Steve Sutcliffe is among a small consortium of Faculty of Science instructors piloting an alternative approach to teaching and learning called contract grading, also known as labour-based grading.
In this system, the pathway to letter grades is established in a contract between student and instructor. But don’t be alarmed; you’re not signing your life away. This “contract” is more of a mutual understanding — one that provides a clear and concise road map to the grade a student wishes to achieve.
Take this hypothetical scenario: an instructor allows students to choose from a dozen assignments. If eight of the 12 assignments are completed and basic requirements are met, the student will receive a default B+. Completing 10 of the 12 assignments might instead result in an A-.
The focus is on what’s been completed, not how well it’s been completed, provided it meets the minimum standard. It’s about process over result. If a student wishes to obtain a higher letter grade, they can take on more assignments.
For Sutcliffe, an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science, it’s routine to receive emails from students focused squarely on achieving a specific letter grade, whether to maintain a scholarship or to improve post-grad prospects. These inquiries often overshadow those from students who simply have questions about a course’s content and want to learn more.
“Grades can seem very subjective, almost arbitrary,” says Sutcliffe, noting that our current method of grading is more than 100 years old. “It’s just not conducive to a learning environment.”
Sutcliffe equates his approach to contract grading to the realities of working in industry. “If I was going to hire you as a contractor, you would complete a certain amount of work,” he says. “As a contractor, you might say, ‘I can only do the equivalent of a C-range or B-range of work.’ As an employer, that might be all the work that I need, so we agree on a contract.” For Sutcliffe, it’s about striking that agreement with students to maximize their interest and engagement with his course material.
However, contract grading isn’t without its challenges. Since most institutions are tied to the existing grading system, it’s difficult to untangle from it. It can also be burdensome for instructors as large class sizes aren’t always conducive to one-on-ones.
For proponents of contract grading, like Sutcliffe, the benefits to students, including stress-reduction, deeper learning and increased autonomy, outweigh any potential downsides. “The dream in the clouds is that we get rid of letter grades entirely,” he says. “Don’t worry about the marks. Let’s just focus on what you’re learning.”
For Sutcliffe, his interest in contract grading comes from a personal place. “When I was a student, absolutely I had to play the system,” he recalls. “There were times I had to choose between two courses, and I took the one where I knew I could get the letter grade — not the one I knew I’d be most interested in. And that’s a huge loss.”
The Faculty of Science is committed to helping students succeed and maximize the value of their university experience, and contract grading is one innovative way of doing this. For anyone interested in learning more about this novel approach, Sutcliffe recommends reading Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan D. Blum (West Virginia University Press).
