Inspired by the work of Jesse Stommel, I generally adopt a "gradeless" grading policy. As a teacher, I am less concerned with students' grades as I am with their learning. Students care about grades because our culture and institutions often (in effect, at least, if not in practice) conflate grades with merit and knowledge acquisition. More often than not, however, this rewards those who started with more knowledge or experience and doesn’t usually reflect personal progress, growth, or learning.

​

I focus on qualitative not quantitative assessment. In other words, the grade students receive is not be based on “objective” external measurements so much as by a subjective and holistic self-evaluation. I do not be grade individual assignments, but rather ask questions and provide feedback that engages students' work rather than simply evaluate it.

​

Students, therefore, assess/grade their own work and progress in the course. This makes explicit that which has always been true: While I  am responsible for teaching students, they are responsible for your own learning. My job is to help them succeed and develop in any and every way I can, but only they can ultimately assess that success and learning for themselves. While as the instructor, the “official” final grade at the end of the semester is at my discretion, this grade is based on the student's self-assessment and regular open, honest dialogue between the two of us.

Inspired by the work of Asoa Inoue and Linda B. Nilson, when a gradeless system is not possible (due to departmental guidelines, for example), I adopt a form of contract grading called specifications or “specs” grading.

 

Instead of grading each assignment on a traditional ABCDF or 0-100 scale, submitted work is assessed as Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory based on whether a student demonstrates the stated learning goals. Assignments are “bundled” into three tiers that reflect a hierarchy of learning goals for the course. Final grades are assigned based on which bundles of assignments a student satisfactorily completes—these final grades are not the goal or outcome of the course but are designed to indicate which learning goals students demonstrate that they accomplished.

​

Built into this system is a good deal of choice as to how much students wish to learn and how hard they want to work to demonstrate and apply that learning. They essentially get to choose how much they wish to put into and get out of the class. Some choose that passing the course with a C is sufficient for their goals—a  desirable choice for many in a core-level course. Those that strive to get an A in the course and maximize their learning know that they are taking on that work to achieve that level of engagement. Whatever goal they set for themselves, they always know what is required of them to achieve that goal

Given how the classroom environment has changed in the age of COVID-19, I think it is important to help my students feel as comfortable as possible in a digital space. To this end, I placed in my syllabi a section providing on a kind of etiquette for a virtual, synchronous classroom. The emphasis of this document is designed to offer comfort and safety rather than adopt a punitive surveillance model. I encourage students to keep their cameras off if they choose to, and to use features such as the virtual background to maintain their privacy. I also emphasize an attitude of respect and non-judgment.

​

This document also provides some basic tips on how to improve the quality of the experience on a technical level to help with student engagement. This includes tips on how to better hear each other and how to improve the sound and image quality on their end. It also offers ways for students to engage with me, the material, and each other that doesn't require audio-visual participation, such as using the chat and reactions functions in the platform.