Today’s university students face many challenges, including mental health crises and competing demands on their time. My classes at Georgia Southern University, a regional R2 with three campuses and a growing online population, consist of a diverse student population which includes first-generation and returning learners. Over the past few years, I have noticed increased anxiety around grades and more students choosing which assignments to complete because work and family obligations prevent them from devoting equal time and attention to each course. While I could ignore the student mental health crisis or lament learners’ failure to prioritize my courses, I choose instead to shift my pedagogy and assessment practices in ways that potentially foster each student’s success despite their circumstances.

In 2022, Joshua Eyler claimed in Insider Higher Ed that “grades are at the center of the student mental health crisis.”[1] Therefore, despite teaching 60–75 students a semester, usually in three different preps within a university that requires that I submit a letter grade for each student, I committed to minimizing the importance of grades in my classes. To do this, for the last three semesters I have experimented with ungrading. I initially experimented with contract grading, in which students determine their learning goals and commit to the work needed to achieve those goals at the beginning of the term, but my students’ life situations often demand more flexibility than these contracts offer. I now use a specifications grading approach, which combines elements of the contract in that students need to complete certain activities at a competent level to earn a desired grade, but also emphasizes transparent criteria associated with fluency in specific skills as well as feedback and growth through revision. Through a reflection on my experiments with alternative grading practices, I propose that a version of specifications grading might meet the competing institutional demands for letter grades and my interest in pedagogy that supports student wellbeing in the middle.

Instructors using specifications grading ultimately assign students a grade, but only after clearly stating requirements. According to Linda B. Nilson, author of Specifications Grading, an ideal specifications grading system does not award partial credit. Instead, students receive a satisfactory or unsatisfactory score based on simple rubric criteria. Students can still earn higher course grades than a C, Nilson suggests, “by jumping more hurdles that show evidence of more learning (greater amount or breadth of knowledge or greater number of skills) or jumping higher hurdles that show evidence of more advanced learning, or both.”[2] I have developed specifications for individual assignments as well as specifications that correspond to a final course grade. I score weekly work, such as discussion posts and collaborative annotations, as pass/fail based on minimum requirements, but I grade major assignments on a scale of needs improvement, satisfactory, exceeds expectations, and exemplary. To emphasize that I value student learning and improvement through effort, my system effectively makes revision a gateway to a higher grade. I have combined elements of contract and specifications grading because I have encountered student resistance to the idea that they cannot earn partial credit, and because I have found it difficult to determine the more and higher hurdles of which Nilson speaks. Shifting both my and the students’ mindsets to appreciate a system such as Nilson’s will take time and recursive revisions. My hybrid version of specifications grading allows students to acknowledge the level of work to which they can commit, say, by aiming to meet the specifications for a C on an assignment, but also gives them opportunities (and time!) to revise to ensure that they can progress toward their learning goals and achieve their desired grade.

The transparent criteria and opportunities for revision have been the most beneficial aspects of ungrading for my students, but it took a failed experiment to discover that. I initially attempted to address the conflicting demands on students’ time with a labor-based contract in which students could earn half of their course credit by completing a certain number of exploratory activities associated with preparing for and participating in class, such as discussion posts, scored on a pass/fail basis. I hoped this approach would incentivize preparation and participation, both of which would better equip students to succeed on traditionally graded projects and presentations. The students eagerly committed to the loose contract that asked them to state their desired grade and to repeat the criteria for earning that grade. Some students appreciated knowing that they could miss assignments and still earn a B; others embraced the idea that class attendance and weekly activities could boost their final grades. These students intended to satisfy the terms of the contract.

In practice, however, my contract approach did not support all the students’ success. Some students attended most class sessions and completed the preparation and participation activities. Other students attended class, but only uploaded their in-class work after several reminders, if at all. Other students struggled to attend class due to illness, work schedules, traffic, and motivation. These students missed two of the contract-graded activities automatically. Although they could still complete the activities, they were less meaningful divorced from the class context. This experiment in contract grading produced uneven results that exacerbated the inequities that already existed between my students. Students who lived on campus could more easily attend class, and attending class made it easier to complete the activities. Other students prioritized attending class but forgot about the daily activities by the time they left work or put their children to bed, and my approach inadvertently made what I thought would be “easy” points a burden on students already stretched by other commitments.

My approach to contract grading also failed because I did not alter my approach to grading major assignments, which constituted the other half of the course grade. I gave the assignment instructions and scaffolded the assignment in class, again disadvantaging students who missed class. I want students to attend class, but I acknowledge that attending class is sometimes a challenge. Working multiple jobs, juggling family responsibilities with schoolwork, and facing health challenges often prevented students from attending class. In other cases, bright and thoughtful students met the learning objectives on major assignments, but their grades suffered because they had not completed in-class activities. A contract-based approach to course participation centered around incentivizing class attendance and in-class labor did not work for students at my institution. I had unwittingly tied too much of the course grade to class attendance, erecting barriers between students and their success that good intentions could not break. The contract approach I established was inflexible and did not allow for the students’ dynamic life situations. These students needed to be able to assess their progress and the amount of work to which they could commit on a weekly basis.

After further research, I explored a specifications grading system, largely because the examples I reviewed emphasized transparency but also encouraged students to hone their skills through revision opportunities.[3] Nilson attests to the value of “synthetic grading,” which allows faculty to incorporate aspects of a specifications grading approach while maintaining some more traditional assessment elements.[4] Nilson suggests that a combined approach eases teachers and learners into a new manner of assessing student work. My manner of specifications grading incorporates weekly work that holds students accountable for social annotations and reflective discussions. Students complete a certain number of these activities to earn an A, B, or C for their final course grade, but I grade the activities as pass/fail. Students do not commit to a “contract” at the beginning of the course, but a “progress tracker” helps them monitor their progress throughout the semester. I also encourage them to revise activities that they fail within a week, noting that completing these activities will prepare them for future assignments. Students initially inquire about length requirements and resist when I tell them to write as much as they need for the kind of student they are and their personal learning goals. I encourage them to focus on what they are learning through completing the work and avoid worrying about a grade or pleasing me. It is also liberating for me to select pass or fail without having to discern whether a student’s notes are worth ten or twelve out of fifteen points.

Focusing on student learning required me to rethink my approach to the major assignments, too. I wanted to encourage students to have a growth mindset and acknowledge that some essays and presentations are more successful than others. I therefore developed detailed specifications for a submission that either needs improvement, is satisfactory, exceeds expectations, or is exemplary. While the criteria are based on my judgment, I strive to make the criteria transparent and objective. For example, although assessing writing assignments is often subjective, I have established a minimum number of examples to include, and I have reminded students that I will assess writing moves like transitions and clear source integration. Students can revise major assignments after receiving feedback, which encourages them to acknowledge that their choices directly impact their final grade. One student reflected, “You gave us specifics on what we could do on our end to earn a certain grade. It was up for [sic] us to decide what grade we wanted.”[5]

I have been pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the specifications grading approach. Because students can revise (or not), this does not result in much additional work. Many of the students are content with the score they earn on the first submission. One student with a full-time job taking two summer term courses noted, “I was happy to be able to fulfill the requirements for a C without over-exerting myself to obtain an A or B.” Although we might want all students to aim for an A, we should recognize that our courses are only one part of students’ lives. However, this approach also works for students who want to challenge themselves. Discussing how my feedback motivated them to explore new ideas, a graduate student spoke about a tendency to “stick to what is comfortable because I know it will result in a good grade. It’s crazy how much a different mindset can affect your learning. I feel like I learned more in the past five weeks than I did in some of my full-term graduate seminars.” At least one student focused on learning over grades because of this approach.

My approach is far from perfect. However, specifications grading works better for my busy students than an approach that asks them what they want to achieve at the semester’s start. The synthetic specifications approach allows students to choose the amount of effort with each assignment, thereby giving them multiple chances to course correct their progress toward their learning goals. Students who desire an A have less anxiety about their grades because they have opportunities to improve, while students with good reasons for not prioritizing this class can determine how to allocate their efforts to earn a satisfactory grade. One student who rarely revised viewed the progress tracker and opportunities for revision as a “feedback loop” that “made the grading process feel more transparent and fair” and improved their confidence. Another student who submitted every draft and revision wrote, “You are giving us the most opportunities to succeed.” I can do more, but specifications grading has provided a good start.

Amanda Konkle, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Film Studies and English at Georgia Southern University in Savannah, Georgia. She is the author of Some Kind of Mirror: Creating Marilyn Monroe (Rutgers UP, 2019) and the article “Marilyn Monroe” in Oxford Bibliographies in Cinema and Media Studies (Oxford UP, 2023). Konkle coedited the collection Perspectives on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend: Nuanced Postnetwork Television (Syracuse UP, 2021, with Charles Burnetts). In addition, Konkle has published articles in the Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Feminist Encounters, and Comparative American Studies. Konkle is currently the President of the Literature/Film Association. 

1. Joshua Eyler, “Grades are at the Center of the Student Mental Health Crisis,” Inside Higher Ed, March 7, 2022, https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/grades-are-center-student-mental-health-crisis. ↑

2. Linda B. Nilson, Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2015), 14. ↑

3. You can see some details of my approach in this document. ↑

4. Nilson, Specifications Grading, 119–122. ↑

5. Thanks to the students from my summer 2024 online course, who have given me permission to quote from their final reflections in this essay. ↑