The Grading Conference

Please note that all times are Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4).

• Wednesday, June 11

  11:00 AM — 12:00 PM EDT	Welcome and Conference Orientation
  12:00 — 1:00 PM EDT	Keynote: Asao Inoue On Liking and Labor in Writing Assessment: A Journey Toward Labor-Based Grading In this keynote, Dr. Asao B. Inoue shares a personal and reflective journey toward labor-based grading in college writing classrooms, offering stories and insights that invite educators to rethink how assessment works and for whom. Rather than prescribing a method, he traces key moments from his teaching and mentoring life that reveal the deep connections between grading, languaging, and justice. Through classroom experiences, student conferences, and transformative mentorship from scholars like Peter Elbow, he explores how traditional grading often undermines the very relationships and learning conditions that help students grow. At the center of the talk is a deceptively simple idea: liking students' writing matters. Dr. Inoue argues that centering labor—the effort students put into their work—rather than outcomes alone, offers a more ethical, equitable, and humane foundation for classroom assessment. Along the way, he challenges assumptions about fairness, rigor, and standards, showing how grading systems can either reinforce or resist larger patterns of injustice. This keynote offers not a solution, but an invitation: to imagine classroom spaces where judgment is shared, where risk and joy are possible, and where both students and teachers can truly their languaging.
  1:00 — 2:00 PM EDT	Meal Break
  2:00 — 3:00 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Labor-based and Contract Grading The Psychology of Alternative Grading: Helping Students Connect the Grading System to Course Concepts (Hannah Jardine) Hannah Jardine In this talk, I present an example of an alternative grading approach I applied in an undergraduate Psychology of Education course, and describe how I helped students connect the grading system they were experiencing to the course concepts we were learning. In this talk, I will first describe the alternative grading model that I used, which integrated aspects of labor-based and mastery-based grading. Then, I will share how I explicitly encouraged student discussion and metacognitive reflection, connecting the alternative grading structure to course concepts, such as Universal Design for Learning, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and theories about motivation. I will share anonymous student reflections about their experience with the alternative grading structure at the beginning, middle, and end of the course. The talk will conclude with recommendations for others aiming to support students’ metacognitive reflection on alternative grading, in education courses and beyond. Elevating Student Voices: Contract-Based Grading in Upper-Level Physiology Courses (Rachael Hannah et al.) Rachael Hannah, DeVaun Baker, Christopher Brown, Rhiannon Glover, Nader Munye In three upper-level physiology courses, students shaped their own progress through contract-based grading, centering their voices in teaching and learning. This talk explains the design, implementation, and outcomes, guided by educational change theory (Chang et al., 2023) and ungrading research (Hackerson et al., 2024). Traditional grading undermines equity by emphasizing grades over understanding (Inoue, 2019). Following bell hooks (1994), I replaced conventional assessments with flexible contracts that encourage engagement and collaboration. Applying change theory (Chang et al., 2023), I identified barriers, co-created student-developed contracts, and aligned personal goals with course outcomes. Learners chose from multiple assessment paths and refined work through iterative peer- and self-assessment, aided by reflections allowing timely strategy updates. Surveys and peer reviews revealed increased motivation, stronger metacognition, and deeper conceptual integration. Students appreciated the freedom to showcase mastery, noting peer evaluation fostered community—central to hooks (1994). Transparent communication, reflective feedback, and scaffolding sustained momentum; rubrics and structured support anchored the process. Students will share perspectives on timely feedback, clarity of expectations, and summative reflections that show a shift to seeing grades as a growth tool. Overall, contract-based grading—rooted in change theory—centered student voices, encouraged deeper learning, and cultivated an inclusive culture. Attendees will also receive strategies for implementation, including rubric design, peer feedback, and sustaining buy-in.	Research: Student Engagement and Career Readiness Linking Course Rigor with Learning Outcomes: How an Ungrading Assessment Model Increased Student Engagement (Claire Mayo) Claire Mayo In the past five years, the scholarship of teaching and learning has focused on linking learning outcomes with career readiness, which compliments wider shifts in higher education as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education now consider a university’s learning and employment records when awarding institutional rankings. This discussion has elevated ungrading assessment models like Linda Nilson’s Specifications Grading (2014) as a way by which to indicate mastery of learning outcomes. However, with the exception of digital learning fields, the conversation rarely turns to maintaining or elevating the rigor of the course in tandem with the emphasis on learning outcomes. Furthermore, while Nilson promises that Specifications Grading increases the rigor of the course, current scholarship on the ungrading assessment model focuses on implementing it rather than testing its effectiveness for maintaining or increasing course rigor. My study merges these conversations for a quantitative and qualitative study across two semesters to examine if the ungrading assessment model increases student engagement with the course material for a high level of mastery of the course’s learning outcomes. This study uses a mixed methodology with grounded theory and thematic analysis to analyze the work of 63 students across a sequence of general education courses in history. For this study, rigor is defined as a standard of excellence that students are equipped to meet through incremental learning outcomes that build and are reinforced throughout the semester. The results of this study show the frequency of student engagement with the course learning outcomes including the following: analyze primary and secondary sources in their historical context, recognize silences and absences in the archival corpus, identify ideology in historical argument, and implement their own arguments in response to the course’s central question. Food for Thought: Assessing Cooperative Grading in a Global Agriculture Capstone Course (Laura Cruz et al.) Laura Cruz, Noel Habashy Much of the work in global agriculture is collaborative and cooperative, so it seems fitting that upper-division, project-based capstone courses in the major should incorporate grading schema that are reflective of the relational dynamics that characterize these partnerships. The cooperative grading structure mirrors how professional performance reviews are conducted in the field, thereby further preparing students for future careers that address critical issues in global food security. For their capstone course, students participated in periodic, one-on-one discussions of their performance with their instructor, receiving qualitative feedback on their strengths and areas for improvement, in lieu of any other grades. Prior to each meeting, students ranked their performance using a rubric derived from a combination of course learning outcomes and career attributes (reported by employers in this sector). Their self-reported ratings then served as the basis for the conversation with the instructor. Both the criteria and the feedback emphasize intellectual growth and the lifelong practice of cultural humility. A mixed-methods study of the outcomes of the cooperative grading process indicates that students from two classes (n=22) initially resisted the approach but grew to appreciate the shift toward a more personalized, reflective assessment model. Using previously validated scales, pre- and post-survey results affirm the findings of prior studies, indicating significant differences (positively) in academic goal orientation (from extrinsic-performance to intrinsic-mastery) and beliefs about grades as motivators while also strengthening a sense of classroom community. A systematic review of student artifacts (including their self-ratings) affirms the shift towards intrinsic motivation, along with a stronger disposition of professional reflexivity in global contexts. The findings suggest distinctive contributions of global agriculture to the scholarship of upgrading.	Special Topics: Neurodiversity The Student Experience of Ungrading (Amy Ernstes) Amy Ernstes For my dissertation I have conducted qualitative research on the topic of ungrading. The research questions of my project specifically focus on the student experience of ungrading. To address these questions, I will utilize data from interviews that I conducted in the Spring 2023 semester. I conducted 99 interviews with 38 undergraduate students across the semester: one interview at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end of the semester (28 students completed all three rounds). These students were from six courses using ungrading practices in the Spring 2023 semester. I also conducted interviews with the teachers of these courses as well. My group of participants will allow me to focus on the student experience of ungrading with regard to three specific groups: neurodivergent students, first generation college students, and students who had negative experiences of ungrading. For analysis of these student experiences, I will be using bell hooks’ concept of engaged pedagogy as an analytic framework. I am currently working on the results section of my project, yet intend to have the results and analysis sections completed before the conference. I intend to have my analysis and conclusions ready to report for the conference. Tolerance for error: A theory of how (some) alternative grading methods can support neurodivergent students (Sarah Silverman) Sarah Silverman Neurodivergent people often think and communicate differently than neurotypical people, which can lead to miscommunications about expectations for assignments and assessments. This presentation is a theoretical exploration of the potential for alternative grading methods that integrate "tolerance for error," (a principle of Universal Design) to support neurodivergent students and instructors in situations where both accommodations and Universal Design for Learning fail to reduce barriers. The motivation for this research is that there are gaps in the two main available approaches to reducing barriers for neurodivergent students and instructors: accommodations and Universal Design for Learning. Accommodations are well known to have the drawback on relying on diagnosis and disclosure of a known disability (which not every neurodivergent student has access to) but also in locating disability in the individual. Universal Design for Learning builds flexibility in learning, but rarely addresses the communication differences that often create barriers for neurodivergent people. This presentation uses two elements of neurodiversity theory to argue for alternative grading methods that integrate tolerance for error, or elements that prevent adverse consequences for unintended actions or misunderstanding. The neurodiversity paradigm, which advances the idea that there is no one superior way of thinking or communicating is used to argue for collaborative grading that includes opportunities for dissonance between instructor and student perspectives. The double empathy concept, which is a neutral framing of communication challenges between neurodivergent and neurotypical people, is extended to suggest that alternative grading methods can support neurodivergent students and instructors by building in curious tolerance for communication issues such as misunderstanding expectations. Applications to collaborative grading, complete/incomplete grading, and other methods are reviewed.	Panel More Than A Workshop: Developing Sustainable Alternative Grading Practices (Carter Moulton et al.) Carter Moulton, Lauren Shumaker, Suzy Beeler, Shannon Mancus, Becky Swanson Making the shift from traditional grading to alternative grading can be overwhelming, frustrating, and isolating. While Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) play a crucial role in supporting faculty, programming often relies on one-off workshops that are difficult to sustain. Meaningful, long-term shifts in assessment require structured support, ongoing faculty engagement, peer mentorship, and a community of shared experimentation. Through book clubs, workshops, faculty learning communities, intensives, peer working groups, and assessment support, Colorado School of Mines has built a network of over 50 faculty and staff rethinking assessment and grading. This panel brings together faculty and educational developers to discuss strategies for fostering long-term faculty engagement with alternative grading, sharing lessons learned from our multi-year interdisciplinary implementation efforts. Faculty panelists from a range of disciplines will briefly (5 minutes) discuss their alternative grading initiatives, including mastery-based testing in mathematics, specifications grading in computational biology and project-based honors courses, and ungrading in humanities courses. Our panel will explore key challenges, joys, and motivations behind alternative grading adoption, as well as what makes for successful collaboration between faculty and CTLs. To frame this, we will draw on the four-part lens of "hub, incubator, temple, and sieve" (POD Network 2008) to highlight how teaching centers support faculty development and sustain alternative grading efforts. This panel is designed for faculty, faculty developers, and teaching center staff interested in moving beyond one-time workshops to foster sustained faculty engagement. Attendees will leave with insights into alternative grading implementation and practical strategies for building and sustaining faculty buy-in and community.
  3:00 — 3:30 PM EDT	Beverage Break
  3:30 — 4:30 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Standards-Based Grading 1 Using Revision to Allow Exploration (Josh Stangle) Josh Stangle Several years ago, I switched to standards-based grading (SBG) in all of my mathematics courses. I still use a hybrid version of SBG in my courses, and I think there are many advantages to clearly defined learning outcomes and multiple assessment points. I also believe that there is room for more open-ended assignments which ask students to reflect on when methods do not work, push them to apply the course content to new questions, and try novel problem-solving methods outside of the course "standards." In an effort to allow for this type of exploration and growth, but not overly tax students emotionally, I began using revision as a tool to stimulate conversation, encourage reflection, and allow students agency in their own grade. This talk will discuss my use of revisable Challenge Homework in lower- and upper-level mathematics courses. I will discuss lessons I've learned in implementing revisable assignments (including recommendations for other instructors), how they affect my and the student experience (based on conversations and student evaluations), and plans for future developments of the practice. Implementing a Hybrid Model of Standards-Based Grading in High School AP Mathematics Courses (Jason Elsinger) Jason Elsinger Standards-Based Grading (SBG) offers a powerful framework for assessing student learning but adapting it to a high school setting can present challenges, particularly when working within a rigid grading platform like PowerSchool (PS). After seven years of implementing SBG at the college level, I transitioned my approach to high school math courses, primarily AP-level classes. This transition required navigating structural constraints, such as the required weighted assignment categories in PS, necessitating a hybrid grading model. In this talk, I will share my experiences designing and implementing this hybrid SBG approach, including the strategies I have used to maintain the integrity of SBG while meeting high school grading policy requirements. I will discuss both successes and obstacles, drawing from assessment results, student performance trends, and instructor reflections. I will also discuss parent communication and classroom management, both aspects that play a larger role in the high school environment, and share recommendations for educators looking to implement SBG in similar contexts. Organizing a Proctoring Room for Reassessments across Coordinated College Algebra Classes (Derek Eckman et al.) Derek Eckman, Randa Kress, Jason Reed Idaho State University has spent the last four semesters implementing a standards-based grading system for our coordinated college algebra courses. As part of this system, we initiated a proctoring room where student workers proctor reassessments one day per week for college algebra attendees. In this presentation, we describe the logistical structure we constructed for scheduling reassessments and the communication mechanisms we created to keep instructors, students, and proctors in alignment. Specifically, we describe the structure of our Qualtrics-based survey form, the triggers and workflows that facilitate stakeholder communication, and our Google Sheet to track reassessment schedules, printing, and other logistical issues of our proctoring room. Our presentation is a practical demonstration of how instructors wishing to incorporate reassessments into their courses might approach the construction of a reassessment system in individual or coordinated courses.	Research: Student Perceptions Methods of Ungrading: Student Perceptions at a Small Liberal Arts College (Meg Steinweg et al.) Meg Steinweg, Elizabeth Parkins Traditional grading systems have faced scrutiny for undermining intrinsic motivation, fostering anxiety, and creating inequitable learning environments. As an alternative, ungrading has emerged as a progressive assessment practice that emphasizes qualitative feedback over quantitative scores. Despite its benefits, ungrading remains unfamiliar to many in higher education, leading to uncertainty. Adding to unfamiliarity and uncertainty are the several forms of ungrading, such as specification, mastery-based, grading for growth, and self-grading. Following an Ungrading (Blum, 2020) book club and community of practice we developed a research project to ask the question: What are student perceptions of ungrading and do those change over the semester? We surveyed students anonymously at the beginning and end of the Spring 2024 semester in 5 different courses that utilized some form of ungrading. In pre- and post- surveys students scored their level of anxiety with ungrading, satisfaction with traditional grading systems, level of control they felt over their own learning, level of control over their own grade, and their level of concern with ungrading. Overall there was no change in students' responses between pre- and post-surveys for level of control over their own grade, and their level of concern with ungrading with those scores being neutral. Students had a low level of concern regarding ungrading at the beginning of the semester (2.4± 0.09) but that concern decreased significantly at the end of the semester (1.7± 0.13, t-test, p<0.001), which was an expected finding. Few professors at our institution use ungrading, but exposure to it decreased student concerns. We are analyzing professor survey data and interviews to determine how professors talked about ungrading in their courses and if that is related to the student perceptions. Student Perceptions of Learning-Aligned Grading Practices (Melissa Ko et al.) Melissa Ko, Rachel Weiher Much research suggests that grades can be detrimental to the learning process, but how do students make sense of the different ways that instructors grade and which strategies do they identify as beneficial to their learning? We investigated students’ perceptions around what grades accomplish, how they are assigned, and how they affect students emotionally and materially. We surveyed these beliefs/perceptions and then conducted a series of focus groups with a pre-screened sample of UC Berkeley undergraduate students that represented a diversity of self-reported academic and social identities. Participants shared numerous examples of how the presence of grades influenced their behavior in courses and ultimately had neutral to negative impacts on their learning. Moreover, some approaches to designing assessment were perceived by students as particularly misaligned and unreflective of their learning and/or their current capabilities, while others were identified as positive framing/influences. These findings can inform instructors as they plan course-level assessments, by revealing how even subtle design choices or framing can have profound impacts on student beliefs and behaviors. Students’ Perceptions of Specifications Grading in Higher Education (Adriana Streifer et al.) Adriana Streifer, Michael Palmer, Jessica Taggart Specifications grading (aka specs grading) is an alternative grading system that emphasizes transparency, low stakes, student engagement and learning, and equity. It attracts practitioners for its potential to enhance student motivation and remedy several challenges of traditional grading. Specs grading is growing in popularity, and most literature on the subject addresses instructors’ experiences with implementation, and the impact on students’ grades and learning outcomes. Much less is known about students' perceptions of and experiences with it. Our research questions were: “What are students’ perceptions of specs grading both before and after they experience it?”, and, “How does specs grading impact students’ motivations to learn?” We examined students’ predicted and actual experiences of specifications grading across several semesters, courses, and disciplines at a research-intensive, public university in the United States. This presentation will describe the methods, results, and conclusions of our study. Data were collected using a pre/post survey, which included both Likert and open-ended questions. Most students expressed positive attitudes toward specifications grading both before and after experiencing it. Facets of motivation, including choice, value, and expectations of success, were important factors shaping students’ perceptions: students perceive specs grading to align their efforts to their resulting grades, to increase transparency, and to give them more choice and control over their work. Based on these results, we propose a set of recommendations for practice, both for instructors who wish to implement specs grading and for educational developers who support instructors in implementing efficacious and equitable grading practices.	Special Topics: Writing Assessment Finding Ways to Grade Creatively: Working Around Institutional Constraints and Values (Jennifer Gray et al.) Jennifer Gray, Stephanie Conner One challenge faculty often face is implementing unique grading activities when working within an institutional system that values traditional assessment practices. To work around these constraints, we created two different assessment experiences that both invite students into the assessment process and use existing traditional assessment artifacts expected by our institution, such as rubrics and grading scales, in more unique and student-centered ways. Our presentation shares the experiences, results, and artifacts from these unique grading moments. For most students, grading rubrics are concrete and established tools created before their exposure to assignment materials. This pre-established approach distances students from the process of discovery and critical thinking we seek to encourage. Instead of active participants in learning and creating, students might passively receive these assessment documents and robotically perform without engagement as they have had no agency in the assessment process. Speaker One will discuss a first-year writing course activity that invites students into conversations about what makes a paper fit into an A-F category. The activity involves reviewing a sample student paper during class time and then creating guidelines for each graded category. For example, we might discuss the concept of audience and detail as a component of a B-level paper. Speaker Two will discuss an activity for an upper-level literature course that asks students to develop their own rubrics for a project of their own design. Instead of just selecting topics, students also create their own evaluation criteria points. Session attendees will receive copies of artifacts. These experiences and artifacts represent ways to work within the imposed institutional assessment restrictions, but creates room for a negotiated experience for students to contribute to their own assessment devices and to experience the challenge and agency of crafting an assessment process. The Hidden Curriculum of Writing Assessment Literacy: How New Instructors Learn—and What They Need—To Assess Writing Equitably (Madeline Sutton) Madeline Sutton This session shares results from a qualitative research study that used narrative inquiry to explore writing assessment literacy, the sum of instructors’ writing assessment knowledge, beliefs, and practices (Crusan et al., 2016). Writing assessment shapes what students learn and how they develop writing ability, with lasting consequences for academic growth (O’Neill et al., 2009; White, 2009). New composition instructors, particularly graduate teaching associates (GTAs), often receive incomplete or inadequate training in writing assessment theory and practice (Saenkhum, 2020; Weigle, 2007), creating a significant gap between the importance of effective writing assessment and the often-minimal preparation instructors receive to deliver that assessment. To address this gap, this study examined how new GTAs developed writing assessment literacy. Blending research with practical implications, the talk introduces the construct of writing assessment literacy and shares the stories of eight GTAs who used equitable assessment practices during their first year teaching first-year writing courses. Results uncover prior writing assessment knowledge, investigate factors that impact whether and how writing assessment literacy evolves over time, and identify how assessment knowledge and beliefs inform assessment practices. Based on narratives and thematic analysis, the talk presents an expanded conceptual model for tracing writing assessment literacy development that emphasizes lived experience, prior knowledge, affect, and labor in teacher learning. I redefine the development of writing assessment literacy as literacy labor to draw attention to the material, intellectual, affective, and embodied dimensions of GTA development. I offer practical recommendations for teacher training and learning to foster the development of writing assessment literacy for new and experienced composition instructors.	Panel Empowering Graduate Teaching Assistants in Alternative Grading: Insights and Strategies (Jacob Adler) Jacob Adler Often in large enrollment courses students are divided into smaller sections to complete specific tasks, whether working on problem solving, written assessments/discussions, or completing laboratories. Frequently, these small enrollment sections have graduate teaching assistants that are instructing students. In the alternative grading classroom graduate teaching assistants may require specific training to be best prepared for the alternative grading course structure. There has been reports about instructors’ and students’ perspectives on alternative grading course structure; however, it is important that we hear from graduate teaching assistants that are present in these key course implementation roles. In this session we have a panel of graduate teaching assistants that have taught in alternative grading courses. Some prompts will be presented concerning graduate teaching assistants’ thoughts on alternative grading course design. We will discuss the importance for graduate teaching assistants of clear well-defined standards, mentorship, graduate student and student buy-in, and holistic-style rubrics with clear pre-prepared language. Audience participation is encouraged for a question-and-answer session with our panel.
  4:30 — 5:00 PM EDT	Beverage Break
  5:00 — 6:00 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Specifications Grading in Math A Change in Hybrid Grading Style As Applied in A Discrete Mathematics Course (Casey Sherman) Casey Sherman Over seven consecutive years, I taught seventeen sections of our Discrete Mathematics course, each with approximately 20 students. In the first three years (seven sections), specifications grading was used, where every question (homework and assessment) was graded on an EMRN scale, and breakpoints were provided for each version to earn various grades in the course. In the fourth year and on, I switched to using a hybrid system where each question was still graded on an EMRN scale but the homework and preparation assignments were scored as a limited percent of the course grade, and each assessment question was assigned a point value. This switch was made to both improve the clarity and acceptance of the system, and to `fix' grades where students were in awkward places as assigned by the previous rubric. This shift toward a slightly more traditional approach resulted in comparable final grade distributions while reducing student resistance to the grading system. I will present my reflections on the changes and explore the key decision points in these grading methods and discuss how they can be applied to similar courses. Decreasing Stress Using Non-traditional Grading Practices in a Math Education Course (Josh Mannix) Josh Mannix MATH 310 is a math education courses for elementary education and middle school math teaching majors at Ball State University. This course focuses on developing pre-service teachers’ conceptions of algebraic reasoning and how it manifests in the lower grades. In a world where algebra is often thought of as mathematics reserved for high school and beyond, this course can cause students to feel stress and anxiety, particularly as we work to change their ideas of what algebra is. In the course, we study topics like symbols and variables, patterns and generalization, expressions and equations, and functional reasoning. Students read articles, participate in discussions, complete tasks, and write lesson plans associated with each of these topics. When I designed this class, I knew that non-traditional grading practices would fit well with the discussion-based nature of the course. I chose specifications grading because it added a level of organization and clarity that was missing from a previous attempt to use non-traditional grading practices. In my version of specs grading, assignments earn a mark of complete or incomplete, and final grades are based on specified criteria. I decided what types of tasks I wanted to use in the class, determined what sort of criteria I would use to determine whether assignments were complete or incomplete, and created a table where students could see what they needed to do to earn certain letter grades in the course. Students responded well to this system, saying they felt less stress in this class because of the grading system. Some students said they could focus more on the content because they weren’t worried about points. I am still working on how to assess tasks for completeness while still maintaining a high level of rigor. I would recommend other instructors consider specifications grading for courses that require a significant amount of reading and discussion and where students might report feeling high levels of stress.	Research: Qualitative Work on Labor-Based Grading and Other Models "I'm not talking about it with anyone else": An Interactive Interview Protocol for Ungrading Thinking Partners (Megan Weaver et al.) Megan Weaver, Amanda Marzolf In this presentation, we spotlight a three-part interactive interview (Ellis & Berger, 2003) protocol used as part of a narrative inquiry examining how our practices of labor-based grading (LBG) influence our evolving teaching identities. For the narrative inquiry, we documented our experiences of coming to and implementing LBG through reflective journaling and analysis of teaching artifacts. Further, to help us understand what we might not fully recognize or yet know about our own experiences, we engaged in interactive interviewing. This method facilitated us in reflecting on ungrading in a more structured, accountable way—to have a formal thinking partner with whom we could explore emotionally charged topics and experiences (Renzetti & Lee, 1993) related to (un)grading. Through interactive interviewing, we found that the move toward ungrading doesn’t start with a tool (e.g., contract, rubric, syllabus); rather, it starts with the teacher. Therefore, this presentation addresses the following question: in what ways did the narrative inquiry project, itself, affect the ways we think about our grading ecologies? After a brief introduction of our initial research goal, we share how we came to, created, and employed our interview protocol, which we organized into three categories highlighting the temporality of our experiences within our pasts, presents, and futures: 1) Histories and Values of Teaching and Learning, 2) (un)Grading Practices, and 3) Experiences with Ungrading. Next, we discuss how the interviews, themselves, led to greater confidence in our ungrading practices and led us to consider how we develop joy, care, and boundaries for our work. We conclude by providing strategies for transformative discussion of (un)grading practices among colleagues, extending the important and necessary work of pedagogical reflection regarding assessment practices (Inoue & DeMint Bailey, 2023; Kelly-Riley & Whithaus, 2020). Alternative Grading Study (Serene Rodrigues et al.) Serene Rodrigues, Marina Milner-Bolotin, Firas Moosvi Grades have shaped the student experience for over a hundred years; appearing on homework assignments, exams and transcripts. These issues highlight the need for a grading reform in higher education. Alternative grading (AG) offers a promising solution by emphasizing formative assessment practices, including feedback, reassessment, and clearly defined rubrics [Townsley]. However, there is a lack of research on instructor perspectives on AG and existing research is largely based on specific AG implementations. In this qualitative research study, we used a phenomenographic approach [Akerlind_2025] to explore how university instructors experience and implement AG practices. Fifteen faculty members across disciplines at the University of British Columbia were interviewed about their AG practices, motivations, and perceived benefits and challenges. Using a pre-interview survey, we gathered contextual information on faculty rank, department, class size and course level. Additionally, we solicited course syllabi from instructors to explore how instructors at UBC structured their AG courses. The data was analyzed using thematic analysis and examined through the lens of emancipatory pedagogy and constructivist ways of teaching [Clark]. Preliminary results revealed diverse approaches to AG, each tailored to instructors' specific courses. While participants reported increased student engagement and a decrease in student stress, they also noted challenges such as increased workload and institutional constraints. We aim to provide valuable insights for educators considering the implementation of alternative grading (AG), making it more accessible while also advocating for further experimentation. In addition, we intend to publish the interview and analysis protocol so other institutions can conduct similar studies. By building on these findings, we aim to support the development of more standardized, evidence-based practices in higher education. Labor & Grades: Values, Beliefs, & Attitudes (Rochelle Rodrigo et al.) Rochelle Rodrigo, Josh Barrows, Sallie Koenig This presentation discusses the outcomes of a qualitative coding analysis using Saldańa's (2021) framework looking at students' beliefs, values, and attitudes around the concept of labor and grading. It further puts completion rubrics in conversation with labor-based grading practices in the context of online education, considering the move over the last decade to implement anti-racist and alternative assessment practices (Condon & Young, 2016; Inoue & Poe, 2012; Inoue, 2015; Inoue, 2019). Our research investigates student values, beliefs, and attitudes about labor in online environments, focusing specifically on 100- and 300-level writing courses. We aim to determine whether completion rubrics can serve as a viable alternative to traditional assessment practices, particularly in online settings that lack the synchronous components essential to many labor-based grading practices. We will share our qualitative coding scheme, the outcomes of our study, and possible future directions for research in this area.	Special Topics: Equity Evaluating the Equity of Dropped Score Policies in Higher Education (Robert Erdmann) Robert Erdmann In higher education, the practice of allowing a certain number of dropped scores—where missed assignments or poor quiz performances do not count against a student's final grade—has become increasingly common. Despite their prevalence, little research has been conducted on the equity of such policies. This study investigates whether dropped score policies are equitable across different student identities. Do dropped score policies provide a potential mechanism to address opportunity gaps? Do dropped scores facilitate a “rich get richer” dynamic, where high-performing students gain the largest benefits? What patterns are there to who benefits most from the policy? To explore these questions and hypotheses, data mining was performed on grade books from courses implementing dropped score policies. The analysis involved calculating hypothetical final grades without the dropped score policy and comparing them to actual final grades to assess the policy's impact on individual students. This data was then combined with demographic information to evaluate the equity of the policies. Preliminary results indicate that dropped score policies are generally equitable, with no significant disparities in impact across different identities. These findings suggest that instructors can use dropped score policies without contributing to inequitable outcomes in their courses. This research provides valuable insights for educators seeking to implement fair grading practices. Multiple Grading Schemes Especially Benefit People Excluded Based on their Ethnicity or Race (PEERs) in STEM Courses (Jayme Dyer et al.) Jayme Dyer, Chris Mansfield, Liz Bailey, Gavin Bell In STEM fields, persistent opportunity gaps remain between PEERs (People Excluded based on their Ethnicity or Race) and non-PEERs, despite widespread deployment of institutional initiatives designed to “fix the student.” Rather than focus on deficits in student preparation, institutional policies that may perpetuate systemic inequities are now being examined, including traditional grading. To improve equitable outcomes, in our community college Math and Physics courses we implemented a points-based grading policy we call Multiple Grading Schemes (“MGS”). We calculate grades using a weighted average (e.g. Homework is 20%, Quizzes are 20%, etc), but rather than have one grading scheme, we use three. Each grading scheme emphasizes a different aspect of the course; for example, one scheme weights homework more heavily, whereas another weights exams more heavily. At the end of the semester, each student’s grade is calculated using each scheme and they receive the highest grade. Using 6 semesters of final course grade data (n>3500 students), we asked what percentage of students benefited from MGS: we set one grading scheme as baseline and determined the percentage of students who received a higher letter grade in one of the other grading schemes. We found that a higher proportion of PEERs (13-16%) benefited from MGS relative to white students (10%) (p<0.05). We also asked whether MGS harms students by allowing some students to pass the class who are not prepared for subsequent courses. Comparing students who earned a C using the baseline grading scheme to those who only earned a C in one of the other schemes (i.e. they would have failed without MGS), we find that both groups of students have similar pass rates in subsequent courses. Providing multiple paths to earn higher grades appears to disproportionately benefit PEERs without causing harm. Thus, we argue that Multiple Grading Schemes may be one tool to improve equity in STEM persistence in higher education.	Panel Faculty Talking About Assessment: An Ungrading Community of Practice in Action (Amy Lee et al.) Amy Lee, Maggie Bergeron, Merle Davis Matthews As part of our ongoing work in a faculty development program in a large liberal arts college within a public R1 university, we have noted that participants are particularly interested in critically engaging in, reflecting on, and being supported to innovate their pedagogical framework for, and their material practices of, assessment and evaluation. Across the roughly 30 faculty who participate in annual, semester-long cohorts around equitable and inclusive pedagogy, participants have articulated both emergent, as yet unexamined but deeply felt senses, that their feedback and grading (not only how they do it but what aspects of the course they base it on) are bound up in inequitable and historical practices of sorting students rather than of supporting students and their growth. This reflects the current historical, social, and political conditions informing our work- the lack of safety for various visible identities in the current federal administration context; the increased reporting of loneliness, isolation, and mental health struggles; and the widespread availability of AI. We have found our participants increasingly interested to cultivate dispositions and to enact practices that have long been called for by critical pedagogues and which seek to center valuing of coaching, feedback, and engagement, and holistic assessment, rather than isolated and product-based evaluation. This Panel will gather Ungrading Teaching Fellows from the Spring 2025 cohort to speak to their experience developing a project that involves identifying an opportunity for alignment in an assessment practice and then creating a plan to develop and integrate this practice in a way that supports student learning and growth. The semester-long Teaching Fellows cohort supports instructors in thinking about their role as teacher, and how this impacts the way they design and facilitate assessment and feedback opportunities for students.
  6:00 — 7:00 PM EDT	Social Hour

• Thursday, June 12

  11:00 AM — 12:00 PM EDT	Welcome Back & Keynote: Eden Tanner General Chemistry as a Gateway Course through Alternative Grading What happens when you tell a group of 150 first year college students that they can take their exams an unlimited number of times? Dr. Eden Tanner—a tenure track assistant professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Mississippi—will share her experiences of alternative grading in general chemistry, with a particular focus on re-testing. She’ll share the highs—and lows—of her journey so far, the impact this has had on her students, and her broader quest to reimagine large introductory STEM classes as “gateway” courses to STEM careers.
  12:00 — 1:00 PM EDT	Meal Break
  1:00 — 2:00 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Alternative Grading in STEM From Napkin Math to Conference Talks: Assessments for Growth, Mastery, and Communication in Upper Level Mathematics Courses (Daniel Look) Daniel Look In the fall of 2024, I implemented an alternative grading system in my Introduction to Real Analysis course, an upper-level mathematics class at a liberal arts institution. This approach emphasizes growth, mastery, and communication, replacing traditional point-based grading with a “complete/not complete yet” framework that allows for revisions. Course assessments include weekly homework, portfolio problems, and oral assessments, each designed to reflect the stages of mathematical research, from brainstorming to polished presentations. Weekly homework represents the “napkin math” stage, encouraging exploratory problem-solving. Submissions must be substantial and majority correct, with opportunities to revise incomplete work. Students earn a base grade of 1.0 by completing all but two assignments. Portfolio problems simulate the publishing process. Students submit polished, typeset proofs in LaTeX that meet professional standards for mathematical writing. Weekly submissions are allowed, with unlimited revisions until completion, and students earn grade boosts for each successful submission. Oral assessments emulate conference talks, helping students transition from written to verbal communication. These assessments are carefully structured to reduce apprehension while ensuring students demonstrate their knowledge effectively. After three iterations, I have refined this system by scaffolding the rigor of portfolio problems and aligning assessment categories with departmental and institutional goals, facilitating administrative support. Students have responded enthusiastically, particularly valuing the focus on revision and process over outcomes. In this presentation, I will discuss the system’s implementation, highlight its strengths and challenges, and share student feedback and insights. Lab Write-Up Template to Master Science Literacy Skills (Melanie Newell) Melanie Newell The purpose of this session is to explore the potential benefits of reintroducing Lab Write-Ups in science courses at Estrella Mountain Community College (EMCC) as a means to enhance students’ science literacy under a competency-based assessment model. Lab Write-Ups provide an opportunity for students to share their data collection experiences, interpret results, and engage in scientific reading and writing. They also allow students to incorporate findings into their understanding of the natural world. While writing skills are often underemphasized in science education, they are essential for students pursuing science fields, as they will be required to write reports, correspondence, and publish in peer-reviewed journals. To support this initiative, a Lab Write-Up template has been created and shared among teachers and academic support centers at EMCC. Students are provided with the template for use in completing their assignments, and a peer review process has been integrated to encourage collaborative feedback. Results from a survey conducted at the end of the Fall 2024 semester for my CHM151AA and CHM130AA courses indicate that 86% of students found the Lab Write-Up format effective or somewhat effective in communicating their lab experiences. Student feedback highlighted the benefits of structured guidance in organizing thoughts, though some struggled with interpretation of data. Mastery of learning outcomes such as data analysis, error identification, and scientific communication showed varied results. Notably, students in CHM 151AA demonstrated higher mastery in identifying logical connections between principles and data, while students in CHM 130AA exhibited greater proficiency in effectively communicating findings. Overall, the implementation of Lab Write-Ups shows promise in improving mastery of science literacy skills, though further refinement of the process may enhance its effectiveness. Beyond Exams: Using Case Studies and Scaffolded Learning for Student Success (Sophia D'Agostino) Sophia D'Agostino Traditional exams often lead to student stress, disengagement, and prioritizing of memorization over meaningful understanding and application. In response, I developed a case study-based assessment model within my hybrid biology courses at CSU, designed to foster deeper comprehension, reduce anxiety, and provide students with real-world problem-solving skills. While implemented in a STEM course, this structured yet flexible framework is applicable across disciplines. This talk will explore an alternative grading structure that guides students through five key phases: Learn, Assess, Question, Apply, and Evaluate. Students engage with multi-modal resources, complete low-stakes participation assessments (with unlimited attempts), collaboratively pose and answer conceptual questions, and apply their knowledge through hands-on projects and case studies. By shifting away from traditional exams, this model enhances student engagement and confidence while maintaining academic rigor. Student feedback strongly supports this approach: "Traditional exams stress me out—this format actually makes me think!" and "I remember what I learned instead of cramming and forgetting after a test." Many students report greater conceptual retention, lower test anxiety, and improved critical thinking skills. However, implementation requires careful design, instructor investment, and is easier to manage in smaller classes — challenges that will be discussed in this session. Although my experience comes from a biology classroom, I believe this model is adaptable across disciplines. Whether in a literature seminar, history course, or engineering class, instructors can replace high-stakes exams with structured, real-world assessments that promote critical thinking and deeper learning. The goal is for attendees to leave with tangible, scalable ideas to implement alternative grading strategies in their own classrooms regardless of the class they support.	Research: Growth Mindset and Student Autonomy Students’ Perceptions of Learning Given Growth-Based Versus Traditional Grading in a Large-Lecture Biology Classroom (Hannah Kinmonth-Schultz) Hannah Kinmonth-Schultz Fear of failure in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) classroom can lead to student hesitancy to seek feedback or student disengagement in the form of missed classes, skipped answers on exams, or failure to turn in assignments. Growth mindset interventions emphasize a student’s capacity to improve with practice and show promise at diminishing disengagement. However, tracking improvement on specific objectives may be difficult in a large-lecture setting. Skills-based activities such as short-form written responses on a scientific data figure offer one method by which improvement can be easily tracked. We asked whether implementation of growth-based grading methods on a single assignment type in a large-lecture biology classroom would alter student perceptions of their general improvement in critical thinking, content knowledge and motivation in STEM compared to students who received traditional grading approaches. We used a quasi-experimental statistic control group post-test design and student responses to a researcher-developed reflection survey to assess students’ perceptions of their learning after receiving growth-based grading on consecutive short-form written responses. We noted an overall positive sentiment and emphasis on growth in the treatment group relative to the traditionally-graded control. Additionally, men perceived an overall greater improvement in content knowledge while women demonstrated greater STEM motivation than men in the treatment group. We showcase our intervention instrument as one example of how growth-based grading approaches could be implemented in a large-lecture setting. Offering Autonomy: Inviting Students to a Voice in the Grading of Writing (Sarah Lacy) Sarah Lacy Grading writing has long been an emotional experience for both the teacher and the student (Driscoll & Powell, 2016; Yu et al., 2021). In this presentation, I will discuss a new iteration of a pedagogical protocol I first outlined in a 2022 article called “Feedback Conversations (FCs),” which aim to lessen this tension by inviting students into the grading/feedback process. In my writing classes, a FC is an in-class activity in which students reflect in a metacognitive way on the feedback I provide to their writing during the grading process. I have since expanded these reflections by being more intentional by having students determine a revision plan for their next essay based on self-identified writing and learning needs, alongside a genre-based study of writing in their discipline. In this way, students can come to understand that their grade merely signals whether they followed the assignment instructions, and not an indictment of their ability to write “well.” My feedback practices aim to lessen the intensity of receiving a grade by offering the student a chance to work with my feedback and understand the grade they received, and pose questions to me with a focus on planning for future assignments. Additionally, by adding the discipline-specific research component to the course structure, my feedback now focuses less on only justifying the grade, and more on guiding students towards success in future compositions. These protocols also lessen my grading stress because I am affording myself the space to incorporate detailed lessons to each student in my feedback, outlining how they may navigate the revision process in order to become more confident writers. To showcase the efficacy of this protocol I will showcase examples from student work collected during an IRB approved study in Fall 2024, as well as provide example FC prompts and activities from instructors to adapt. FCs are for any discipline or course which employs writing as a means of learning.	Special Topics: Liberation Education and Pedagogical Dissonance Can My Teaching Practice be Rooted in Critical Race Feminism include Grading? A Critical Reflection on Pedagogical Dissonance (Silvia Vong) Silvia Vong One of the many challenges that may emerge for faculty that take a Critical Race Feminist approach to teaching in neoliberal institutions is pedagogical dissonance. The term pedagogical dissonance is the disconnect between educational praxis and one's identified praxis which results in feelings of tension or internal conflict. Through a critical exploration of Critical Race Feminist pedagogy, this session aims to identify how dominant grading practices create pedagogical dissonance that can pose challenges for the teacher and the students in classrooms that apply Critical Race Feminist approaches (e.g., use of storytelling, valuing lived experiences, etc.) to learning. This approach is rooted in centering student concerns, their own meanings, and finding their voice (Maher & Tetreault, 2001) which does not align with the dominant grading approach of assigning numbers and values. What is more challenging is finding a way to honor the personal experiences and insights of a student with an ethic of care, recognizing that assessment of human experience can itself be a kind of harm (e.g., gaslighting, etc.). This session will unpack ways to address these concerns that values and centers human experience and reflects on how to best engage with grading to minimize pedagogical dissonance. References: Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. T. (2001). The feminist classroom : dynamics of gender, race, and privilege (Expanded ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Misawa, M., & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2004). Examining feminist pedagogy from the perspective of transformative learning: Do race and gender matter in feminist classrooms? International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 12(1), 123-135. Questioning the Status Quo: Alternative Grading Dynamics/Processes in Higher Education and the Impact of Alternative Grading on Mental Health (Lexi Almy) Lexi Almy The classroom is a space ideally designed to disrupt and question the status quo of knowledge production and social responsibility. There is great potential for liberation in education, but we can still observe forms of subjugation, unquestioned obedience, constraint, and oppression. One place oppression shows up is in the traditional grading system. Grades have been shown to reduce risk taking, reduce creativity, be a major stressor, and increase anxiety. This two-phase research project based on teacher interviews and a student survey examined the impact and perceptions of alternative grading in higher education. Eighty semi-structured interviews were conducted with higher education teachers who have implemented alternative grading. They were asked how they define and practice ungrading, what impact ungrading has on stress, and mental health outcomes of college students and educators. Teacher interviews were coded and analyzed to inform the student survey along with direct feedback from participants via a collaborative GoogleDoc. Phase two was a Qualtrics survey disseminated to students who attended alternative graded courses across the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Europe. Students were asked about the benefits and challenges of alternative grading and traditional grading. In addition, they were asked questions about stress as it related to alternative and traditional grading. Qualitative responses were analyzed for this study, N= 370-445. The benefits of alternative grading for students proposed by teachers: reduction in stress, students focus more on learning than grades, more equitable, and students have more agency. Teachers often felt more fulfilled and provided a more equitable curriculum. Students responded with feelings of reduced stress, increased agency, and increased focus on learning over grades. In addition, students reported higher levels of stress in traditional courses when compared to their alternatively graded course.	Panel Graduate Teacher Training, Grading, and Feedback (Dan Martin et al.) Dan Martin, Kelly Wilbanks, Sheila Richardson, Emily Carter, Lydia Smaciarz The focus of this session is on using a role-reversal pedagogy to prepare graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) to provide labor-based grading in a first-year writing (FYW) course. A role reversal pedagogy asks GTAs to become the students they will teach and enroll in an online version of a first-year writing course they will teach. This approach can help GTAs develop a more empathetic and equitable approach to alternative grading. GTAs receive extensive feedback on the work they produce as a mock student that they can use as a model when they assess student writing. In this presentation, we start by providing an overview of how GTAs are prepared to assess and grade student writing. Then, four GTAs discuss their experiences learning how to grade and comment on student writing. They will discuss how they implemented the grading practices they learned, identify some of the struggles and triumphs for learning how to grade first-year writing, and note why they’ve been motivated to experiment with alternative grading practices. All of the GTAs are currently using alternative grading practices like grading contracts, portfolios, and reflection memos and will report on their experiences learning to use these approaches. This presentation will benefit WPAs, writing instructors, and grad students learning how to teach writing. WPAs can learn more about how GTAs learn to grade and assess writing and what motivates them to try alternative grading practices. Instructors and GTAs can learn more about developing alternative grading practices. This presentation will engage the following questions: How well does a role reversal pedagogy prepare GTAs to grade writing? What worked? What didn’t work? What motivates GTAs to use alternative grading approaches? What lessons did we learn from this preparation method?
  2:00 — 2:30 PM EDT	Beverage Break
  2:30 — 3:30 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Ungrading and Collaborative Grading Wading into Ungrading in the College Music Classroom: A Case Study (Deborah Rifkin) Deborah Rifkin College music courses develop listening and performance skills, which are traditionally assessed by individual performances in class. This can be a harrowing process for students because it requires application among peers of complex concepts in a time-pressured context. Assessments can be unreliable because of debilitating anxiety, which also damages a positive learning environment. To mitigate these problems, I changed to a portfolio approach, in which students submit videos of their performances. Assignments are tailored to a particular learning goal, which is explicit to the student. As students submit their videos, they comment on their learning process and development towards the learning goal. I provide feedback and at the end of each unit students submit a portfolio. For each learning goal, students comment on their development, cite their homework videos as evidence of their learning arc, and assign themselves a grade. Students report much less stress and anxiety, and the iterative metacognition focuses attention on learning, not grading. In addition, the portfolio can be tailored to the individual. While traditional assessments tend to reward students whose background conforms to what was typical of preparatory training of a few generations ago, the portfolio allows students whose experience is primarily in popular music or oral traditions to thrive. Despite these successes, there remain significant challenges. When musical skills are culturally recognized as a gift or an inherited talent, the idea that musicianship can be improved through an introspective practice can threaten beliefs and identities. In addition, students can be unreliable self-assessors, not recognizing errors. It helps to transparently and intentionally facilitate a new learning culture. Incorporating peer assessment could help students recognize errors, however this introduces the kind of stress and anxiety the portfolio was aimed at reducing. Ungrading in a lab-based course: How removing the focus on grades brought learning and engagement back to labs (Jeannette Byrne) Jeannette Byrne Considerable has been written about the potential negative impacts of grades on student learning. Blume (2020), Clark and Talbert (2023) and Kohn (2013). In response to these negative aspects of grades, alternative methods of assessing students are emerging (Blume 2020). One such approach is ungrading. While many definitions exist for ungrading, at their core is shifting the focus away from grades and onto student learning. In this presentation I will describe how I implemented ungrading in an advanced biomechanics course. This course, taken by a mix of kinesiology and biomedical engineering students, is a lab-based course. In previous iterations of this course, a focus on grades was negatively impacting student learning in the lab portion of the course. Despite many attempts to shift the focus back to learning, grades were always the focus for students. Four years ago, I adopted ungrading for the lab portion of the course. Rather than grading individual lab submissions, grades were replaced by student reflections and small group discussions related to the lab topics. Lab grades were ultimately determined by student and teacher, at the end of the semester. In this presentation I will describe how I implemented ungrading in these labs and share with you how it impacted my students and I. Student feedback on the experience suggested greater student engagement and learning. Many students talked about how removing grades meant they were no longer afraid of getting a bad mark. This resulted in them having the freedom to explore and just learn. The impacts on students were profound and impactful. Seeing these impacts fundamentally changed my approach to teaching in ways I could never have imagined four years ago. Seeing how students thrived when they were given an environment where learning was the focus made teaching joyful again for me. I look forward to sharing my (and my students) ungrading journey with you. Reflective Ungrading: A Collaborative Assessment Approach for Transforming Student Learning (Nicolas Cherone) Nicolas Cherone This presentation examines a novel "ungrading" approach implemented in an advanced acting class of ten high school students at Annapolis Area Christian School--a private, coeducational, faith-based K-12 school in Maryland. The method replaces traditional letter grades with a system based on reflective practice and collaborative assessment. It employs rich, individualized feedback, regular student self-assessments, and one-on-one conferences to empower students to take ownership of their learning. While this specific case study involves a theatre class, the process was adapted from Joy Kirr’s chapter in "Ungrading" (ed. S. Blum, 2020), which described an application in a middle school ELA context. Reflective and collaborative ungrading has potential applicability across diverse educational environments. Rationale: Shifting away from numerical scores toward qualitative, reflective feedback that emphasizes intrinsic motivation. Implementation: Detailed discussion of the design and structure of self-assessments and collaborative conferences. Outcomes: Preliminary results highlighting enhanced student engagement, deeper reflective practices, and valuable instructor insights. This session offers practical recommendations for educators interested in rethinking traditional grading systems and creating a learning environment that prioritizes continuous improvement and authentic understanding.	Classroom Case Studies: Specifications Grading Specification grading for the age of AI: The case of a Senior Seminar in Psychology AI-infused course (Iva Katzarska-Miller) Iva Katzarska-Miller The presentation will discuss the implementation of specification grading for a Senior Seminar in Psychology AI-infused course. In the current age of AI with students’ acceptance of using AI generated academic work inappropriately (McMurthie, 2024), traditional grading methods seem outdated in motivating students. At the same time students need to develop the necessary AI literacy to be able to use AI tools ethically and effectively. Combining the two considerations, the Senior Seminar course in Psychology asked students to use in specific ways two AI tools: ChatGPT and Elicit, and reflect on the utility of the tools for the assigned tasks, while specification grading was used. After a brief description of how AI was infused in the course, I will discuss the grading for the course. Every assignment for the course (6-step scaffolded APA style literature review paper, leading classroom discussion, reading journals, and self-evaluation of engagement) were graded as complete/incomplete using rubrics with specific criteria (each criteria also marked as complete/incomplete). For each class component, students were provided with tokens for late work or work that had earned an incomplete. At the end of each week, students used physical stickers to put on a “power disruptor quest map” for each component that they have earned complete marks along with used tokens. Final grades were determined based on bundles contacting a certain number of assignments for a specific grade. I will discuss students' responses to the grading system, my observations about the impact of the grading system on students’ motivation and learning, and considerations for improvement. Beyond the Final Exam: Improving Retention of Evidence-Based Medicine Skills with Alternative Grading (Laura Fox) Laura Fox Retention of evidence-based medicine (EBM) decision-making skills is essential for success in coursework and assessments throughout the pharmacy curriculum. However, traditional assessment methods often fail to support long-term learning. In response to persistently low performance on EBM evaluations, a PharmD biostatistics course was redesigned using a combination of specifications grading for coursework and standards-based grading for exams. The new structure emphasized frequent practice, self-assessment, and reassessment, shifting the focus from point accumulation to mastery learning. This quantitative study evaluates the impact of the grading schema on retention of learning gains by comparing performance on standardized assessments across multiple years before and after course redesign. While students showed no difference in item scores during the course, they demonstrated substantial gains when assessed five weeks later in a follow-up course, with correct response rates increasing by an average of 19 percentage points across learning outcomes. The greatest improvements were seen in calculating number needed to treat (+38 points) and determining the appropriate statistical test (+35 points). Gains were sustained at fifteen weeks on a high-stakes competency exam, with average retention increasing by 15 points post-redesign, including a 31-point improvement for number needed to treat. Student perceptions of the grading model were highly positive in 2024, with 93% agreeing that the system provided clear expectations, fair goals, and increased control over their learning. Additionally, 100% of students felt the grading system afforded them autonomy. This session will discuss the impact of grading reform on course design, coordination across sequential coursework, and retention of learning gains. Practical considerations for communicating course redesign and managing reassessment logistics, as well as their influence on student perceptions, will also be explored.	Research: Alternative Grading in Chemistry How Equitable is Specifications Grading? An Analysis in a Large Enrollment General Chemistry Laboratory Course (Brandon Yik et al.) Brandon Yik, Lisa Morkowchuk, Lindsay Wheeler, Josipa Roksa, Haleigh Machost, Marilyne Stains Specifications grading has been proposed as an alternative grading method to better promote student success over traditional grading schemes. Within the chemistry community, specifications grading has been growing in popularity over the last decade as demonstrated by the rise of publications and conference talks. While several studies describe shifts in the final grade distribution as a result of the implementation of specifications grading, no study explores the differential impact on students of different social identities. In this study, we analyze over 9,700 final course grades of a year-long general chemistry laboratory course under both traditional and specifications grading schemes. Data are analyzed by individual students’ social identity (i.e., sex, generation status, underrepresented minority status, and transfer student status) and students’ intersectional identities using intersectionality theory. Our results are mixed and conflicting. More systemically minoritized students pass these courses with high grades under specifications grading, but opportunity gaps between systemically minoritized students and their systemically advantaged counterparts remain. The results of this implementation show that the impact of specifications grading on students is complex and that much still needs to be understood about students’ experiences with different grading schemes and their impact. Understanding the Move to Specifications Grading in Chemistry Education (Marilyne Stains et al.) Marilyne Stains, Ying Wang, Haleigh Machost, Brandon Yik Extensive empirical evidence shows that traditional grading systems (A-F grades; 100% scale) fail to accurately reflect student learning and reinforce systemic inequities in education. In response, grading reforms like ungrading and alternative grading have emerged, gaining popularity among STEM college instructors. Specifications grading, formalized by Linda Nilson in 2015, focuses on criterion-referenced evaluations and mastery of course content. Its adoption has rapidly increased, particularly among chemistry instructors, as evidenced by the rise in related symposia and peer-reviewed articles. However, chemistry instructors' motivations for shifting to specifications grading is unclear. Insight into their motivation can provide valuable information for the further dissemination of this grading scheme. This qualitative study investigates the reasons behind chemistry instructors' adoption of specifications grading. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 chemistry instructors from 24 U.S. academic institutions currently using this alternative grading method. The interviews aimed to understand their perceptions of the benefits of specifications grading, their dissatisfaction with traditional grading, and the challenges they face in implementing this approach. Our findings reveal that instructors adopted specifications grading primarily to address their dissatisfaction with traditional grading. They frequently cited perceived benefits such as enhanced student learning gains and increased flexibility for students. This work provides valuable insights for future dissemination efforts aimed at STEM instructors who are considering implementing specifications grading. Specifically, to encourage broader adoption, dissemination efforts should emphasize how perceived benefits, even if not yet empirically supported, align with instructors’ dissatisfaction with the status quo and relate to their real-world needs and aspirations for their classroom. Investigating Grading Systems in Undergraduate Chemistry Education (Elizabeth Vaughan et al.) Elizabeth Vaughan, Nicole James Education literature suggests that traditional grading methods have been linked to increases in student anxiety, decreases in motivation to learn, and increases in competitiveness among classmates. Alternative grading methods are gaining popularity due to their potential to mitigate these effects, however, little is known about the impact that alternative grading practices actually have in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Toward this, here we investigate the use and impact of alternative grading methods in undergraduate STEM courses. Guided by self determination theory, self-efficacy theory, and teacher-centered systemic reform theory, we investigate chemistry student and faculty experiences with grading methods through cognitive interviews and analysis of course artifacts (e.g., syllabi) to address the following research questions: 1) How do chemistry students perceive the grading structure in their courses? 2) How do students perceive aspects of their course grading structures to impact their self-efficacy and motivation in the course, if at all? 3) How do chemistry instructors describe the grading structure in their courses? 4) What factors influence instructors' choice of grading method, and how? This presentation will include a discussion of the findings generated from student interviews, faculty interviews, and course artifacts, as well as the alignment (or lack there-of) of themes identified from each data source. By considering alternative grading practices in STEM courses from a variety of angles, these results will provide useful insights to both discipline based education researchers and practitioners about alternative grading methods.	Panel Student Views on Alternative Grading Systems (Katherine Mattaini) Katherine Mattaini Instructors in the alternative grading community often discuss how to adapt evaluation methods for their particular student population, and yet, The Grading Conference rarely features many voices of some of the biggest stakeholders in the grading reform movement: students themselves. This session will be a panel of students who have taken at least one alternatively graded course in higher ed, recruited from across various disciplines, institution types, and methods of alternative grading. Students will be asked to answer several questions provided to them ahead of time, and they will have the opportunity to address questions from attendees. Some questions might include: What were the major pros and cons of the alternative grading system you experienced? Please consider both your own experience and that of others in the class. How did your instructor communicate with you about their alternative grading system, and how do you think that impacted your & other students’ experience with it? How did the alternative grading system in your course affect your motivation to do work for the course, if it did at all? Please also consider the experience of other students in the course. What advice would you give an instructor thinking of converting their course to a form of alternative grading?
  3:30 — 4:00 PM EDT	Beverage Break
  4:00 — 5:30 PM	Workshop Mastery Assessment Pedagogy with the Mastery Learning App (Rebecca Torrey et al.) Rebecca Torrey, Tim Hickey, Keith Merrill, Ella Tuson Are you interested in learning about Mastery Grading? Or are you interested in trying Mastery Grading but are intimidated by the setup? This workshop is for you. From this workshop, participants will come away with: 1. An understanding of Mastery Assessment Pedagogy (MAP), and 2. Their own custom course in the Mastery Learning App (MLA) The MAP approach uses backward design where the course grade depends on the number of learning objectives mastered by the student. Each exam provides a challenging problem for each of the objectives introduced so far. The exam problems are graded Mastery/NotYet. We will show how the MAP approach incentivizes students to adopt effective study strategies while minimizing their stress, as well as aligning with many other pedagogical best practices. Participants will redesign all or part of their own course using the MAP approach. The MLA is an open-source app custom-designed and programmed by Dr. Hickey to support the MAP course structure. The software allows instructors to import and customize skill lists and problems from pre-existing courses. Workshop participants will get to create their own course on the app, import materials from an existing course, create exams, generate personalized exams, grade the exam and upload the grades into the app. The M.A.P. approach was introduced and analyzed for Computer Science courses in the dissertation Dr. Tuson. It has been used to teach PreCalculus, Calculus, and Integral Calculus by Drs Torrey and Merrill, and has been used by Dr. Hickey to teach Discrete Math. All of these courses were taught at Brandeis University in the past 3 years. The target audience is anyone who is teaching a class where each learning objective could be assessed using a single challenging question for that objective. We will guide participants through the setup of their own course using MAP with MLA. This workshop has no prerequisites, but participants will use a laptop and a smartphone.	Workshop Thinking Critically About Grading: A Values-Based Approach (Leigha McReynolds et al.) Leigha McReynolds, Alexandra Harlig This workshop offers participants the opportunity to re-think and re-structure their grading and assessment practices to better align with their pedagogical values. After completing this workshop participants will have: identified their pedagogical values, brainstormed alternative approaches, and identified a change to make in their classes. While this workshop assumes that participants will have a basic familiarity with alternative grading terms, it is geared toward teachers who have not yet implemented these practices, and are looking for help in thinking about how alternative grading would best fit their own teaching needs. Both of the workshop leaders have several years experience with alternative grading in their own classes – including labor-based contract grading and ungrading – and have offered alternative grading workshops for their department and their university through the Teaching and Learning Center. The workshop will begin with a reflection on relationships to grading, have a brief lecture about the key values of alternative grading, and then give participants time in several activities – including breakout room discussions, time for independent work, and general Q&A – to work through and implement the material. Participants should leave with a better sense of how to make decisions about their own grading practices and one specific change to make in their teaching.	Poster Review Poster Review Participants are invited to peruse conference posters on their own in advance of the poster session with presenters. The poster session begins at 5:00 pm Eastern time.
  5:00 — 6:00 PM EDT	Poster Session
  6:00 — 7:00 PM EDT	Social Hour

• Friday, June 13

  11:00 AM — 12:00 PM EDT	Welcome Back & Keynote: Jeff Anderson Letter grades cause learning cancer… What might we do instead? What would you say about a medical industry that requires doctors to prescribe cigarettes to patients while claiming this practice is a necessary part of health care? Of course, we might be disgusted by such a requirement. We expect doctors, hospitals, and the entire medical industry to be familiar with research that shows the link between cigarettes and cancer. Sadly, we have no comparable expectations for teachers and schools when it comes to letter grades. As a society, we have 100+ years of scientific research that documents that letter grades cause learning cancer. However, far too many teachers, administrators, and institutions are completely unaware of this research. In fact, we work in a system that requires teachers to put learning cigarettes into the mouths of our students. In this talk, we explore ideas about what we might do instead. Specifically, we invite participants to develop your identity as research educators so you can learn to map every decision you make about teaching policies back to empirically validated, research-based theories of learning that justify those decisions. We also think about institutional changes that might better support such a shift away from systems that uphold wealth supremacy towards schools that support learning.
  12:00 — 1:00 PM EDT	Meal Break
  1:00 — 2:00 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Standards-Based Grading 2 4 Years of Iterating My Alternatively Graded Classes (Luvreet Sangha) Luvreet Sangha In this talk, I will discuss how I have iterated on my standards-based graded (SBG) courses since I first adopted it in 2021. I have implemented SBG in 10 different classes (classes of <40 students) at Santa Clara University and UC Berkeley. I will describe the mistakes I made in early implementations (e.g. too many learning objectives, too many reassessments) and how I addressed these. I will share strategies to (1) avoid my mistakes (2) have a successful first implementation (3) create a sustainable workload (4) iterate your alternatively graded classes Building Content Knowledge and Positive Learning Habits in a Small Introductory Physics Class (Kelley Sullivan) Kelley Sullivan In this talk I describe a standards-based grading system that I use in a small class of first-semester physics majors at a mid-sized comprehensive college. The course structure provides students with opportunities for preparation through “pre-flight” reading and quizzes, participation through a variety of in-class activities, and practice through weekly homework sets. Work geared toward learning is either not included in the grade, counted for completion only, or rolled into an engagement credit system. Students earn engagement credits by choosing from a menu of activities that support their learning including attending class, completing pre-flights, seeking help outside of class, completing optional homework problems and post-lab activities, and engaging in metacognitive reflection. Anonymous survey responses reveal that the engagement credit system encouraged a majority of students to complete the pre-flights and attend class. A smaller number of students reported that the credits pushed them to seek help or complete extra practice. A variety of credit options is key to supporting diverse student needs. Students demonstrate their understanding of each content standard two times, first on a quiz covering a single standard and second on an in-class midterm covering multiple standards. Quizzes are marked as satisfactory or revise. Exam standards are marked as Exemplary, Solid, Progressing, or Not Yet. Students can revise or reassess standards to improve their marks. Anonymous survey responses reveal that students find the quizzes useful for assessing their understanding of the material and the revisions helpful for improving their understanding. A clear system for assigning and collecting revisions is essential for timely student reflection. This system works well for a small class and promotes content understanding and the development of supportive learning habits. Some practices are scalable and can be applied to other disciplines.	Special Topics: Artificial Intelligence and Grading Joy Against the Machine: Assessing Writing in the Age of AI (Elizabeth Kubek) Elizabeth Kubek The landscape of “AI” is evolving so rapidly that it seems almost impossible to respond in an informed manner. We are told how essential it is that students know how to use AI, a term which embraces a range of models, agents, and embedded applications. Given all of this, what does it now mean to teach and evaluate “writing”? One thread we can follow is provided by “reverse design” SLO-based assessment. But what do outcomes look like when the process students are using (prompt writing) is dialogic, and the interlocutor is also a proofreader and reference “source”? Can we align authentic processes with this parasocial mode of assisted writing, transparently and in a way that supports AI literacy? If AI agents can demonstrate proficiency, our emphasis should shift to process-based criteria. At the same time we must teach students the essential limits of AI, including linguistic and “reasoning” biases. AI literacy can start with examining practices recommended by the Open Source Initiative, which include users’ ability to see and modify data, code, and parameters used to build and train the system (https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition). We "see" training when a question is asked of a given AI agent (chatbot) with the stipulation that its “reasoning” be visible. Knowing the training instructions of an agent allows us to discern its biases. Valid outcomes should be that students learn to assess and use AI in a manner consistent with project goals; practice modes of writing based in goals they themselves select; and develop individual voice and discernment, thus reducing motivation to rely on AI guidance. The proposed rubrics and assignments are currently in use in my classes, with assessment built into student self-reflections. I hope that these methods will help students reclaim writing as a joyful process where they themselves develop as agents. The good and the bad of using AI grader (Martin Cenek) Martin Cenek In recent years, generative AI tools have made great strides in quality, availability, and reliability, enabling a wide range of applications that automate many daily tasks. The disruptive nature of these technologies is felt across all levels of education, driving personalized instruction, broadening access, refining curriculum delivery, and fostering critical thinking. Automating the assessment of student learning outcomes is no exception—grading student work can now be powered by generative AI. We present our findings and reflections on deploying an AI grader in a college-level computer science laboratory course. Instead of using a large language model (LLM), we used and trained a small language model (SLM) to assess achieving learning outcomes submitted by students as short answers. The SLM also allows for running the AI grader system on a consumer level hardware, while the performance of the SLM matches the accuracy of a LLM to evaluate student’s short answer responses. The structure of questions and responses graded by the SLM did not suffer from bias of using LLM to grade long assay questions. We report lessons on when automated grading excels and identify scenarios in which bias and accuracy limitations hinder its effectiveness.	Workshop Creative Solutions for Feedback and Assessment of Student Writing (Christina Michaud et al.) Christina Michaud, Amy Bennett-Zendzian Walk with us through an intersectional process identifying your particular challenges effectively responding to students’ writing (emotional labor? disabilities? time? institutional constraints?). Reflect with peers and explore creative approaches to feedback and/or grading. Together, we will brainstorm strategies for maximizing your use of (un)grading conferences, and more. Our audience is instructors of writing-intensive courses, primarily though not exclusively in the humanities/social sciences. Though we love reading students’ writing, we acknowledge the emotional and physical challenges of assessing students’ work. When we feel crushed under the labor of feedback and grading, our capacity for flexibility and generosity is reduced. How can this burden ease? We approach this workshop as instructors with decades of experience in diverse classrooms. Our particular situations led us to rely heavily on conferencing for offering feedback to students–not simply on drafts for formative feedback, but also final conferences, for summative feedback, or grades. We guide participants to consider their particular situations, preferences, biases, limitations (physical, emotional, and/or institutional), and goals, in order to help them refine—or redefine—their own feedback processes. Our workshop is interactive. We start with a Mentimeter to elicit frustrations of assessing writing. Discussion centers participants’ own experiences and identities, leading to a reflective exercise to consider moments of joy in their own teaching, and their own values as teachers. Next, we explore the frameworks of critical validity inquiry (Perry, 2012) and queer validity inquiry (West-Puckett, Caswell, & Banks, 2024) as possible ways to reconsider our approach to feedback, reconceptualizing failure both on the part of student writers and ourselves as assessors. We spotlight the use of ungrading conferences, and briefly introduce research on the value of dialogic feedback.	Panel The Other Side of the Gradebook: Student Insights on Transforming Grading Practices (Daniel Guberman) Daniel Guberman As alternative grading has expanded, discussions through blogs and social media, scholarly articles, conferences, and books, have focused on instructor experiences and perceptions. Yet, most arguments in favor of alternative practices emphasize potential benefits for students. As a community, we have done an insufficient job of inviting students into discussions, particularly inviting students not as subjects but as partners and co-creators of new practices. This panel contributes toward remedying this issue by bringing students who have been engaged in discussions and projects related to alternative grading during the spring 2025 semester into discussion with conference attendees. The panel will draw on a class of 15 students enrolled in a scholarly project course titled (Un)Grading at a large research intensive public university in the United States. The students in this course explored alternative grading systems by examining relevant literature and real-world examples in addition to interviewing peers and faculty. They discussed and debated practices, benefits, and drawbacks from multiple perspectives, including disciplinary differences, mental health considerations, and overall well-being. They identified opportunities to implement changes in individual classes and advocate for broader systemic reform. Each student developed and presented an individual or paired scholarly project focusing on a variety of topics related to grades and grading (such as exploring curving practices, examining well-being associated with honors programs, and looking at emerging structures that provide professional credentials for certain course grades). Drawing on these experiences and projects the members of the student panel, which will be facilitated by the course instructor, will share their own perspectives and projects while responding to questions from attendees. When possible they will also make their scholarly projects available to the attendees.
  2:00 — 2:30 PM EDT	Beverage Break
  2:30 — 3:30 PM EDT	Classroom Case Studies: Hybrid and Specialized Grading Models Encouraging scientific practice with alternative grading (Jennifer Fishovitz) Jennifer Fishovitz In this talk, I will discuss how I implemented a specifications/contract hybrid grading system in an upper-division advanced biochemistry course. One goal of this course is to have students practice being scientists: reading and analyzing literature, sharing results with others, and pursuing topics they are interested in learning more about. Traditional grading made it difficult to balance this goal with equitable grading. Recently, I have shifted to a grading system that is more focused on increasing intrinsic motivation of students and providing them with greater autonomy and choice than the traditional grading system. In this alternative grading system, students are guaranteed a “B” in the course if they satisfactorily complete a set of core assignments, with opportunities for no-penalty revisions. Higher grades can be earned by completing “level-up” activities that are evaluated based on effort and reflection. While the core assignments focus on their understanding of biochemistry, the level-up activities encourage them to take risks and learn new things that will benefit them in their professions as scientists or doctors and in their lives as citizens of a global community. I will share feedback from the students in the form of written reflections and survey data about factors of intrinsic motivation and autonomy and lessons learned for using this type of grading system in future iterations of this course and others. Student Outcomes from a Post-Semester Course Extension Program in Multiple Mathematics Courses (Edgar Fuller et al.) Edgar Fuller, Roneet Merkin, Jeremiah Hower At Florida International University, we developed a process to extend certain mathematics courses beyond the end of a regular semester for close-to-passing students. These ‘stretch’ sections give students several weeks to build on their current knowledge, demonstrate proficiency, and possibly pass the course for which they were originally enrolled. This opportunity is at no cost to the students, allowing them to avoid retaking a course and potentially alleviating some of the time constraints on students that typically lead to failure. Initially offered as an extension to a standards-based grading Pre-Calculus and Trigonometry course, the stretch sections are now offered at the end of each semester to students in College Algebra, Calculus 1 and 2 as well. The stretch sections utilize peer learning assistants, small group work and active learning to help reinforce knowledge. Approximately 500 out of the more than 5000 students taking these four courses make use of the opportunity every year. In our session, we will discuss the motivation behind the stretch courses along with the steps involved in their creation. We will compare and contrast this program to other existing interventions that use course extension to increase student success such as two-semester equivalents, prerequisite and corequisite models. Data presented will show student success not only in the primary course, but in the next course as well. We will also discuss the resulting impact on the university at large, concluding with a collection of lessons learned and suggestions that other institutions could use when implementing a similar course structure for their students.	Research: Standards-Based Grading (and other models) in Context Standards Based Grading and Traditional Grading Went Head to Head and the Results are IN! (Sharona Krinsky et al.) Sharona Krinsky, Robert Bosley In this talk we will present the results of two different grading implementations across a tightly coordinated Quantitative Reasoning Course with a large number of small sections and many instructors. In Fall 2024 we ran half of our sections using a points-and-percentages based grading system with category weights while the other half of the sections used standards-based grading. Given the tight coordination of the course, all sections were on the same pacing guide with the same iClicker materials, same quizzes, and use of the pillars of clearly defined learning outcomes, looking for evidence of learning and eventual success matters. We will present the similarities and differences between the way the two sets of sections ran as well as the results, including pass rates and grade distributions. We will also discuss the impact of non-grade related changes that were included in the points-and-percentages grading system, including reflections on why these changes were incorporated and where we might need additional work to separate grading from assessment practices and articulate best practices in each for future iterations of the course. This course is run at a 4-year large public minority-serving institution in California. A Literature Review on the Application of Standards-Based Assessments: How Does This Apply to Technology Courses? (Ruth Lamprecht et al.) Ruth Lamprecht, Jonathan McCurdy This talk presents the results of a literature review on the application of standards-based assessments (SBA), with a focus on technology courses. The authors have implemented SBA in a collection of computer science, data science, and cybersecurity courses for undergraduate students. As part of the methodological approach to using SBA, a literature review was conducted on alternative grading methods. Published works related to research in computer science education, general alternative grading practices, and specifications grading were analyzed to gather insights into how best to utilize these assessment options, specifically in technology classes. While there is a wealth of research on the broad use of alternative grading and a significant focus on STEM classes, there was little found that focused solely on the computer science, data science, and cybersecurity areas. These areas are unique in their use of technology, where students are expected to use the technology, generally in environments where there is easy access to solutions to the problems presented. As artificial intelligence becomes better and more prolific, this talk emphasizes the need for more research and published resources on how alternative grading can be used to improve student learning in technology courses in a fair and reliable manner. Exploring Alternative Grading Systems: Impacts on Motivation, Engagement, and Stress (Melanie Butler) Melanie Butler This talk examines the effects of three alternative grading systems—specifications grading (specs), standards-based grading (SBG), and ungrading—on key student outcomes such as motivation, engagement, stress, enjoyment, and perceptions of fairness. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative data collected over three semesters across mathematics, computer science, and statistics courses, I will present a comparative analysis of how these systems shape student experiences. Highlights include findings that SBG significantly boosts motivation and engagement, with 95% of students reporting it encourages learning through mistakes. Specs grading was praised for transparency, though partial credit issues arose, while SBG's flexibility was lauded despite some logistical hurdles. Ungrading emerged as a unique approach fostering autonomy and collaboration, contributing to a low-pressure, mastery-focused environment. The discussion will emphasize practical trade-offs between systems, offering actionable insights for educators aiming to align grading practices with diverse learner needs. The session concludes with recommendations for integrating the strengths of each system and considerations for future research on long-term impacts and faculty training.	Panel Alternative Grading and Motivation Structures at a STEM Institute (Sarah Riddick et al.) Sarah Riddick, Melisssa Kagen, Courtney Kurlanska, Gbetonmasse Somasse, Carly Thorp This panel presents an interdisciplinary group of instructors who are experimenting with alternative grading methods at a STEM-focused institute that uses a quarter system with 7-week courses, requires no prerequisites, and does not assign grades lower than a C. Panelists’ grading approaches use a combination of specifications-, standards-, and portfolio-based assessment across a variety of undergraduate courses and research projects. Panelists will speak to the challenges of motivating students in both STEM and non-STEM disciplines in courses that use alternative grading. This panel is relevant to instructors who are interested in experimenting with alternative forms of grading in their classes and who, more broadly, are interested in discussing how variations in student motivation across disciplines can affect alternative grading’s effectiveness. Panelists will reflect on the following questions by sharing specific examples and experiences from their respective courses and disciplines: “Why are you using alternative assessment?” Panelists will discuss their teaching motivations and values, including from the perspectives of their different disciplines. “How are you using alternative assessment?” Panelists will each provide a specific example of how they are using alternative assessment in one of their courses. “How has your particular alternative grading structure motivated (or failed to motivate) the students you teach?” Panelists will share their successes and challenges (e.g., designing effective assignments, rubrics, and systems; managing logistics; responding to unexpected student events and/or extenuating circumstances). “What are your concerns about student motivation, from the perspective of your discipline in the context of a STEM-focused institute?” Panelists: Sarah Riddick (Chair), Rhetoric & Writing; Melissa Kagen, Interactive Media & Game Design, Courtney Kurlanska, Global Studies; Gbetonmasse Somasse, Economics; Carly Thorp, Statistics.
  3:30 — 4:00 PM EDT	Closing Session