This winter, Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Book Club participants read Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead).
I canāt emphasise this enough: Do not read this book! It will have you tugging at a thread that unravels an entire sock drawer full of sacred bits of teaching practice. It may lead you to re-examine what you value about the letter grade system, your choice of assignments, your assessment and feedback processes, your relationship with students, and maybe even your feelings about the Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote!
The text describes ungrading as the practice of providing no letter grades or marks on student work, focusing instead on an iterative and formative process of feedback in an effort to improve student engagement and learning. And if you think this canāt be done in a letter-grade-centred postsecondary environment, they offer examples that undermine this assumption.
Susan D. Blum, the bookās editor, as well as the chapter authors, make a strong case that letter grades are an invention that needs to be chucked. According to the authors, letter grades donāt correlate to later competence in practice, are a shortcut that doesnāt acknowledge the complexity that is the learning process, discourage risk (a key learning ingredient) because students instead focus on meeting the extrinsic expectations of the evaluator, and put instructors and institutions in the business of ranking students rather than encouraging learning.
As I read, I certainly didnāt like the accusatory finger pointing my way. I had to admit, however, I have myself at times, both as an instructor and a student just tried to get through by taking the most expedient, expected route.
I remember when I first started teaching, picking up the threads left by previous course instructors and learning the ropes from my new colleagues, Ā I accepted that I had to grade, and I worked to find ways to make it meaningful, helpful, and accurate. I remember, less fondly, the first time I was asked that heartwarming question, āWhy did you take these marks off?ā Much of the feedback I provided students was motivated by justifying the grade I was assigning and trying to prevent that question from coming my way again.Ā I spent my weekends diligently providing that feedback only to realize how frequently, when accompanied by a grade, it wasnāt even read.
As a student, how often did I spend time trying to figure out the instructorās system, often seemingly chosen at random, rather than based on what I wanted to get out of a course? How often did the stress of the needed grade override my original reasons for signing up for a class? How many times did I choose safe and within-the-lines over something inventive and more fulfilling because there may be a consequence I hadnāt anticipated? This book has reminded me that education needs to prepare learners for the autonomy of a less structured world, where creativity, self-direction, and a growth mindset will be key elements of success. Education also built on relationships ā between students and between students and instructors ā and this is hardly nurtured by the looming judgment in a grade.
Iāve been reminded that we need to encourage mistakes and Iāve been working in a structure where mistakes are punished.
Ungrading offers an alternative and since the examples in the book include continuing to assign a grade at the end of the semester, many of the suggestions are things I can implement within our existing structures, perhaps starting small with a few ungraded assignments to make the change manageable as I try to weave together something new, something more cooperative, more learning centred.
Focusing on Formative Feedback
In Ungrading, the authors suggested assignments that build on each other, and the use of clear, supportive feedback that students can use to improve their work. Students are offered the opportunity to resubmit assignments or use the feedback for their next assignment without the risk of losing a mark: no āone and doneā assignments. Students and instructors work together, encouraging risk and growth, to improve performance and deepen learning. The process rather than the product becomes the focus.
The authors also emphasized the value of peer, self, and instructor feedback, and creating a clear structure so that students are able to support each other and are guided to reflect effectively on their own progress. Evidence suggests that feedback alone is more effective in improving performance than feedback with a grade, or than grades alone. With only the feedback to consider, students may build on their skills with a greater intrinsic sense of motivation.
One suggestion I found particularly useful was to ask students to let the instructor know, when submitting an assignment, what they were trying to accomplish or improve, and then targeting feedback to address the studentās specific goals.
Portfolios
In addition to formative, collaborative, and targeted feedback, many authors encouraged students to create portfolios of their work, usually electronic, that they could add to over the course of the semester or longer. Portfolios become a metacognition space and a way to share their work with peers and instructors, building evidence of their learning, and forming the basis for discussions between students and with the instructor during and at the end of the term.
Assigning the Grade
In order to fulfill the grade requirement within which the authors worked, most met with students at the end of the semester to discuss the grade together, usually having the student suggest a grade and provide evidence to justify their choice. Along with the growth demonstrated through their response to feedback throughout the semester, instructors used a variety of assignments that the student could draw from as evidence, including weekly attendance, blog posts, peer-led course units, discussions, presentations, and essays, to name a few. Badging and creating checklists for students to monitor their own progress were also used. Some instructors also described a contract-grading process in which students completed a contracted number of assignments to a specific quality in order to receive a corresponding grade.
If youāre concerned a student will receive a grade they havenāt earned, as Marcus Schultz-Bergin, one of the contributing authors, suggested, then you are still attached to the idea that grades have meaning. Evidence demonstrates that they donāt, and this may be the most compelling reason to ensure students are a part of the process.
Getting Buy-In
Whenever Iāve tried something new in class, Iāve talked with students about the what, the why, and the how. Iāve found that when students understand what is in store, they can ready themselves, make decisions about how they want to participate, recognize themselves as part of the environment and process we are creating together, and engage more fully in the work. Since instructors expect to grade and students expect to be graded, messing with this equation means even more discussion than may be necessary with other, less disruptive changes.
In addition to describing to students the ungrading process, the reasons it is being used, and what students can expect along the way, some authors, where possible or working in environments where this was unfixed, built the syllabus with the class, creating learning outcomes and rubrics together. This approach seems to be a helpful way to demonstrate the ungrading philosophy, by collaborating on some of the foundational elements of the course from the beginning. Referencing the personal meaning that Dewey long ago insisted was essential to learning, some authors also encouraged students to add their own learning outcomes, relevant to them, and to include completing these outcomes as part of their work and portfolio plans.
Results
In the book-club discussions, many of the strategies for assessing learning were similar to those many of us are already including in our courses. The big difference was the lack of letter grades or marks. While some of the approaches described seemed overly elaborate, and assigning a grade at the end of the course appears to compromise the ungrading philosophy promoted in the book, we agreed that the values expressed aligned with our own commitment to an engaged, accessible, and socially just pedagogy. The authors consistently described the positive results, including more egalitarian, cooperative environments and relationships, as well as strong student learning outcomes. They described students who worked harder, had less stress, new learning habits, and more creativity. They described students who had loved learning but hated school, appreciating this one experience where they could love both.
In addition, the instructors were reenergized by their role in education, letting go of the sorting, ranking, and judging and focusing instead on coaching, encouraging, guiding and the socially-just act of teaching.
Ignoring My Advice
If you decide to ignore my advice and pick up this book to begin the unraveling, and continue, as one of the bookās authorās put it, that Wile E. Coyote-level, impossible yet noble pursuit – the perfect teaching and learning experience- please let me know what you decide to adopt and how it goes.
Additional resources can be found with any of us at CETL and:
Camosunās Assessment LibGuide (Including the use of feedback).
The Reflective Learning Framework: A Guide for Students and Educators.