Alternative Grading Practices Discussion

While researching alternative grading practices, I found several advantages and a couple of disadvantages that are worth considering. The first advantage I identified was that in labor-based grading, all assignments are equal in terms of their impact on the final grade. “All assignments are labor, so they are all treated equally when calculating grades” (Inoue 127). I can see how, to some educators, this could be seen as a disadvantage. The final project should have the biggest impact on the final grade, right? After all, that is where most of the labor has gone. Intuitively, this makes sense. However, in a process-based class, each step of the writing process should be equally valued. It is important to maintain a growth mindset over a product mindset. Simultaneously, a common complaint among educators is that students don’t take the weekly reflections, discussion posts, and responses, or x assignment seriously. Labor-based grading encourages students to engage with each assignment with the same amount of effort and care, including the x assignment that students can often interpret as busy work, particularly when they only make up 5-10% of the final grade. Labor-based grading can often mitigate the unfairness that conventional grading systems show to diverse groups of students (Inoue 125). Conventional grading prioritizes product, and this product is often measured by its ability to conform to the dominant culture’s perception of “correct” English.

The disadvantages start with the educator. It takes a lot of labor and time to carefully consider and design a course around labor-based grading or grading contracts. It takes valuable class time to negotiate the contract. It takes time and effort to painstakingly outline the labor expectations for every assignment. I feel this disadvantage is weakened by the fact that, as educators, if we expect so much from our students, we should be willing to give just as much, if not more. Doing the work in the beginning can also mitigate the amount of work that happens later in the term with conventional grading. Another possible disadvantage comes from student resistance to grading contracts (Cowan 7).

This reminds me, I keep returning to this reading, about the phenomenon pointed out by bellhooks that students can be resistant to liberatory pedagogical practices (142). Buy-in from students is essential to effective labor-based grading. It will take more time and effort to get resistant students on board. Similarly, this disadvantage is made less significant when considering the number of students who not only don’t have a problem with it, but also those who are on board with the grading contracts. Another possible disadvantage comes from the criticism that labor-based grading “may privilege those students who do not have to work or take care of family members and go to school at the same time” (Inhoue 136). While I sympathize with those students who have to juggle so much (I remember reading that 75% of students are now considered non-traditional, while only 25% of students retain traditional student status, so I have to wonder when these signifiers will swap their signifieds), labor-based grading seems like the most equitable way to accommodate students. “Finding a system that will work for everyone is illusory” (Cowan 7), but as an educator, I am willing to be flexible and maintain communication with students who are struggling. I won’t ever give up on a student because of their circumstances. Rather, I will do everything in my power to support them within the system that we have negotiated in class. Another way to support nontraditional students is with the gimme system identified by Inoue (137). Between these two supports, there is room for all students to succeed.

Many of the things I liked from the readings were also the things that I learned or changed the way I saw grading. I enjoyed Inoue’s explanation of rigor and labor-based grading: “It also makes the course generally more rigorous, if by rigorous we mean that it typically requires students to do more work on a specific pace or tempo during the term, and attempt more engaged and intense work, although this does not mean more high stakes work” (128) Reading this was a big deal to me because when I heard alternative grading systems, I had to admit I was immediately skeptical. Conservative talking points about wasted education and basket weaving filled my head. I have internalized so many of these conservative criticisms of higher ed, and I’m grateful to be able to confront these fears and anxieties and put them to rest. Another aspect of the reading that I liked was Inoue’s exploration of extra credit (128). There are not many educators who oppose extra credit outright, but would oppose any changes to the conventional grading system, conceding the point that labor is valuable in terms of the final grade. I found that incredibly valuable. I really appreciated the more practical explanations of how everything worked, like the explanations of the labor for each assignment (Inoue 128-129) and the definitions for the classifications of grades (Inoue 131, Fickus, Navickas). Lastly, I really enjoyed how Inoue incorporated mindfulness into his teaching practice with deep breathing exercises. Labor-based has an element of embodiment. It brings the work that the students do with their bodies, recognizes it, and values it. Breathing exercises extend this aspect of labor-based grading. This embodiment is further emphasized by the importance that Inoue places on being physically present in the classroom (130).

Works Cited

Cowan, Michelle. “A Legacy of Grading Contracts for Composition.” The Journal of Writing Assessment. Accessed 10 Dec, 2025.

Inoue, Asoue. “What Labor-Based Grading Contracts Look Like.” WAC Clearinghouse, wacclearinghouse.org/docs/books/labor/chapter4.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec. 2025.