Ungrading and alternative assessment, as student-centered practices that promote authentic learning, have received growing attention in pedagogy research and among instructors across K-12 and higher education (Blum, 2020; Mandernach, 2025). However, ungrading has not been as popular among instructional designers in education. For instance, the Journal of Applied Instructional Design includes only two articles written explicitly on ungrading. Several factors may explain this gap in the instructional design literature. Often, instructional designers do not interact with students the same way faculty do (often working “behind the scenes” building courses), so they may be somewhat removed from how grades affect student learning. Additionally, grades can feel like a set-in-stone part of the education ecosystem, and instructional designers may feel powerless to push back against a system that seems permanent and unchangeable. While instructional designers and faculty may not be able to change the grading system at an institutional level, they can design learning experiences at the course level, where they can use approaches that de-center grades so students can focus on learning.
To test this, an ungrading approach (specs grading) was piloted in a continuing education course at the University of San Diego (USD) to see whether it would affect students’ intrinsic motivation, engagement, mental health, and learning. This paper presents the ungrading approach used, the rationale for the design, and results based on student surveys and reflections from the instructor who taught the course. Results indicate that students found that the ungrading method reduced stress, enhanced intrinsic motivation and engagement, and increased agency and ownership of learning. Students also appreciated the narrative feedback given and opportunities to revise and resubmit their work without penalty. Instructional designers in education seeking ways to take the focus off grades may find useful applications for their own design practice in this case. The following provides a literature review and background that guided the rationale for using an ungrading approach.
Grades and grading systems in schools emerged alongside a period in history where eugenics played a prominent role (Winfield, 2004). Intelligence and aptitude were viewed as inherently fixed traits relating to a person’s race and gender, confirmed by intelligence testing that justified white male dominance. This view also coincided with the propagation of behaviorism, the idea that behavior can be shaped through rewards and punishments, popularized by B.F. Skinner. Another major influence came from the philosophy of scientific management during the Industrial Revolution, popularized by Frederick Taylor (Taylorism), which aimed to improve economic efficiency and labor productivity in factories through quantification and measurement. Together, these dynamics shaped education's approach to ranking, sorting, and reinforcing the social hierarchy. Grades represent the intersection of a desire to quantify and measure (Taylorism), control (Behaviorism), and exclude (eugenics) (Anderson, 2024; McNutt, 2023; Winfield, 2004).
Because grades use numerical indicators and letters to represent student performance, they can appear objective on the surface. But these numbers and letters reflect an instructor’s bias (Eells, 1930; Malouff & Thorsteinsson, 2016; Miller, 1967). One instructor may take off points for assignments being turned in late (which is not related to students’ understanding) while another instructor, burnt out, gives out a bad score to the student at the bottom of the proverbial stack of papers or last in the LMS gradebook (Wang et al., 2023). Malouff and Thorsteinsson’s (2016) meta-analysis of experimental research also found “bias against students who have negative educational labels, students who are members of specific ethnic or racial groups, students who have previously performed poorly, and less attractive students” (p. 252). Rapchak et al. (2023) note that “traditional grading systems in the United States [are] subject to instructor preferences and reflective of white, middle-class ideals of learning” (p. 89). Grades are not reliable, valid, accurate, or equitable measures of student learning (Brookhart et al., 2016; Cain et al., 2022; James, 2023; Kirschenbaum, 2021). Some have called it “objectivity theater” (LeBlanc, 2019). In reviewing over a century of empirical research on grades and grading, Brookhart et al. (2016) state that: “Although measurement experts and professional developers may wish grades were unadulterated measures of what students have learned and are able to do, strong evidence indicates that they are not” (p. 835).
With behaviorism undergirding learning theory, schools use grades as extrinsic motivators as a control mechanism (Schinske & Tanner, 2014; Schneider & Hutt, 2013). Unfortunately, extrinsic motivators can undermine intrinsic motivation, or love of learning. Intrinsic motivation is the desire to learn something for its own sake rather than a reward or punishment, such as a grade. Intrinsic motivation can be developed when three psychological needs are met: autonomy (perceived control over one’s learning), competence (perceived self-efficacy), and relatedness (mutual feelings of care and connection) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This is known as self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2017). Research on self-determination theory suggests that grades are viewed as controlling and undermine intrinsic motivation to learn (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Intrinsic motivation to learn is enhanced when teachers support autonomy by offering choice, providing informational feedback on mastery, letting students explore their interests, and sharing decision-making (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Positive outcomes associated with intrinsic motivation include creativity (Deci & Ryan, 2000), psychological well-being (Bailey & Phillips, 2016), engagement, and academic success (Froiland et al, 2012; Taylor et al., 2014).
Grades can negatively impact students’ orientation to learning and intrinsic motivation (Harackiewicz et al., 1987). When grades are on the line, students are more likely to play it safe and not take intellectual risks (Kohn, 2011). This risk is real: one study showed that innovative students were penalized with low grades (Evdokima & Stepanova, 2023). With grades influencing behavior, students tend to choose the easiest task for the highest reward (the “easy A”), not because they are lazy, but because they are rational participants in this extrinsic system (Kohn, 2011; Kohn, 2018). Grades can shift the focus away from learning, which can reduce the quality of their thinking. Instead of asking questions like, “how do we know this to be true?”, students may be more likely to ask, “is this going to be on the test?” narrowing in on what they need to know to get a good grade or pass versus developing genuine interest or curiosity in the subject or exploring it further (Knesek, 2022; Kohn, 1993). Grades can reduce students’ interest in what they are learning (Harackiewicz et al., 1987; Kohn, 2011) and emphasize the end product more than the learning process (Pollio & Beck, 2000).
Grades can harm students’ mental health (Leslie, 2021). Students often cite pressure to earn high grades as a leading cause of stress and anxiety (Bouchrika, 2020), since grades weigh heavily on a student’s future job prospects, eligibility for financial aid and scholarships, and even car insurance rates (Lynch & Hennessey, 2017). Some stress can be beneficial, but heightened stress and anxiety levels can impair cognitive functioning (Angelidis et al., 2019), which not only hurts students’ ability to learn but also negatively affects their well-being and can lead to mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, inadequate sleep, self-harm, and substance abuse (Bloodgood et al., 2009).
Grades as forms of feedback have been shown to be ineffective in facilitating student learning (Schinske & Tanner, 2014). Research shows that students perform better with descriptive feedback and no grades than with descriptive feedback that accompanies grades (Butler & Nisan, 1986; Lipnevich, 2007; Lipnevich & Smith, 2009; Pulfrey et al., 2011). Oftentimes, “if a paper is returned with both a grade and a comment, many students will pay attention to the grade and ignore the comment” (Brookhart, 2008, p. 8). Brookhart (2008, p. 8), in her book, How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students, says “the grade ‘trumps’ the comment” in which “comments have the best chance of being read as descriptive if they are not accompanied by a grade.” Rather than seeing grades as feedback for learning, many students interpret grades as simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (Boatright-Horrowitz & Arruda, 2013). Hattie and Clarke’s (2018) research suggests that teachers should focus on student progress and growth, rather than grades. They argue that grades can be misleading and that students are most motivated when encouraged to exceed their own expectations.
Grading can also inhibit instructors from giving effective feedback. When instructors are focused on assigning a grade, it can detract from their ability to provide detailed, constructive feedback to students (Nilson, 2014). Instructors often provide feedback that justifies the grade given (Nilson, 2014). “[T]hey feel obliged to justify whatever points they subtract by writing on the student’s work what is inaccurate, illogical, or missing” (Nilson, 2014, p. 5). Instructors often loathe grading, lamenting that it is the worst part of teaching (Tierney, 2013), and much grading advice focuses on efficiency (University of Oregon Office of the Provost, n.d.). Grading is often arduous for teachers and can hinder innovative, effective teaching (Schinske & Tanner, 2014).
Opponents and critics of grades and grading systems have existed for as long as grades have (Brookhard et al., 2016). However, in recent years, ungrading has gained interest among teachers and instructors, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, when many institutions shifted instruction to remote learning (Reeve-Parker, 2024). Many institutions called for compassion-based assessment, with many opting for Pass/Fail grades to replace traditional A-F letter grades (Tamez-Robledo, 2021). During this time, institutions prioritized students' health and wellness, with an explicit understanding that grades were unnecessary stressors (Mostafa et al., 2023). Yet, what many institutions failed to recognize was the assumption that it was only in this moment when students needed relief from academic pressure, never mind the many students who continuously face hardships, including food and housing insecurity, and other barriers that put them at a disadvantage, long before the pandemic. More than 4 million college students are food insecure and 1.5 million experience homelessness (McKibben et al., 2023). In the years since, institutions have largely returned to using traditional grades, leaving many faculty asking why they should now pivot back to business-as-usual and away from compassion-based assessment. Some faculty are not going back and instead have turned to alternative assessment methods. Books, articles, newsletters, podcasts, and online communities of practice have emerged on ungrading among educators. Some students have also voiced support and appreciation for ungrading (Lanning, 2023; Planas, 2023).
There is no agreement on what the term ‘ungrading’ means. This is partly because instructors, by and large, do not have the power to remove final grades from their courses, as grades exist as part of the institutional infrastructure of education. Instead, instructors who practice ungrading approaches to assessment must work within the system to find creative ways to decenter grades' influence in their classes. In her book, Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) (2020), Susan Blum refers to “ungrading” as an umbrella term for different kinds of alternative assessment, also known as “de-grading” or “gradeless learning”. Ungrading has also been referred to as “emancipatory pedagogy” and is asset-framed as opposed to being deficit-framed like traditional grading (Sorensen-Unruh, 2024). Jesse Stommel, in his book Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop (2023), defines ungrading as:
“Raising an eyebrow at grades as a systemic practice, distinct from simply “not grading.” The word is a present participle, and an ongoing process, not a static set of practices. Ungrading is a systemic critique, a series of conversations we have about grades, ideally drawing students into those conversations with the goal of engaging them as full agents of their own education” (Chapter 2, para 1).
Many educators have shared different techniques for how they use alternative grading approaches such as contract grading (Danielewicz & Elbow, 2009), specs grading (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Nilson, 2014), labor-based grading (Inoue, 2022), collaborative grading (Pitts Donahoe, 2025), portfolios (Ferguson, 2013), self-assessments (Johnson, 2025), and standards-based grading (Feldman, 2018).
Some have pointed out that ungrading is not widely adopted among educators, and empirical research remains limited. But many educators are now challenging and critiquing the status quo of traditional grading (Smith, 2022) and are experimenting with alternative assessment methods (Buck, 2020) that seek to be more equitable, inclusive, and reflective (Eyler, 2024) and align with the values and habits of mind that foster student intellectual development, deep learning, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and well-being.
As ungrading has become a growing area of interest and research, some studies have shown a positive impact on student mental health and wellness. In one study of an information technology course that used ungrading, students reported that they felt relief from the “gamified” system of traditional grades that emphasizes points and percentages; that they could focus their time on thinking and reflection; and that this created space for deeper learning, rich communication, and substantive feedback between the instructor and student (Gorichanaz, 2022). A systematic search found that when pass/fail evaluation systems are used, student well-being improves, and academic performance is not adversely affected (Spring et al., 2011). Another study examining student perceptions of an ungraded course found that students viewed the course as a positive experience and reported increased intrinsic motivation (Guberman, 2021). Another qualitative study on ungrading as part of trauma-informed pedagogy found that students were more likely to focus on the learning process over the end product, follow their interests, and find opportunities for growth and healing (Turcotte et al., 2023). In a public administration course that used ungrading, the instructors found that it enhanced students’ capacity for self-reflection (Love & Daniel, 2025). Others have reported increased student performance and engagement when instructors did not grade individual assignments (Leslie, 2022; Williams, 2020). An empirical study on students in a STEM course that used ungrading found that “ungrading reduced stress, shifts focus towards mastery, supports interest-driven learning, and promotes student responsibility for their own learning” (Burns et al., 2024).
When instructors remove grades, they can focus on feedback. Students in ungrading courses have reported learning more than in graded courses (DiSalvo & Ross, 2022; Leslie, 2022; Turcotte et al., 2023). The literature supports this, showing that students performed better when feedback was given without grades than with grades (Butler & Nisan, 1986; Lipnevich, 2007; Lipnevich & Smith, 2009; Pulfrey et al., 2011). When instructors are freed from the burden of connecting feedback to grades, they often find giving feedback more enjoyable (Baker, 2024; Love & Daniel, 2025; Theobold, 2023).
Another instructor who implemented a contract-based alternative assessment method said this approach reinvigorated her love of teaching after years of burnout from traditional grading (Baker, 2024). This instructor felt that traditional grading did not align with her core values, and when she moved to alternative assessment methods, she could focus “on building relationships with students and supporting their development” (Baker, 2024, p. 46). If both students and teachers experience more joy and intrinsic motivation with ungrading than with traditional grading methods, and this translates into deeper engagement and learning, this approach appears promising.
While ungrading is still in its infancy as a research topic, those who have experimented with alternative assessment approaches have reported benefits to students' intrinsic motivation to learn, engagement with the content, and satisfaction with the teaching and learning process. Bailey and Wilkinson (2023) describe their transition to ungrading in their composition class as “nothing short of transformative – a pedagogical about-face rather difficult to abandon once taken up” (p. 7). In essence, ungrading can shift classroom culture from earning to learning, aligning assessment with intrinsic motivation and student agency (Bailey & Wilkinson, 2023). The following adds to this body of research on ungrading by describing the alternative assessment approach used to design a continuing education course for teachers in the University of San Diego Professional and Continuing Education department.
In the Spring of 2023, Heather Leslie (an instructional designer) collaborated with Alicia Gibson (subject matter expert and instructor) to design a continuing education course for teachers titled Live Your Best Educator Life: Finding School/Life Balance through Strategic Self Support and Wellness. This course, offered for graduate-level extension credit, addresses the stress, anxiety, fatigue, and burnout common in the teaching profession and helps educators integrate tools, habits, and strategies to restore health, wellness, and balance. We chose an ungrading approach in this course to align assessment with the overarching themes of mental health and wellness.
Now that we have presented our rationale for using an ungrading approach, we will discuss the assessment method we designed for the course. This course is online, self-paced (independent study format), and includes seven content modules, with a summative assignment at the end of each module and a final project for the final module. Continuing education courses at USD use letter grades, so we had to work within the letter-grade system and develop an approach that de-emphasized grades, even though students ultimately receive a letter grade at the end of the course.
For our ungrading methodology, we drew inspiration from Robert Talbert and David Clark’s (2022) Four Pillars of Alternative Grading. The four pillars are: 1. Clearly Defined Standards, 2. Helpful Feedback, 3. Marks Indicate Progress, and 4. Reattempts Without Penalty. These pillars work within feedback loops to help students meet standards. The following describes how these four pillars were integrated into the assessment design.
Figure 1
Talbert and Clark’s (2022) Four Pillars of Alternative Grading
A standard is “a clear and measurable action that a learner can take to demonstrate their learning of some important topic or concept” (Talbert, 2022, para 4). This definition of standard resembles the definition of a learning outcome: a specific, measurable statement describing what a student can do after completing a learning experience, such as a course or unit (Stanford University, n.d.). Courses at USD use learning outcomes, where each unit of a course (called a module) has learning outcomes that align with the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). For the grading rubrics that assess the summative assignment, we used a complete/incomplete format that directly assesses student achievement of the learning outcomes, meeting the Clearly Defined Standards Pillar and allowing clear alignment between learning outcomes and assessment. Traditional grading methods often don’t include rubrics, which obscures expectations for student performance, or they use overly complicated rubrics with several columns indicating various levels of student performance and numerous rows of criteria (Feldman, 2018). With so many gradations in student performance, it can be challenging for an instructor to differentiate between, say, 90% and 89.9%, even though this is often a full letter-grade difference (90-100%=A, 80-89.9%=B) (Schinske & Tanner, 2014). The ungrading approach used in this course simplifies grading by using only two gradations of student performance: Meets/Exceeds Standards or Still Developing.
If the student work (Evidence) is assessed as Still Developing, it is marked Incomplete, and the student can revise and resubmit their work to meet the standards (learning outcomes). Unlike courses that use traditional grading, where students typically have one opportunity to get it right, students in this course can resubmit their work without penalty, so all students have the opportunity to achieve the learning outcomes, which exemplifies the Reattempts Without Penalty Pillar. This approach can also foster self-regulated learning by giving students more control and autonomy over their work (Talbert & Clark, 2022). It can also help students focus on mastery and improvement, which can encourage students to persevere, take intellectual risks, and embrace challenges, rather than focus on the label they are assigned with a letter grade or numerical score, which can impede intrinsic motivation, intellectual risk-taking, and persistence (Leslie, 2021).
The module learning outcomes were the rubric criteria, along with an additional criterion of “Completeness” that assesses whether all assignment requirements were met. The rubrics followed this format:
Table 1
Rubric Format
Criteria | Evidence Meets or Exceeds Standards | Evidence Still Developing |
Completeness | All assignment requirements are complete. | Some assignment requirements are incomplete or missing. |
Learning Outcome #1 | ||
Learning Outcome #2 |
Here is an example of the module learning outcomes, assignment instructions, and rubric for one module. The module learning outcomes were:
Identify the effects of stress in your life.
Describe systems to reduce stress in your daily routine.
The summative assignment in this module was:
Routine Reflection Assignment
Instructions
Think over your current routines (or lack of routines) at home and at work, then descriptively reflect on the following questions:
How do you feel routines would help you establish a balance in life? Which routines that you do are currently working? How so? What routines do you need to establish in order to help create the balance you are desiring? Identify the effects of stress in your life and the systems that can help reduce stress on a daily basis.
Format
Submit as a Word or PDF document, 500-word essay, double-spaced in 12-point Arial or Times New Roman font.
Be sure you cite any sources or course material both within the lines of your text and in a list of references at the end of your assignment. See Reference Citation Guidelines in Course Resources.
Note: All assignments are complete/incomplete, so if your assignment meets the rubric standards, you will earn the full points. The instructor will provide substantive feedback on all assignments, and you may resubmit without penalty if it does not meet the rubric standards and you need to revise it.
To understand how your work will be assessed, view the scoring rubric below.
Criteria | Evidence Meets or Exceeds Standards | Evidence Still Developing |
Completeness | All requirements of the assignment are complete. | Some requirements of the assignment are incomplete or missing. |
Identifies the effects of stress in your life | Effects of stress are identified. | Effects of stress are incomplete or missing. |
Describes the systems to reduce stress in your daily routine | Systems are described to reduce stress on a daily basis. | Systems to reduce stress are incomplete or missing. |
Unlike many courses that use traditional grading, where students receive a letter grade or numeric score instead of instructor feedback or minimal feedback on individual assignments, ungrading approaches tend to emphasize substantive instructor feedback to guide student learning rather than justify a grade (Hasinoff et al., 2024). Hasinoff et al. (2024) say that “ungrading is a process of shifting [instructor] attention from assigning and justifying letter grades to developing other strategies for offering feedback and fostering students’ learning and growth” (p. 2). In this course, students receive instructor feedback on their work to guide their achievement of the learning outcomes. If a student received an Incomplete (Still Developing), they can revise and resubmit their work based on instructor feedback. This approach allows the instructor to focus on constructive feedback rather than using comments to justify a letter grade, following the Helpful Feedback Pillar (Talbert & Clark, 2022). Students received substantive feedback from the instructor on their work, explaining how they met the learning outcomes or what they still need to do to meet them. This kind of feedback is focused on growth and is specific and actionable. Students are also more likely to implement it because the feedback is more qualitative (comments) than quantitative (points or scores) (Clark & Talbert, 2023). Learning Management Systems include tools that let instructors create short video or audio snippets, adding variety and humanizing feedback through tone of voice and body language. Unlike most traditional grading approaches, students who do not meet the learning outcome (standard) do not fail. Instead, they remain in a feedback loop, can apply the instructor's feedback, and try again. This can promote a growth mindset (Dweck, 2007), so students view the challenge as an opportunity to improve, not as a fixed label (as with grades) on their intelligence or ability.
Students can revise and resubmit assignments for the entire course (180 days or 26 weeks). While there are no guarantees that a student will pass this course (as with any course), students can revise and resubmit all assignments as needed until the final deadline when the course concludes. The course is estimated to take about 35 hours to complete, which averages a little more than an hour of work per week. Students will more likely complete work in segments that fit their schedule within that 180-day enrollment period. We think this is sufficient time for students to complete the course, including resubmitting assignments if needed.
We must assign final grades for this course and use A-F letter grades, not pass/fail. We made each summative assignment worth 10 points and the final project worth 40 points, for a total of 100 points (the standard number of points for continuing education courses at USD). The following table is in the syllabus for students to review before they begin the course.
Table 2
Point allocations for course assignments
Available Points
Course Assignments | Points |
Module 1 Assignment | 10 |
Module 2 Assignment | 10 |
Module 3 Assignment | 10 |
Module 4 Assignment | 10 |
Module 5 Assignment | 10 |
Module 6 Assignment | 10 |
Module 7 Final Project *Required | 40 |
Total: | 100 |
We used a specifications (or specs) grading system to determine final grades, where the students’ final grade is based on the number of successfully completed assignments. Specs grading “is an alternative grading practice that promotes equity, reduces grading biases, empowers students, and cultivates a growth mindset. Specs grading is built on a mastery approach, where assessment and evaluation are closely tied to the curriculum and learning outcomes” (Johnson, 2025, para 3). Specs grading outlines the specific requirements for each letter grade in a course. For the assignment to count toward the final grade, it needs to receive a Complete (Meets or Exceeds Standards) on the rubric. With this method, if a student completes all the work and receives a Complete on all assignments (Complete means they achieved the learning outcomes for the assignment), they receive an A. If a student completes most of the work, they receive an A-, and so on. This format meets the Marks Indicate Progress Pillar (Talbert & Clark, 2022). In traditional grading systems, students typically get only one attempt per assignment, which doesn’t allow them to learn from mistakes, correct errors, and persevere toward the learning outcomes. Asao Inoue, a proponent of alternative grading, says, “Grades on our work does not allow us to productively fail. They create conditions that mostly punish failure, not reward it for the learning opportunity it can and should be” (Inoue, 2016, para 4).
We thought this specs grading method would give students the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, revise and resubmit their work, and have some autonomy and control over their final grade, since they get to decide how much work they want to put in ahead of time in a way that fits their life. We thought this grading approach aligned well with the course theme, which seeks to help students create balance in their lives. We also thought this grading method worked well for the course format: an online, self-paced (independent study) continuing education course in which students have 180 days (about 6 months) to complete the course. We think this gives students ample time to complete all or most of the work, even if they need to revise some assignments. Students must complete the final project because it is the course's cumulative assessment. Here is the breakdown of how final grades are determined, as provided to students in the syllabus, so they can see how final grades are determined before starting the course.
Table 3
Final grade breakdown
Number of Completed Assignments | Points | % Completed | Letter Grade |
7 (Final project + 6 assignments) | 100 | 100% | A |
6 (Final project + 5 assignments) | 90 | 90% | A- |
5 (Final project + 4 assignments) | 80 | 80% | B |
4 (Final project + 3 assignments) | 70 | 70% | C |
3 (Final project + 2 assignments) | 60 | 60% | D |
2 (Final project + 1 assignment) | 50 | 50% | D- |
1 (Final project + 0 assignments) | 40 | 40% | F |
In the Learning Management System (Canvas), each assignment for Modules 1-6 was worth 10 points, and the grade was displayed as Complete/Incomplete. The allowed attempts were set as Unlimited in case students needed to resubmit their assignments. The final project was set up the same way, but it was worth 40 points.
Figure 2
Screenshot of Canvas assignment settings showing 10 points, grade displayed as Complete/Incomplete, and Allowed Attempts set up as Unlimited.
In Canvas, we didn't show points in the rubrics because we didn’t want to distract students with points. There is an option to “Remove points from rubrics” so that was selected.
Figure 3
A screenshot of a rubric in Canvas showing a setting checked to remove points from the rubric.
Below is a view of the gradebook in Canvas showing assignment columns with a checkmark indicating whether students completed the assignment. Instead of points, percentages, or letter grades on individual assignments, students see a checkmark for Complete and an “X” for Incomplete. If the student has not submitted work yet, they will see a dash (-) for that assignment. The Totals column on the far right also shows the final grade as a percentage and letter grade.
Figure 4
A screenshot of the Canvas gradebook showing checkmarks for completed assignments, dashes for missing assignments, and a Totals column that shows final grades as percentages and letter grades.
Self-determination theory, which supports intrinsic motivation, grounded the course design and the ungrading approach used. Students were given autonomy (feeling in control) by letting them choose how many assignments they wanted to complete for their final grade using a specs grading approach. Students were given opportunities to build competence (feeling capable) by allowing them to resubmit assignments without penalty so they could achieve the learning outcomes, using a standards-based grading approach in rubric design. Students were given opportunities to experience relatedness (feeling connected to others) through personalized feedback from their instructor.
The course introduced the ungrading approach in the syllabus. Here is the explanation provided to students in the syllabus:
This course uses a standards-based and specs-based grading approach, often referred to as “ungrading.” Rather than assigning traditional letter grades to each assignment, we focus on learning, mastery, and growth as these values align with our university’s mission to foster inclusive excellence, ethical leadership, and the full flourishing of every student.
Each module includes clearly defined learning outcomes and a summative assignment. Assignments are marked as either Complete (Meets or Exceeds Expectations) or Incomplete (Still Developing). If an assignment is marked Incomplete, you will receive detailed feedback and have opportunities to revise and resubmit without penalty. This encourages you to focus on improving your understanding, rather than worrying about losing points.
Instead of assigning partial credit or averaging grades, you are assessed on whether your work meets the learning outcomes. Rubrics clarify expectations and focus on the quality and completeness of your work. We believe learning is an ongoing process, and you should have the chance to reflect, revise, and grow.
At the end of the course, a specs-based grading system will determine your final letter grade. This means your grade reflects your achievement of the course learning outcomes. The final project is required to complete the course. See the grade breakdown below.
This approach honors your time and effort, encourages reflection and mastery, and supports the balance essential to living your best educator life by affirming your dignity, nurturing resilience, and promoting a growth mindset. Based in compassion and care, this model empowers you to take intellectual risks, view feedback as a tool for growth, and take ownership of your learning experience on your own timeline.
So far, this course has been implemented twice, with 34 students completing it. The first time the course ran, there were 8 students enrolled. Of those 8 students, 7 completed the course, and all received A’s (100%). The second time the course ran, there were 33 students enrolled. Out of those 33 students, 28 completed the course (85%). Out of the 28 students who completed the course, 25 received A’s (90%), 1 received an A- (3%), and 2 received a B- (7.1%).
Students were invited to complete a survey at the end of the course to provide their feedback on the grading approach used. 15 students completed the survey (about a 44% response rate). The first question asked students to rate their experience with the grading approach used as extremely satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and extremely dissatisfied. 86.7% of students were extremely satisfied, and 13.3% were satisfied.
Figure 7
Pie chart showing 86.7% of students extremely satisfied and 13.3% satisfied with the grading approach used
The rest of the questions in the survey were open-ended. Student responses were coded into themes and analyzed and compared to what others have reported in the ungrading research literature.
Table 4
Qualitative results from student surveys
Ungrading Theme | Representative Student Quotes | Count | Connection to Other Research |
Mental Health & Reduced Stress | “Less stressed and able to focus on my learning.” “It helped me reflect honestly… without feelings of judgement.” | 10 students used “less stressed”, “less stressful”. “stress-free” or “reduced stress”; 12 students explicitly reported positive impact on mental health. 1 student said “No.” | Burns et. al., (2024) Kalbarcyk et, al., (2023) Palmer et al., (2025) Stansberry et al., (2025) Stenson (2022) Stranford (2024) Turcotte et al. (2023) Ubbesen et al., (2024) |
Intrinsic Motivation & Engagement | “More eager and motivated to learn.” “More motivated to submit good work.” “focus[ed] more on the content and that was motivating.” “Getting the feedback increased my engagement.” “This grading approach helped me stay engaged.” “I really enjoyed this course and found myself engaged.” | 13 students mentioned “motivated” or variations; 11 mentioned increased engagement with course materials. | Bailey & Wilkinson (2023) Gorichanaz (2022) Guberman (2021) Hall & Meinking (2022) Hasinoff et al., (2024) Ramnarain & Santucci (2025) Spurlock (2023) Stansberry et al., (2025) Stenson (2022) Stranford (2024) Theobold (2023) Ubbesen et al., (2024). |
Student Agency & Ownership of Learning | “more willing to try” “proactively reflecting on my lifestyle and choices” “I truly read and completed all the activities. I could have skipped out on some readings but I never did. I wanted to read everything in order to help myself.” “I still put in my best effort into all my assignments.” “Relaxation helped me openly share my shortcomings.” “I appreciate that there were second chances given.” “I liked the idea of mastery of an assignment.” “I felt that I put a lot of time and effort into the reading and work.” | 10 students explicitly mentioned resubmission/mastery; several others described focusing on personal growth, autonomy, or self-regulation. | Burns et. al., (2024) Gorichanaz (2022) Hasinoff et. al., (2024) Kalbarczyk et. al., (2023) Kehlenbach (2022) Palmer et. al., (2025) Ramnarain & Santucci (2025) Rosenfeld (2023) Spurlock (2023) Stranford (2024) Tripp et. al., (2025) Ubbesen et. al., (2024) |
Helpful Instructor Feedback | “a great help” “I appreciate the time that was taken to look over my assignments.” “I enjoyed the feedback” “I liked the fact that my work would be deemed as complete/incomplete, rather than be dissected for flaws.” “I was motivated to continue with the coursework because of the positive feedback.” | 13 students highlighted positive, kind, specific, or consistent feedback | Clarke (2022) Gorichanaz (2022) Lee (2024) Love & Daniel (2025) Rosenfeld (2023) Theobold (2023) Turcotte et. al., (2023) |
The instructor who taught the course shared her reflections about the ungrading approach over email. She said that the benefits of the ungrading approach were that it:
“Reduced stress for both students and the instructor, as the pressure to “get it right for the grade” is replaced with a focus on growth and understanding.”
Fostered “a collaborative learning environment that prioritized dialogue, feedback, and personal growth. Feedback becomes more meaningful and actionable, fostering deeper conversations between myself and the students.”
Removed “the transactional nature of grades and replaced it with intrinsic motivation for learning such as understanding the material and applying it in meaningful ways.”
Emphasized “engaging with the learning process over final products and earning points.”
Empowered students “to take ownership of their learning” and “take risks and explore ideas.”
Encouraged “students to reflect on their learning journey, building skills that extend beyond the classroom.”
Some challenges that she noted with the ungrading approach were that it:
“[R]equires a mindset shift for both students and instructors, which can take time to establish, and students accustomed to traditional grading may initially struggle to adapt and may seek reassurance about their progress.”
May require “additional time and labor to give feedback when allowing resubmissions”. She noted that “Personally, I didn’t experience many students needing numerous opportunities to revise, but I could see how this could come up perhaps in future courses.”
Some advice she gave for others implementing ungrading is to:
“[C]learly communicate the rationale for the ungrading approach to students at the beginning of the course, the logistics of the method including what to look for in the gradebook, and what to expect regarding the feedback and submission process. Be transparent about the purpose and process of ungrading while helping students understand how it benefits their learning.”
Be humble as the ungrading process may “require some ‘unlearning’ both for students and instructors who are accustomed to traditional grades. This process may involve some stumbling along the way as an instructor tries a new, unfamiliar approach. Being open with students about trying a new method and receptive of their feedback on it can set the tone for an authentic learning experience for all involved as you figure it out together. It can level the playing field and create more opportunities for collaboration and partnership among students and the instructor.”
“[Focus] on providing timely, actionable, and meaningful feedback that supports growth. Rubrics and clear criteria can still play a role in guiding students without assigning numeric scores. Build opportunities for students to reflect on their learning, articulate their progress, and identify areas for improvement.”
In terms of how the ungrading approach impacted her teaching experience, she said that it has deepened her engagement with students. She said:
“I now have richer, more authentic conversations about their work and learning processes. Without the pressure to justify a specific score, my feedback is more constructive, personalized, and focused on actionable steps for improvement. Knowing that my feedback drives meaningful growth, rather than justifies a grade, has helped validate that the content being given is meaningful for the students and they see the importance in their journey of work/life balance. And in this, the students’ work has become more thoughtful and reflective, demonstrating a deeper understanding of the material. Ungrading has reduced the mental load of assigning and defending grades, allowing me to focus on the aspects of teaching that bring me joy, such as fostering connections and celebrating students’ growth.”
She also noted that:
“This experience has been transformative for both my students and me as an educator. Teaching in this way has allowed me to focus on what truly matters—fostering deep learning and meaningful growth rather than chasing arbitrary grades. Students are more engaged, reflective, and invested in their learning journey, which has been incredibly rewarding to witness. For me, the ungrading approach has brought a renewed sense of purpose to my teaching. It has allowed me to connect with students on a deeper level, support their personal and academic development more effectively, and engage in richer, more authentic discussions about their progress. This method aligns with my core values as an educator, and I look forward to continuing to refine and expand upon it in future courses. Teaching in this way has reaffirmed my belief that when we prioritize learning over grading, the outcomes are not only more meaningful but also more fulfilling for everyone involved. I’m excited to build on this experience and explore how ungrading can be implemented in other contexts and disciplines.”
The survey results matched what many others have reported in the literature on students’ experiences with ungrading and alternative grading approaches. Below is a discussion of how the results from student surveys in this course align with what others have reported in the ungrading literature. Students in this course report improved mental health and reduced stress, enhanced intrinsic motivation and engagement, and increased agency and ownership of learning. Students also found the instructor's gradeless narrative feedback helpful.
Students in this course, like many others who have taken a course that used ungrading, report less stress and anxiety. Burns et al. (2024) reported similar results for a Library and Information Science (LIS) graduate course, where the most common effect of ungrading students reported was reduced stress and anxiety. In student surveys from this course, 10 students mentioned being “less stressed” or similar variations. Palmer et al. (2025), in their study of two graduate social work courses that used ungrading, also found that students reported feeling less stressed, more empowered, and having improved mental health. In this course, 12 students explicitly mentioned a positive impact on their mental health, with one student who said, “This course was great for my mental health.” In an undergraduate exercise physiology course, Stenson (2022) noted that students had “less grade based anxiety” and were able to focus on the content of the course and apply their learning (Stenson, 2022, para 4). Similarly, a student in this course mentioned that they were “able to focus on my learning.”
In two courses in an M.S. Educational Technology program, Stansberry et al. (2025) found that their ungrading approach increased students’ mental wellness. When implementing ungrading in an online graduate course in Educational Technology, Turcotte et al. (2023) also found that students reported ungrading as less stressful than courses with traditional grades. In an undergraduate research and writing course taught by several instructors across sections that used ungrading, Ubbesen et al. (2024) found that, overall, this approach decreased stress and anxiety for students. In two graduate-level global health courses that used ungrading, students reported that ungrading helped them focus on the course material “without anxiety about GPAs” (Kalbarcyk et al., 2023, p. 244). These results align with what students in this course reported about their decreased stress and anxiety and enhancement of mental health. Students could resubmit work in this course without penalty and have more control over their learning, which may have reduced pressure for perfection and increased their self-assurance that they have opportunities to improve their work. This could allow them to focus on their learning over grades and avoid “feelings of judgment,” as one student described.
Students in this course also report increased motivation and engagement. This finding aligns with what others who have used ungrading/alternative grading have reported in the literature (Hall & Meinking, 2022; Stansberry et al., 2025; Stranford, 2024; Theobold, 2023; Ubbesen et al., 2024). In an undergraduate data science course, students reported that the ungrading method was more motivating than traditionally graded courses, “with 90% feeling they had learned more than in a traditionally graded course” (Theobold, 2023, p. 330). In a radical political economy course that used ungrading, Ramnarain & Santucci (2025) reported that students’ intrinsic motivation helped students to be more persistent and resilient. In this course, 13 students explicitly mentioned being “motivated,” and 11 students mentioned increased engagement with course materials. The instructor of this course also made the connection between intrinsic motivation and authentic learning because “It removes the ‘transactional’ nature of grades and replaces it with intrinsic motivation for learning. This approach shifts the focus from extrinsic goals (e.g., achieving an A) to intrinsic goals such as understanding the material and applying it in meaningful ways.”
As part of a campus-wide, faculty-led initiative in which eighteen instructors used ungrading, Hasinoff et al. (2024) found that over 70% of students perceived their learning experience as more positive in ungrading courses than in courses that used traditional grades. In ungrading courses, students reported that their engagement was much (45%) or somewhat (30%) higher than in traditional courses (Hasinoff et al., 2024). Additionally, these authors noted that students reported learning more and being able to concentrate more on learning (Hasinoff et al., 2024). A student in this course similarly reported that she “really enjoyed this course and found [herself] engaged.” In two undergraduate composition courses, Bailey & Wilkinson (2023) found that not receiving traditional grades did not affect students’ effort or quality of work and that they actually improved when traditional grades were removed. Similarly, students in this course reported being more engaged with the content, with one student saying they “focus[ed] more on the content and that was motivating.”
In undergraduate information technology courses that used ungrading, Gorichanaz (2022) found that students engaged more in the course material and with peers when ungrading was used than when traditional grading was used. Eleven students in this course also reported enhanced engagement with coursework and course materials, describing themselves as “More eager and motivated to learn” and “More motivated to submit good work.” Guberman (2021) noted that students in his online asynchronous undergraduate course reported enhanced intrinsic motivation in part due to the qualitative feedback they received paired with ungrading. This finding correlates to what some students said in this course: “Getting the feedback increased my engagement.”
In a computer science course that used ungrading (specs grading with opportunities for re-dos), students reported increased motivation, self-efficacy, and a sense of control over their own learning (Spurlock, 2023). These results align with student surveys in this course, where students “appreciate[d] that there were second chances given.” In an upper-division undergraduate exercise physiology course that used ungrading, students reported increased curiosity and a deeper understanding of content when revising their work. The instructor found ungrading to enhance student engagement with the course content (Stenson, 2022). This matches what some students reported in this course: they “loved having the opportunity to submit an assignment as many times as needed.”
In studies of courses that use ungrading, one finding that has been reported is an increase in student agency and ownership over their learning (Ramnarain & Santucci, 2025; Rosenfeld, 2023; Stranford, 2024; Ubbesen et al., 2024). Kehlenbach (2022) found that ungrading courses helped students “develop a sense of ownership over the class and participate more, simply because they want to” (p. 400). As others have reported in the literature, students in this course report increased agency and ownership of learning. The instructor of this course noted that “students feel empowered to take ownership of their learning and are more willing to take risks and explore ideas. It encourages students to reflect on their learning journey, building skills that extend beyond the classroom.” In an undergraduate STEM course that used alternative grading, quiz retakes contributed to students’ self-determination and agency (Tripp et al., 2024). In the student surveys for this course, 10 students mentioned resubmission/mastery to take more accountability and empowerment in the learning process. In a Library and Information Science (LIS) course that used ungrading, reported effects included shifting the focus toward learning, supporting interest-driven learning, and promoting responsibility for learning (Burns et al., 2024). Students in this course reported similar effects, including focusing on personal growth, autonomy, and self-regulation. One student said they “liked the idea of mastery of an assignment.” In a public administration course that used ungrading, one student mentioned that conversations with classmates were focused on the content of the course rather than grades and that “it is so much more focused on what I understand than how well I can perform my understanding” (Love & Daniel, 2025, p. 177). Students in this course similarly reported engaging more with the materials and learning the content out of genuine interest than for a grade. One student in this course said, “Not only was I completing the assignment, but I was also proactively reflecting on my lifestyle and choices, something I know I can tend to avoid doing.”
In a social work course that used ungrading, students reported being more motivated to learn and more deeply engaged in the revision process, which they believed positively contributed to their learning experience (Palmer et al., 2025). Students in this course likewise reported being personally invested in their growth, with one student saying, “I put a lot of time and effort into the reading and work.” In undergraduate information technology courses that used ungrading, Gorichanaz (2022) said that ungrading “de-gamified” his course so that students could concentrate on learning. He said that the most exciting part was how students applied what they learned outside his course. Similarly, students in this course reported benefits from learning outside the course. One student said that they were “proactively reflecting on my lifestyle and choices.” Another student said, “I was able to focus more on the overall personal gain from the assignment, versus the overall grade.” The instructor of this course noted how not focusing on grades created space to focus on learning. She said, “What I have found with the ungrading method is that it fosters a collaborative learning environment, where students reflect on their progress and focus on mastery of content. While traditional grading involves more rigid assessments and potential penalization for style and conventions, or formatting or page length, ungrading prioritizes dialogue, feedback, and personal growth.”
In two graduate-level global health courses that used ungrading, Kalbarczyk et al. (2023) reported that ungrading encouraged students to pay more attention to the feedback comments, which facilitated taking intellectual risks and applying learning. In this course, a student reported similarly that they were “more willing to try.” Regarding risk-taking, one student said that the ungrading method “helped me openly share my shortcomings.” In a computer science course that used ungrading, students reported increased effort (Spurlock, 2023). Similarly, students in this course also discussed their effort. One student said, “I truly read and completed all the activities. I could have skipped out on some readings, but I never did. I wanted to read everything in order to help myself.” In an online counseling course that used ungrading, the instructor observed “that quality of work did not decrease and may have even increased when students were asked to modify or re-do assignments” (Clarke, 2022, p. 8). When discussing their quality of work, a student from this course said, “I still put my best effort into all my assignments.”
Courses that use ungrading tend to emphasize quality instructor feedback (Clarke, 2022; Lee, 2024). Turcotte et al. (2023) say that courses that use ungrading emphasize narrative feedback, which fosters reflection. In this course, the instructor provided rich, narrative feedback on students’ work to help them achieve the learning outcomes and foster their intellectual growth and mental health. She said, “Feedback becomes more meaningful and actionable, fostering deeper conversations between myself and the students.” In a public administration course that used ungrading, students reported the positive effects of feedback on their learning and growth (Love & Daniel, 2025). Students in this class seemed to appreciate the narrative style of feedback, with one student saying, “I liked the fact that my work would be deemed as complete/incomplete, rather than be dissected for flaws.”
In an online counseling course that used ungrading, Clarke (2022) noted that students found their instructor's feedback more meaningful. In student surveys for this course, 13 students highlighted the instructor's positive, specific, or consistent feedback. In an information technology course that used ungrading, Gorichanaz (2022) notes that the feedback created an opportunity for rich communication and community-building between instructor and students. Students in this course also seemed to appreciate the feedback, and it promoted a positive instructor-student connection. In an online educational technology course that used ungrading, Turcotte et al. (2023) found that instructor feedback helped facilitate students’ deep learning and reflection. Likewise, in this course, the instructor stated that “Students are more engaged, reflective, and invested in their learning journey” in part due to the feedback, which students described as “specific”, “consistent”, “kind”, “prompt”, and “a great help.” In a public administration course that used ungrading, students reported that the feedback itself was motivating (Love & Daniel, 2025). A few students specifically mentioned feedback as motivating in this course. One student said, “I was motivated to continue with the coursework because of the positive feedback.”
The narrative style of feedback was not only motivating to students. It also motivated the instructor, as others who have taught courses that use ungrading have experienced (Baker, 2024; Love & Daniel, 2025; Theobold, 2023). In a data science course that used ungrading for the first time, Theobold (2023) found the feedback process much more engaging and joyful than in traditionally graded courses. The instructor also noted the enjoyment of giving gradeless feedback, noting, “A big benefit is the reduced stress for both students and the instructor, as the pressure to 'get it right for the grade' is replaced with a focus on growth and understanding.”
Like other courses that used ungrading, the majority of students in this course reported that they were able to focus on authentic learning and personal reflection without the distraction of grades weighing on their mental health (Burns et al., 2024; Kalbarcyk et al., 2023; Palmer et al., 2025; Stenson, 2022; Stansberry et al., 2025; Turcotte et al., 2023; Ubbesen et al., 2024). For other students, ungrading may not affect their engagement much. This may have been the case for one student who indicated in the survey that ungrading did not really affect their motivation or engagement. But students like this may do well regardless of the grading approach used (Leslie, 2022). Many of the themes overlapped, including mental health, intrinsic motivation, engagement, agency/ownership of learning, and instructor feedback. All these areas intersect and can collectively create a high-quality learning experience.
The ungrading approach used in this course was grounded in self-determination theory. Results indicate that many students appreciated the autonomy to decide how much work they wanted to do to earn the grade, with some even saying they could have done less but chose to do all the work because they wanted to better themselves. This aligns with Hattie and Clarke’s (2018) work, which suggests that students are often more motivated to set expectations for themselves than when they work for a grade. Students were given opportunities to build competence by resubmitting assignments without penalty so they could achieve the learning outcomes. Some students said they liked the opportunity to resubmit assignments, which took some of the pressure off; others said it made them try harder or be more willing to try. This is the kind of resilience that assessment should foster. It also promotes educational equity and aligns with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles (Burns et al., 2024). Finally, students were given opportunities to experience relatedness (connection) through the personal feedback they received from their instructor. Many students made positive comments about the feedback they received from their instructor, and some said this was a major aspect driving their engagement and motivation. Since this course is an independent study course, students did not interact with each other. For courses with built-in student-to-student interaction, this relatedness (connection) aspect can be further enhanced through peer learning (Leslie, 2020). These findings also align with Kluver et al. (2025), who conducted a systematic literature review of ungrading in STEM courses. These authors found that ungrading aligns with Self-Determination Theory of student motivation, where students experience less stress, deeper learning, and increased ownership of learning (Kluver et al., 2025). When instructors remove grades from the equation, they can also focus more on giving authentic feedback without an evaluative gaze (Stommel, 2023). This can also improve intrinsic motivation and engagement for instructors (Baker, 2024), as one instructor who taught the course noted. Additionally, some have found that ungrading can improve course evaluations (Kalbarczk et al., 2023).
The instructor who taught this course noted that “Some challenges that I have noticed are that the ungrading approach requires a mindset shift for both students and instructors, which can take time to establish, and students accustomed to traditional grading may initially struggle to adapt and may seek reassurance about their progress.” This challenge also appears in the ungrading literature, where students may feel uncertain about ungrading if it is unfamiliar (Palmer et al., 2025; Stanford, 2024). Grades are such an entrenched part of school culture, and moving to ungrading requires unlearning old habits and creating new mindsets for both students and instructors that emphasize more power sharing and openness (Leslie, 2022). Ungrading is not, as Stansberry et al. (2025) say, “a simple shift of the grading task” (p. 168). It requires centering the student as a learner, which entails more collaboration than control over the learning process (Love & Daniel, 2025). Jesse Stommel (2023) says that to move towards this approach, “start by trusting students” (para. 4). The instructor of this course recommended that “Instructors should clearly communicate with their students at the beginning of the course to explain the rationale for the ungrading approach, the logistics of the method including what to look for in the gradebook, and what to expect regarding the feedback and submission process.”
The instructor of this course noted that “Another potential challenge for instructors allowing re-takes/revision opportunities for students is the additional time and labor required to give feedback. Personally, I didn’t experience many students needing numerous opportunities to revise, but I could see how this could come up perhaps in future courses.” In a public administration course that used ungrading, instructors also noted the concerns about increased instructor workload when giving narrative feedback to students, but they also say it is “worth the effort” and that the process “goes faster and is far more enjoyable with ungrading than with standard grading practices, the former of which allows us to focus on engaging in conversations with student about their work and ideas rather than assigning points” (Love & Daniel, 2025, p. 180). One student in a public administration course that used ungrading shared initial uncertainty about the process, but then adjusted, and it ended up being a positive experience (Love & Daniel, 2025). Ungrading can not only transform the learning experience for students, it can also transform pedagogy for instructors (Baker, 2024). The instructor who taught this course described the ungrading approach as “transformational” and that it has “brought a renewed sense of purpose to my teaching.”
While the results reported by students and the instructor in this course are promising and affirm the ungrading approach, they are limited to a small group of students from one course (taught twice) and are not representative of the entire class or beyond. Results reported in the literature on ungrading, like those in this article, tend to be small-scale studies of individual courses and may also rely on students’ self-reported experiences and instructors’ anecdotal or descriptive evidence. Research on ungrading is still in its infancy, so no quantitatively objective standard unit of measurement exists to determine its effectiveness. At the same time, grading also lacks a quantitatively objective, standardized unit of measurement to determine its effectiveness (Brookhart et al., 2016). Much of the literature on assessment, academic achievement, and student success relies on grades as numeric indicators (York et al., 2015). Yet grades are not effective measures of learning, which creates a shaky foundation for research. Grades do not accurately reflect student learning, as they are not scientifically valid, objective, or reliable (Brookhart et al., 2016; Cain et al., 2022; Clark, 2022; James, 2023; Kirschenbaum, 2021; Singh, 2022). While research on ungrading has largely focused on individual courses and instructors rather than entire institutions or school systems, the field continues to grow. It should also be noted that research based on grades as indicators of academic achievement is also limited, as grades tend to reduce the complexity of student learning down to a single data point or symbol that lacks context, nuance, or substance (Brookhart et al., 2016; Cain, et al., 2022; Clark, 2022: James, 2023; Kirschenbaum, 2021; Singh, 2022). Paul Dressel (1957) once provided the following definition of a grade:
“A grade can be regarded only as an inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite amount of material” (p. 6).
Another important aspect of ungrading, or any assessment method, is the instructor. Ungrading is not just an assessment method; it is part of a broader teaching philosophy that emphasizes rich communication, students as partners in learning, and a pedagogy of care (Turcotte et al., 2023). An instructor who practices this approach can make a big difference in students’ learning experience (Leslie, 2020). In this case, Alicia, as the course instructor, was a key reason the ungrading method succeeded. Alicia exemplified how an engaged, thoughtful, and supportive teacher cultivates quality learning experiences.
Despite some reported benefits of ungrading, others have pointed out its flaws, especially around equity (Dyer, 2024; Smith, 2022; Sorensen-Unruh, 2024). Instructors’ biases can influence final grade allocations, even in an ungrading course, perpetuating systemic inequities. Implementing ungrading, then, must also be accompanied by critical awareness and reflection to address implicit biases, equity, and make space for continuous iteration and improvement in assessment methods.
Ungrading has become a growing area of interest among educators in recent years (Blum, 2025). Instructional designers, who are also educators, can improve course design by de-centering grades and centering the learning process using contemporary learning theories such as self-determination theory rather than traditional grades, which tend to emphasize the end product over the learning process (Kluver et al., 2025). Like many faculty, instructional designers may have limited autonomy to remove final grades because final grades are part of schools' educational infrastructure. However, instructional designers may find creative ways to determine final grades using alternative assessment/ungrading approaches such as standards-based grading, labor-based grading, specs grading, collaborative grading, or other methods they could design that fit within the overall grading system. Additionally, instructional designers can advocate for more inclusive, equitable, effective, and socially just assessment methods over traditional grading methods that can undermine intrinsic motivation, mental health, creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual development, while further disadvantaging marginalized students (Eyler, 2024). Seeking to make systemic change in education can feel like paddling against the current. But even small-scale change, such as one class, can make a big difference for those students. Alternative grading methods can work in any discipline, from STEM fields (Kluver et al., 2025) to criminal justice (Shah, 2024) to theology (Rovati & Heron, 2025). Faculty and instructional designers can implement this small-scale change on an individual course basis, which, over time, can add up to a significant improvement in students’ learning experiences in higher education.
To make systemic change at the institution level, however, requires a radical shift in academic culture and a reimagining of the educational experience that grounds its teaching and learning practices in approaches that center intellectual growth, not administrative efficiency or outdated traditions. Some institutions, however, do not use traditional letter grades or grading systems. Alverno College, Antioch University, Bennington College, Brown University Evergreen State College, Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Goddard College, Prescott College, Reed College, and Sarah Lawrence College use alternative grading systems (Casimiro, 2023) such as narrative evaluations (Antioch University, 2021) where an instructor provides a detailed, personalized assessment of the student’s performance, offering qualitative insights and a story behind their achievements and learning journey. In addition, many medical schools now use pass/fail grading (Sping et al., 2011). These alternative grading systems can create an environment more conducive to learning by helping students better grasp their strengths and areas for improvement, deepen their engagement and learning process, and develop a growth-oriented mindset (Adler & Stoczynski, 2025). Institutions that do not use traditional grades may be better positioned to withstand some of the technological disruption posed by new developments like artificial intelligence (AI) because they focus on creating a supportive learning environment.
Backward design is an approach that begins with the end in mind- what learners should gain from their education- and works backward to determine the best way for learners to realize those gains (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). If the overarching goal of education is for students to become critical, curious, creative thinkers and learners who take ownership of their learning, are not afraid to take intellectual risks, and are able to address the world’s most pressing problems, then assessment methods need to evolve beyond the 100-year old grading system so that assessment supports how students learn. This is becoming more pronounced with artificial intelligence (AI), which makes it possible for students to offload and bypass the learning process when producing academic work (Fan et al., 2024; Gerlich, 2025). If students view education as merely a transactional series of superficial outputs (grades, diplomas) with little concern for its intrinsic aspects (learning, growth, and development), institutions will lose sight of its real value. On the other hand, if students see education as an intrinsic pursuit that helps them develop their thinking and grow as lifelong learners, AI will pose less of a threat. But this will require institutions to align their assessment methods with their visions and values for supporting the success of all students who come through their doors. It also involves better communicating the intrinsic value of learning itself and its meaning beyond the output. Looking at the big picture, the purpose of education is to give students the opportunity to grapple with complex ideas, challenge their perspectives, make discoveries, and use their creativity and imagination to solve problems, invent new paradigms, and become self-actualized human beings. Grades do not support any of those intrinsic goals and, in fact, have the opposite effect, often producing conformity, risk aversion, and narrow-minded thinking (Kohn, 2011). We can hope for what is possible if educational institutions replace the dehumanizing system of grades with more humanistic methods that cultivate the conditions for quality learning to thrive. “The most dangerous phrase in the English language is 'we have always done it this way ’”- Dr. Grace Hopper (computing innovator)
EdTech Archives