Taking The Leap from Traditional to Transformative: Implementing Alternative Grading in Engineering Courses

Workshop Recommended citation: Christensen, D., & Singelmann, L. (2025). Taking The Leap from Traditional to Transformative: Implementing Alternative Grading in Engineering Courses. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631307. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. TAKING THE LEAP FROM TRADITIONAL TO TRANSFORMATIVE: IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE GRADING IN ENGINEERING COURSES D. Christensen a,1, L. Singelmann b a Minnesota State University, Mankato – Iron Range Engineering, Virginia, MN, USA, ORCID: 0000-0002-5061-4663 b Minnesota State University, Mankato – Iron Range Engineering, Virginia, MN, USA, ORCID: 0000-0003-3586-4266 Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching; Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: alternative grading, equitable grading ABSTRACT Normative-based grading scales and strategies have long existed and been accepted in the realm of education across the world but can be biased and inequitable to students. Alternative grading is becoming more widely practiced within education, including engineering education, and has shown generally positive outcomes. Alternative grading can positively impact students’ learning through autonomy, self-directed learning, motivation, and growth-mindset. It is focused on adapting to different courses, contexts, and cultures by rooting itself in learning outcomes, not competition. Because of the lack of consensus surrounding the types of alternative grading and implementation strategies, it can be intimidating to adopt learning outcome-based alternative grading strategies instead of the traditional normative-based grading practices. This workshop aimed to motivate educators in their pathway to adopting alternative grading strategies by anchoring their understanding in a framework that focuses on commonalities amongst alternative grading strategies. In this interactive session, educators were provided with ample structure in learning about alternative grading as a whole with four pillars as a guide – providing clear standards, helpful feedback, marks that indicate progress, and reassessment opportunities. Participants explored current practices in alternative grading provided by the experiences of the facilitator(s), brainstormed implementation strategies that align with each of the pillars, and left with an actionable and achievable goal related to their personal implementation in a course of interest. 1 D.Christensen, darcie.christe[email protected] 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Normative-based grading scales originated hundreds of years ago and have been established as the standard for assessing students, but these methods often are susceptible to biases and inequitable practices (Feldman, 2019; Hackerson et al., 2024; Singelmann et al., 2025). To improve equity of grading practices, alternative grading methods are becoming more widespread both inside and outside of engineering education with positive results and feedback from students (Feldman, 2019; Hackerson et al., 2024; Singelmann et al., 2025). While norm-based grading is focused on a summative approach that fosters competition and selection of the most talented students, alternative grading strategies are learning-outcomes based, focused on developing students' learning (Carberry et al., 2019). Alternative grading can provide students with additional autonomy, self-directed learning skills, motivation, and growth-mindset (Feldman, 2019; Hackerson et al., 2024). It can also support student well-being as the alternative grading methods are more studentcentered than traditional norm-based grading (Carberry et al., 2019; Clark & Talbert, 2023). However, a larger buy-in to alternative grading practices and studies of the outcomes surrounding them are needed. This buy-in and research is made more challenging by the wide variety of strategies and varying definitions of approaches to alternative grading. While the definitions throughout alternative grading practices vary, some of the commonly mentioned forms of alternative grading may include standards-based grading, upgrading, specifications grading, contract grading, or labor-based grading (Clark, 2023; Clark & Talbert, 2023; Hackerson et al., 2024). Defining and differentiating these different forms can feel intimidating to those looking to implement alternative grading strategies, but finding commonalities between them offers a way to provide structure and support. Therefore, experts in alternative grading have identified four pillars of alternative grading that unify all approaches: clear standards, helpful feedback, marks indicating progress, and reassessment opportunities (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Talbert, 2021). These pillars with brief explanations of each are included in Figure 1. Figure 1 Four Pillars of Alternative Grading with Explanations (Talbert, 2021) By introducing the four pillars of alternative grading, this workshop empowered participants to design an alternative grading scheme that fits their classroom, culture, and context. Rather than trying to parse through definitions and determine which of the many forms of alternative grading they should explore, this workshop focused on identifying strategies that align with a unifying framework for alternative grading, which may include parts of multiple alternative grading schemes. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES As quoted in Feldman (2019), “Examining grading is ‘important, messy, and uncomfortable’” (p. XXVIII). Because of the lack of definition and guidance, alternative grading can be an intimidating space for instructors to take the leap in designing a course with alternative grading implemented. The goal of this workshop was to provide motivation to educators on their path to altering their grading practices by giving space for understanding alternative grading practices under a unifying framework and brainstorming implementation strategies in conjunction with other educators who are also interested and motivated in similar areas. 2.1 Target audience The target audience was educators who are interested in implementing new grading strategies in their classrooms. This could be in either primary, secondary, or postsecondary contexts as all practices in alternative grading can be designed to fit traditional grading scales and submissions (e.g., A-F final grade on transcripts) that are needed. 2.2 Expected learning outcomes Because of the workshop, attendees will be able to: • Understand the four pillars of alternative grading practices (clear standards, helpful feedback, marks indicating progress, and reassessment opportunities) • Brainstorm and develop implementation strategies for each of the four pillars • Choose appropriate implementation strategies for a course they teach 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan Table 1 gives a summary of activities that happened during the workshop. The focus was to give ample time for instruction, individual brainstorming, and group brainstorming. With this approach, enough structure was given for participants to understand the context of the four pillars of alternative grading but also developed many ideas through discussion with others. They left the workshop with specific implementation strategies that they envision working well in one of their own courses. Table 1 General time plan from the workshop Segment Time (minutes) Activities Pre-Work -10 • Have participants sit at tables according to their current teaching context (e.g., primary, secondary, post-secondary) Welcome and Introduction 10 • Introduce workshop facilitator(s) • Brief introduction of alternative grading and the four pillars (clear standards, helpful feedback, marks indicating progress, and reassessment opportunities) • Choose a specific course that you could implement alternative grading in Introduction to Alternative Grading Approaches 10 • Provide a variety of artifacts (e.g., syllabi, grading sheet that shows conversion to course GPA, student feedback) at each table from courses that have implemented alternative grading • Identify any evidence of the framework of pillars that are seen in the artifacts • Identify any strategies that may be relevant to the specific course you chose • Identify any questions that may be relevant in application to the specific course you chose • Share out takeaways and emerging ideas Introduction Wrap-Up 10 • A group discussion on the artifacts, explaining which pillars the instructor saw in each and why • Question and answer, especially as it relates to implementation in courses chosen during the introduction Group Canvas 15 • Fill out a canvas with implementation strategies for each of the four pillars • Include strategies that may be relevant to the specific course chosen during the introduction Group Share Out 5 • Each group shares one takeaway from the group canvas Individual Brainstorm 5 • Identify at least one strategy from your canvas that you could see yourself implementing and record plans for implementation you intend on completing before your next iteration of the course Wrap-Up 5 • Q&A • Share additional resources • Share contact information 3.2 Interactivity Participants utilized both individual and group time to brainstorm implementation strategies regarding their learning about alternative assessment. They used the framing of a course they would like to implement alternative grading in throughout the workshop. They chose this course during the introduction. They had a chance early in the session to get to know those around them through some exploration of alternative grading approaches in a more structured way, provided through examples by the session facilitator(s). Small groups formed as participants come into the room. They self-organized by the educational level at which they teach (e.g., primary, secondary, post-secondary) as well as the course size they typically have (e.g., larger vs. smaller). The groups were at most four people. Furniture was arranged to allow everyone to hear and be heard in their group. The room utilized for the workshop allowed for this to happen well. Small group time for brainstorming allowed the participants to choose ideas that fit their specific contexts, while still providing the unifying scaffolding and framework of the four pillars that span many different alternative grading strategies. Through example sharing by the facilitator(s), participants had ample context provided to apply the learning to their own courses. While it is acknowledged that they could not map out their entire course and create all the necessary tools, the interaction hopefully spurred motivation for future efforts, wrapping up with a specific goal in the form of implementation strategies within the four pillars that they can work toward. 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS The workshop, held on the afternoon of Monday, September 15th, had approximately 20 participants that joined the two facilitators. Participants came from a broad spectrum of backgrounds – some in administrative positions, some teaching small classes, some teaching large classes, some teaching introduction courses, and others teaching upper-division or graduate courses. All participants were highly engaged with their groups and participation overall in the workshop was strong. Two primary areas were the focus of many of the participants’ curiosity about implementation of alternative grading practices. The first was focused on the why of alternative grading. This included both what value it brings to students as well as considering the modern tools that are changing both the learning and feedback mechanisms in education. The workshop facilitators were able to provide first-hand experiences from both the instructor and student perspectives because of the grading structures they had implemented in courses and research they had conducted. The second was on the logistical aspects of implementing alternative grading, especially in high-enrollment courses. The workshop facilitators were able to provide scaling-up advice based on their current experience implementing alternative grading practices across the entire student body in their program. With both of these areas of focus, the facilitators were also able to emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution – even the same instructor may have different implementation strategies for alternative grading in different courses. The workshop materials included: • Set of presentation slides to guide instruction and activities • Artifacts from current implementation of alternative grading (e.g., token grading) • Canvas for brainstorming the four pillars Additional materials mentioned and shared with participants were: • Alternative Grading One-Pager (from Drew Lewis) • Grading for Growth Blog Post • ASEE Standards-Based Grading Paper (from workshop facilitators) • Example course materials from alternative grading practices in Circuits and Wastewater Treatment All of the materials can be accessed in a shared Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1B0g_viQRAAZogVXsxT6SHwGvlSvY9Ze?usp=drive_link). Overall, through instruction from the facilitators (e.g., short presentation at the beginning with facilitator implementation examples included), exploring alternative grading artifacts in small groups (e.g., syllabus statements, assignment instruction, token sheet, etc.), brainstorming implementation strategies in small groups through use of an individual canvas, and identifying an individual inspiration area for implementation, participants were able to develop a mutual foundation to base alternative grading in. The participants were able to see and develop an understanding of the definition of the four pillars – both in their value and flexibility of implementation. The participants’ questions and engagement with their groups evidenced that they were intrigued and inspired by the learning. Whether they had very specific ideas for overhauls or general tone changes for their current grading practices, the workshop facilitators consider the workshop a success. REFERENCES Carberry, A. R., Atwood, S. A., Siniawski, M. T., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2019). A Comparison and Classification of Grading Approaches used in Engineering Education Conference Key Areas: Talent Management and Strong Demand for Democratic Involvement in Educational Processes. Proceedings of the SEFI 47th Annual Conference. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9759-9328 Clark, D. (2023, January 30). An Alternative Grading Glossary. Grading for Growth. Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for Growth (1st ed.). Routledge. Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for Equity (1st ed.). Corwin. Hackerson, E. L., Slominski, T., Johnson, N., Buncher, J. B., Ismael, S., Singelmann, L., Leontyev, A., Knopps, A. G., McDarby, A., Nguyen, J. J., Condry, D. L. J., Nyachwaya, J. M., Wissman, K. T., Falkner, W., Grieger, K., Montplaisir, L., Hodgson, A., & Momsen, J. L. (2024). Alternative grading practices in undergraduate STEM education: a scoping review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00106-8 Singelmann, L., McGough Spence, C., Christensen, D., & Thompson, E. (2025). Student and Faculty Perceptions of Standards-Based Grading in Undergraduate Engineering Courses. ASEE Annual Conference (Accepted). Talbert, R. (2021, August 30). Finding common ground with grading systems. Grading for Growth.