Designing Your Own Alternative Grading System

Why turn to alternative grading?

The 1^st session of the workshop invited us to reflect on our own motivations for exploring alternative grading. For me, this reflection confirmed a tension I have long felt in my teaching: I want students to focus on learning and feedback, not only on grades.

As an ESL teacher, I often see my students quickly skim through my feedback or simply ignore it. Despite my detailed comments, they make the same mistakes from one assignment to the next. To solve this, I have tried various strategies over the years, such as:

• holding 1-on-1 meetings with real-time feedback
• withholding grades on written work
• providing revision checklists
• limiting feedback to 2 key areas for improvement and 2 strengths

While these strategies helped to some extent, they never truly shifted students’ focus away from grades. They would still constantly ask questions about averages, weighting, or the impact on their R score.

I had read about specifications grading and ungrading, but most of these experiences were in STEM or technical fields. I was curious to know how I could apply these principles to a language course.

I was also questioning the role that grades play. Too often, they seem to give a poor reflection of actual learning and progress. I began looking for an approach that would encourage students to engage in revision, take ownership of their learning, and see feedback as a tool for growth. These reflections led me to alternative grading practices and eventually to the Alternative Grading Institute workshop offered by the Center for Grading Reform, led by a facilitation team of professors from universities across the United States.

While reading on the topic, I realized that alternative grading resonates with how I see my role as a teacher: not just an instructor, but a coach and mentor. By clarifying expectations, raising standards, and working in partnership with students, I hope to move away from the tension of point-based grading toward a more supportive, learning-centred approach.

Determining my values and teaching context

During the 2^nd session of the workshop, we clarified the pedagogical values guiding our personal grading methods by asking a simple but powerful question: What do I want to promote in my grading approach?

My reflection highlighted a few core values:

• growth
• progress
• student agency
• belonging
• empowerment
• motivation

The workshop also emphasized that grading choices must be shaped by our teaching context. Every teaching situation has both affordances and constraints that we need to consider when designing our alternative grading system.

In my case, as a college ESL teacher, some affordances include:

• small class sizes (15 to 30 students)
• flexibility in course design
• close collaboration with colleagues

However, some constraints can also affect my teaching:

• institutional and provincial policies (IPESA, R score)
• department and program requirements
• students’ prior experiences with grading

As the workshop facilitators kept reminding us, the task is not simply to align grading choices with our pedagogical values, but to align them as much as our context allows. This helped me approach alternative grading as a flexible process rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

The Grading Scheme Anatomy

Michael S. Palmer and Adriana C. Streifer, 2 of the workshop facilitators, introduced the Grading Scheme Anatomy, a framework of 14 characteristics that define grading systems, organized into 4 categories: assessment-oriented

• evaluation-oriented
• hybrid
• mechanistic

Teachers can think of these 14 characteristics as tools to maximize positive educational outcomes and design an effective alternative grading system. However, we must remember that they all depend on our personal values and teaching context.

Assessment-oriented characteristics

These characteristics focus on how teachers gather evidence of student learning to improve teaching and help students grow.

Evaluation-oriented characteristics

These characteristics describe the rules a teacher uses to assign grades and communicate students’ overall performance in a course.

Hybrid characteristic

The hybrid characteristic combines assessment and grading. It can either guide learning or set grading rules, depending on how it is used.

Mechanistic characteristics

Mechanistic characteristics cover the administrative details of grading that are not directly linked to teaching or learning.

In my own teaching context, I do have some leverage over assessment-oriented, evaluation-oriented, and hybrid characteristics. For example, when I analyzed my current grading system, I realized I mostly offered only 1 type of feedback. To optimize this, I could incorporate 4 types of elaborative feedback (instructor, self, peer, and community). Small shifts like this can have a big impact on learning outcomes.

My current teaching context offers little or no leverage over mechanistic characteristics however. For example, the course-level grade labels are determined by the institution: the label I have to officially submit to report students’ performance must be a percentage.

How to choose the right grading system

There are many alternative grading systems available and choosing one can feel overwhelming. One key takeaway from the workshop is that there is no perfect fit. Rather than focusing on a single technique, teachers can view these practices as a flexible framework. They all share common principles, known as the 4 pillars of alternative grading:

• Pillar 1: Students are evaluated based on clearly defined and specific standards
• Pillar 2: Students receive helpful feedback, engaging them in a feedback loop
• Pillar 3: Marks indicate progress
• Pillar 4: Students can revise or reattempt work without penalty

During the workshop, we were introduced to 3 grading schemes and asked to choose 1. Below, I briefly outline the main characteristics of each.

Steps in designing a specifications grading scheme

On the 2^nd day of the workshop, we had to select 1 of the 3 grading schemes from which to design our own system. I chose specifications grading as it best aligns with my goals, teaching context, and my 101-level ESL course (intermediate level).

Like any grading scheme, the possibilities with specifications grading are virtually limitless. The facilitators guided us through some of these step-by-step instructions, giving us time to begin designing our own alternative grading scheme for a course of our choice.

Determining my learning objectives

The 1^st step was to create a list of concrete, measurable learning objectives. I drew on the course framework and the evaluation criteria (critères de performance) from the devis ministériel, asking myself: What do I want my students to be able to demonstrate by the end of the course?

These objectives would serve as my standards. I needed to find the right balance (neither too broad nor too narrow) while keeping them simple enough to assess effectively.

Determining my assignment bundles

Next, I defined the content within each assignment bundle: A+ (100%), A (90%), B+ (80%), B (75%), C+ (65%), C (60%). I wanted all students to complete the same work, so I designed bundles that cover all course learning objectives while prioritizing the quality of work (and not the quantity) relative to the grade. Some teachers choose to differentiate learning by assigning different tasks for each bundle, often increasing complexity within each level.

Because my course includes weekly homework assignments, regular in-class discussions, and recurring quizzes, each bundle contains the same assignments, but the number of successful (meets specs or does not meet specs yet) completions required varies. Since the course has a double threshold and targets 3 distinct competencies with different weightings, I organized the bundles into 3 categories:

• Reinvestment bundles
• Writing bundles (mandatory pass)
• Speaking bundles (mandatory pass)

Based on exemplars from literature courses we analyzed during the workshop, I chose to use an average grade of the 2 reinvestment evaluations. I was not yet comfortable with a pass/fail approach and preferred using a descriptive grid to capture students’ progress more accurately. Grades for each individual evaluation will therefore be assigned using pre-existing descriptive grids, which include many criteria per evaluation.

Finally, because learning is in progress, I wanted to leave room for improvement. Students may fail the midterm writing or speaking evaluations, but if they meet the specifications on the final evaluation, they can still earn a passing grade (as reflected in the C (60%) and C+ (65%) writing and speaking bundles).

Infographic showing the requirements for each reinvestment bundle

Infographic showing the requirements for each oral bundle

Infographic showing the requirements for each writing bundle

Work in progress

The 1^st implementation of my specifications grading system will be in Fall 2026. Alternative grading can quickly become complex. I want to start small and keep the system simple and manageable. However, this system is a work in progress, and I still need to figure out a few key steps before its implementation:

• Defining B-level (75%) specifications for each assignment in my bundles.
  The goal is to target appropriate work, not perfection. I need to adapt my existing descriptive grids by removing extra performance levels so that students either meet the specs or do not yet meet the specs. Specifications may cover specific elements such as word counts, deadlines, use of evidence, depth of argument, content, grammar, or mechanics. Some assignments, like the reading homework in my reinvestment bundle, will simply be completed/not completed tasks.
• Creating annotated exemplars
  To help students understand the specifications, it is highly recommended to provide annotated exemplars of student work that meet the standards for a B-level (75%) work, as this is the level targeted.
• Determining feedback mechanisms
  Extensive feedback is central to alternative grading. When students do not yet meet the specs, feedback and practice should help them reach the standard. I plan to continue providing regular instructor feedback while adding more opportunities for peer review and self-evaluation.
• Defining failing grades
  A student who does not meet the requirements for any bundle will receive a maximum of 56%. However, how will grades be assigned to students who are failing? Should I define failing bundles, too?

To answer my questions and help me with the final steps before implementation, I intend to get some help from pedagogical counsellors at my institution. I also want to ensure that my grading system aligns with the college’s IPESA. Additionally, I have joined a Community of Practice on alternative grading practices.

Conclusion

Exploring specifications grading has been both challenging and exciting, but many questions remain before my 1^st implementation of this system. By sharing these ideas and reflections, I hope to inspire teachers interested in rethinking traditional grading and encourage them to explore alternative approaches that fit their context, students, and values. Have you experimented with alternative grading practices? What would your tips and tricks be for a 1^st implementation? Share your experiences in the comments below!