery of specific learning outcomes / standards, often with different exam questions.
- Lower Stakes - Students complete multiple low-stakes formative assignments (e.g., quizzes, homework, etc.), which center learning and making mistakes.
- 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.
- Two-Stage Exam - Individual students take the exam on their own, then work with a group. (The order can be switched.) Grade is based on both stages.
Alternative grading approaches
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 & Talbot (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. 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 attainment. 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 retakes / reassesses 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, 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. 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).
Several well-known alternative grading approaches 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)
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, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00369.
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/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003445043.
Howitz, W. J., McKnelly, K. J., & Link, R. D. (2021). Developing and Implementing a Specifications Grading System in an Organic Chemistry Laboratory Course. Journal of Chemical Education, 98, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00450.
Lewis, D. (2022). Impacts of Standards-Based Grading on Students’ Mindset and Test Anxiety. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotlv22i2.31308.
McKnelly, K. J., Howitz, W. J., Thane, T. A., & Link, R. D. (2023). Specifications Grading at Scale: Improved Letter Grades and Grading-Related Interactions in a Course with over 1,000 Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 100, 3179–3193. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00740.
Nilson, L.B. (2014). Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447061.
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(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-0600167.
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, 3723–3738. https://doi.org/10.102/acs.jchemed.4c00698.