Grading Methods

DiscoverDiscover

A grading system allows learners to monitor learning progress while providing feedback on achievement (Walvoord & Anderson, 2010). A grading system includes two levels of grades: task-level (structure and scores of all graded tasks in a class) and course-level (aggregated final course grade). Below are sample approaches to grading. No matter what methods you choose, it is critical to be transparent about your grading system and policies to learners (Walvoord & Anderson, 2010). 

Criterion-Referenced Grading Methods 

The criterion-referenced methods below evaluate learners with pre-defined learning objectives and standards (Sadler, 2005) with no curve or "norm-referencing:" 

Point-based grading is the most straightforward method. Higher point value equates to a higher weight in the total. Earning more points demonstrates more effective performance. Here is a sample point-based scale: 

Category 

Points 

Midterm Exam 

200 points 

Final Exam 

250 points 

Research Paper 

150 points 

Course Project 

150 points 

Labs (4 at 25 points each lab session) 

100 points 

Discussion Board: (7 at 10-25 points each forum) 

150 points 

TOTAL POSSIBLE: 

1,000 points 


Percentage-weighted grading offers more flexibility in calculating course grades. Adding a few questions to exams or removing a piece of assignments will not affect course grades as it would in a point-based system. It's critical to help learners understand the weighted calculation to avoid confusion; for example, a point in the Assignment category is not equal to a point in the Exam category. Here is a sample percentage-based scale: 

Category 

Graduate  
% Weights 

Undergraduate  
% Weights 

Professional Portfolio
(
100 points; Graduate Learners Only!!) 

15% 

-- 

Course Project Paper & Presentation (100 points) 

15% 

15% 

Assignments (4 at 10 points each) 

10% 

25% 

Participation 

- Live Sessions or Alternative: 4 at 5 points each session 
- Discussion Board: 4 at 5 points each forum 

10% 

10% 

Exams (2 at 100 points each exam) 

50% 

50% 

TOTAL POSSIBLE: 

100% 

100% 


Letter/Text grading assigns a letter grade based on the quality of a learner's work and the mastery of concepts or skills. One could use the traditional A-E grades or mastery levels (Pass/Fail, Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory, Exceeds Mastery/Mastery/Partial Mastery/Insufficient Evidence, etc.). Clear scoring rubrics are often important at the task or course level in providing clarity to learners with these grading approaches. Here are two sample letter or text grading scales: 

Final Semester Course Grade 

A: 94-100%; A-: 90-93%; B+: 87-89%; B: 84-86%; B-: 80-83%;
C-: 77-79%; 
C: 74-76%; C-: 70-73%; D+: 67-69%; D: 64-66%;
D-: 60%-63%; E: Below 60%.
 


Competent 

Incompetent 

The work is high quality throughout and shows clear evidence of mastery of the course concepts and skills with in-depth synthesis, articulation, and critical thinking. References & citations are included 

The work needs improvements. Relevant information is included, but lack of depth & clarity and shows ambiguity. Little evidence supports mastery of the course concepts and skills. 


Specifications or “specs” grading
is a newer system of evaluation that is based on the amount of work learners choose to do and the quality of the learners’ work (Cunningham, 2016).  Individual assignments are graded on a Pass/Fail or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis. “ In sum, complete, satisfactory work receives full credit (full value), and incomplete, unsatisfactory receives no credit/value. For learners, it’s all or nothing” (Nilson, 2016). Learners choose “bundles” of assignments; bundles that require more effort and rigor, the higher the grade. Letter/text grading scales are often a component of task evaluation in this system. Sample syllabi using specs grading: 

  1. Math/Computer Science 
  2. Media/Society 
  3. Math/Calcululs I 
  4. TV & Culture (not a syllabus per se, but great bundle descriptions) 

Norm-Referenced Grading Methods 

In contrast to the criterion-referenced methods above, norm-referenced grading methods compare a learner's achievement with peer achievement, exploring relative standing in a class (e.g., ranking, grading on a curve, etc.). See the example below. These methods could increase learner motivation, though they also tend to create competition, decrease collaboration, and skew actual learning performance in a class (Schinske & Tanner, 2014). Thus, we recommend you use these methods with caution (Robst & Van Gilder, 2016).

Grading Curve

ApplyApply 

CMU Policies and Resources 

Additional Resources 

ParticipateParticipate 

  • To see what events we may be offering related to assessment and evaluation, check out our Events Page
  • Schedule a time with CIS staff to customize a grading scheme for your course. 

ReferRefer 

Walvoord, B &, Anderson, V. (2010). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Cunningham, K. (2016). Using specifications grading in college classrooms. Central Michigan University. Retrieved from https://www.cmich.edu/office_provost/academicaffairs/caa/assessment/documents/2nd%20annual%20assessment%20retreat/kevin%20cunningham.pdf 

Nilson, L.B. (2016, Jan). Yes, Virginia, there is a better way to grade. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/01/19/new-ways-grade-more-effectively-essay 

Robst, J., & Van Gilder, J. (2016). The relationship between faculty characteristics and the use of norm- and criteria-based grading. Cogent Economics & Finance, 4(1), 1-10.

Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,30(2). pp. 175–194 

Schinske, J. & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or Differently). CBE Life Science Education, 13(2). Pp. 159–166.