Recently, a faculty member took up residence in Amanda’s office chair and settled in for a chat. As a regular visitor, he first updated her that after four attempts, his daughter had received her driver’s license. As the discussion drifted towards work, he laughingly mentioned that their dean had sent him yet another request for his woefully late annual faculty development report. Their discussion wrapped up with harmless gossip about a professional staff member who had been put on an improvement plan after mismanaging resources. So she was a little surprised a week later when the same faculty member told her the alternative grading strategies she discussed during a professional development workshop were not preparing students for the “real world,” where ‘projects have strict deadlines, a person gets one shot at getting things right, and there are no second chances in adhering to well-established rules.’ Ah, sweet irony.
Research shows traditional grading often reflects instructors’ interpretations of behavior rather than actual learning and can be biased. The 100-point scale can also demotivate students since a zero can make recovery nearly impossible. Additionally, when late work is only allowed for “legitimate excuses,” power dynamics discourage many students, especially vulnerable ones, from asking for accommodations, even when needed.
Grading strategies is one of the few systems higher education has not meaningfully revised, after redesigning onboarding, reenvisioning institutional engagement, and revamping classroom learning. Research has demonstrated that alternative grading strategies support growth, decrease anxiety, and support motivation, increasing retention and completion rates for all students because they treat students like human beings who exist in the real world – because they are.
Alternative, or equitable (shh!), grading practices counteract a fixed or deficit mindset by helping students build confidence in their ability to succeed and fostering a culture that values growth and learning.
Briefly, some examples of alternative grading strategies include:
- Exam and quiz retakes: This customizable approach supports a growth mindset and students actually review exams to identify misconceptions
- Ungraded homework: This approach does not penalize students for work, families, and other obligations outside of school. Students can still do as much homework as needed for understanding
- Minimum grading: Sets a grade floor, typically of 50%, which is failing but less damaging than a zero, so students can mathematically recover from a poor performance or missing assignment
- Specifications or standards-based grading: Students have a clear understanding of what they need to do to earn each grade by assigning grades of “satisfactory” or “not yet,” which gives students transparency and control of their time and efforts
These practices effectively mimic what happens in the “real world,” where you can take a road test four times, not be fired for failing to punctually submit a trivial report or can be put on an improvement plan for professional errors. They support students who can enter a course academically unprepared or become overwhelmed for a time during the semester with competing time constraints. If we want our practices to prepare students for the real world, then we would be better suited to considering structured consequences rather than immediately failing a student on a basic homework assignment as soon as the clock strikes 12:00am.
After employing several of these methods, we noted trends reported in the literature in our own classes, including increased success rates and decreased reported anxiety without sacrificing learning. Further, in focus group interviews, students had the following to say:
“If you didn’t do this, I would have already failed at this point, as I was unaware of how intense this class would be.”
“My mom passed away about like a month ago… Yeah, it’s kind of super heavy, but she’d been battling cancer for like a year. So, I had a lot of stuff going on outside of this. So, the flexibility was like huge for this class, especially when other classes it’s like, not the same.”
“Things in life happen and very quickly. Someone shouldn’t be doomed to fail just because life caught up to them or stuff got real.”
If the goal of school is learning and growth, current grading practices do not reflect that. Despite executive orders and federal mandates, academic freedom allows faculty to continue work towards equitable outcomes. Consider what employment looks like in your discipline and maybe try one or more of these practices as a form of micro-resistance, or as a mechanism to prepare your students for the “real world” with which they are already familiar.
Amanda Colosimo, EdD, is a Professor of Geology and President of the Faculty Association at Monroe Community College, where she has taught for more than 20 years. She is a doctoral student at the University of South Carolina, where her research focuses on alternative grading practices and their relationships with student motivation, persistence, and success. Amanda has extensive experience designing and facilitating faculty professional development and holds degrees in geology from SUNY Geneseo and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Benjamin Schermerhorn, PhD, is an Assistant Professor and Chair of the Physics and Engineering Department at Monroe Community College, where they teach physics and mechanical engineering. Ben earned a PhD in Physics Education Research from the University of Maine and has conducted research in physics and mathematics education and strengths-based approaches to STEM teaching. Their current interests include alternative grading, faculty professional development, and evidence-based approaches to improving student learning and success.
References
Buckmiller, Tom, Randal Peters, and Jerrid Kruse. “Questioning Points and Percentages: Standards-Based Grading (SBG) in Higher Education.” College Teaching 65, no. 4 (2017): 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1302919
Carrell, Scott E., and Michal Kurlaender. “My Professor Cares: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Faculty Engagement.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 15, no. 4 (2023): 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20210699
Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House, 2006.
Feldman, Joe. Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2024.
Frommert, Crystal. “The Case Against Grading Homework.” Edutopia, June 6, 2024. https://www.edutopia.org/article/motivating-students-do-ungraded-homework/
Morris, Sarah Ruth, and Alison Heape Johnson. “Could Minimum Grading Enhance High School Graduation Rates and Cost-Effectiveness across Arkansas?” Education Policy Analysis Archives 32, no. 40 (2024). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.32.8496
Reeves, Douglas B. “The Case against the Zero.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 4 (2004): 324–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600418
Stanberry, Mitchell, and Ian Quitadamo. “Changing the Game: How Equity in Grading and Teaching Transformed My Classroom.” AAAS ARISE, May 20, 2025. https://aaas-arise.org/2025/05/20/changing-the-game-how-equity-in-grading-and-teaching-transformed-my-classroom/
Supriya, K., Christofer Bang, Jessica Ebie, Christopher Pagliarulo, Derek Tucker, Kaela Villegas, Christian Wright, and Sara Brownell. “Optional Exam Retakes Reduce Anxiety but May Exacerbate Score Disparities between Students with Different Social Identities.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 23, no. 3 (2024): ar30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-11-0320
Tripp, Brie, Akshaya Ravi, Ethan Pang, and Robert E. Furrow. “Undergraduate STEM Students’ Perceptions of Grading Practices Reveal That Quiz Retakes Positively Impact Drivers of Self-Determination.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 24, no. 1 (2025): ar4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-06-016
