Contract grading can become a tiresome statutory obligation
By Abhinaya Kasagani — akasagani@ucdavis.edu
“On a grading scale of one (below expectations) to three (exceeds expectations), give yourself any grade you wish to have and we will expect that you uphold this promise. We might check in once throughout the quarter, but otherwise have fun and good luck! Attendance and participation are required. Complete all of the necessary assignments and you are good to go. If you dislike this system of grading, we apologize, but hey, at least it’s not a letter grade!”
Unconventional grading approaches like these emphasize personal accountability and flexibility, yet, simultaneously, open up larger questions about the role and purpose of grading in education. Grading systems have long been a point of contention, with debates centered around one’s ability to truly learn within organized spaces.
Contract grading, one such alternative to foster genuine learning, has garnered interest for its potential to reduce anxiety and empower students. Still, this raises another important question: Does contract grading really prioritize mastery of the subject, or does it risk reducing education to being simply about checking all of the necessary boxes?
Contract grading is a system of standards-based grading where the student and instructor work with one another to determine the requirements of assessment; The student then agrees to complete the set of tasks needed to be complete, to achieve a specific grade. Unlike traditional grading practices, which rely on percentages and letter grades to evaluate a student’s performance, contract grading prioritizes effort, participation and progress.
Several proponents advocate for such a recentering of priorities, claiming that this eliminates the fear of failure and replaces it with the freedom to be experimental and exploratory in their work. They further contend that it deprioritizes grades as an incentive for learning and applying oneself. This system can assist those who struggle with the demands of traditional assessments.
One of the most notable benefits of contract grading is that it gives students more autonomy than is typically expected from a grading system, imploring them to strengthen their craft without the fear of being reprimanded for work that is thought to be “incorrect.” By clearly outlining the expectations for the student, it removes the unpredictability of letter grades. What you work for, you receive.
This enables the student to work more effectively, not only to complete their tasks, but to take additional risks. By not penalizing or rewarding them for any prior knowledge or experience they have with the course material, it promotes intrinsic motivation and prioritizes those who have invested their time and energy into learning.
Yet, the truth of the matter is that effective pedagogy seeks to balance the needs of the learner with the overall goals of the curriculum. If contract grading does not align with these principles in ways that can emphasize critical thinking, growth and subject mastery, it could inadvertently undermine the very essence of education. One major concern is that it encourages students to focus on meeting the minimum requirements in order to acquire their chosen grade. While it decenters letter grades and their limitations, it dissuades the student from pursuing excellence.
When the emphasis is instead placed on completing a set of tasks to achieve a grade, students tend to prioritize quantity over quality, potentially resulting in superficial engagement with the course material. One can churn out a variety of poorly structured or hastily thought-out assignments if all they had to do was meet a requirement. Checking boxes risks reducing education to a transactional completion of the subject, where mastery of the material becomes secondary to fulfilling obligations.
While traditional grading systems have their flaws, they often include mechanisms to evaluate the originality and complexity of a student’s work. However, the lack of emphasis on qualitative assessments can undermine critical thought and creativity, fostering a culture of task completion without genuine understanding. This approach may be particularly detrimental in fields that require rigorous analysis or problem solving, where mastery is not easily quantifiable.
More often than not, the answer to all things is balance. Educators should work to combine the strengths of contract grading with the accountability that comes with traditional evaluation methods. Reflective components such as self-assessments or peer reviews should be integrated into the contract system to encourage students to engage critically with their work. Students should be asked to vouch for themselves to ensure that they are able to argue for the coherence, originality and depth of their work. This approach would preserve the benefits of contract grading while addressing its limitations. It would guarantee student accountability while also allowing them to approach the task at hand in any way they wish.
Contract grading ultimately has the potential to be a transformative tool for education, but its success is dependent on its thoughtful implementation. If it fails to prioritize mastery of the subject over task completion, it risks failing to facilitate genuine learning. Until students are encouraged to attend to the qualitative feedback given by the instructors — whether through self-assessment or otherwise — this system of grading cannot truly value the time and labor that has been committed to the class.
Until this change is made, I shall be thoroughly pleased with the percentiles, letter grades and gold stars that ask too much of me.
Written by: Abhinaya Kasagani— akasagani@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.
