Ungrading Part 2: Shifting paradigms

When discussing alternative grading structures, I often reference Betty White, best known for her role on The Golden Girls. Betty White was born in 1922, and grades, as we know them today, were introduced in 1897, only 25 years before Betty was born. This wasn’t that long ago.

In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), Susan D. Blum explains the origins of grading. European medieval and early modern universities initially relied on debates and oral exams; written exams emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries due to larger class sizes. As educators with large class sizes may experience, the pedagogical changes necessary when more students are in the room often conflict with the ethos of education: to learn, grow and better understand ourselves and our place in the world. 

But there’s a bigger problem at the heart of modern schooling systems. As an educator and ungrading advocate Alfie Kohn articulates, “We start by worrying about grade inflation before gradually realizing the real problem are grades themselves. The trouble isn’t that too many students are getting As but that too many students have been led to believe the primary purpose of schooling is to get As.” (Ungrading, 2020, p.xiii)

Now, 128 years after modern grading systems were born, it’s time to realign them with students’ needs today.

I’ve been experimenting with ungrading in my classroom since 2018, ranging from middle-of-the-road ungrading structures (such as specifications grading, which I’ll explain below) to fully self-assessed courses. While no system is perfect, I’ve observed increased community collaboration, transparency and trust within student cohorts and decreased competitive individualism, haggling for marks and a need for centralized control. The effects have been a powerful shift towards a more grounded and human-centred form of higher education.

Defining Ungrading

One of the best definitions of ungrading I’ve found is from Barnard College at Columbia University, which defines it as: “... purposefully eliminating or minimizing the use of points or letters to assess student work. Some aspects of ungrading might also include letting students decide their grade or eliminating grades entirely in favour of qualitative evaluation only.” 

I’ve come to define ungrading as grading for growth.

Ungrading is a flexible framework – more mindset than toolset – creating space for mistakes and resilience. Students learn without the pressure to get it right the first time, ensuring early missteps don’t jeopardize final grades, which are sometimes critical to student well-being (for example, tuition lending programs and scholarships, supporting graduate school applications, etc.).

Artist and educator Sarah Nguyen captures this sentiment: “There was such a search for being perfect or doing it right the first time... and I thought, ‘but why? You’re students! You’re not supposed to do ANYTHING right the first time.” 

Traditional grading often equates mistakes with failure, discouraging risk-taking and stifling creativity. Ungrading, by contrast, encourages growth. Let me be clear that ungrading is not about leniency; it’s about setting high expectations, offering clear communication and fostering learning through iteration and feedback in safe spaces.

Start with Specifications

My gateway into the ungrading paradigm was through the resource Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time by Linda B. Nilson. Specifications grading links grades to outcomes, sitting midway between traditional grading and full self-assessment. Students “jump higher hurdles” (complete more complex tasks for higher grades), “run longer distances” (complete more tasks at a baseline level for higher grades) or a combination of the two.

For example, in an upper-level typography course I teach (60-90 students enrolled in a single section of the course), completing one assignment successfully earns a D; two earn a C; three earn a B and all four earn a final grade of A. 

Measuring Successful Completion

This is where the magic happens. Each assignment has a transparent checklist of required must-sees that represent a baseline of academic rigour (roughly equivalent to a B-). Success means meeting all of the checklist items. Students receive detailed feedback, often in writing or as voice notes, which I’ve experimented with to add tone and clarity while streamlining the process. For example, the image below is an assignment within a senior-level print production course I co-teach (50 students enrolled x 3 sections = 150 students). 

Students who don’t meet all requirements can resubmit their work using course “tokens.” I’ve found that allowing up to three resubmissions per course strikes the balance of flexibility with rigour. Interestingly, most students don’t use any tokens, but for those who do, the opportunity to revise and resubmit reinforces the value of iteration and growth.

Centering Humanity

“Imagine if we measured success by the amount of safety people felt in our presence.” – JL Dent.

I think about this quote often. It captures the essence of human-centred education and the fostering of safety I’ve experienced through implementing ungrading frameworks. Feedback from students who experience ungrading is overwhelmingly positive and while there’s an initial learning curve, students say they find the system more flexible and less stressful. 

Ungrading plays a significant role in allowing me to focus on what’s most important in the classroom (individual growth within a collaborative community) and de-emphasizes what’s less important in the classroom (a final grade for administrative purposes in the post-secondary system). 

Some might even say that ungrading is the greatest thing since sliced bread… but sliced bread was invented in 1928, while the aforementioned Betty White was born in 1922.

Ungrading is the greatest thing since Betty White.