Introduction: Instructors assign grades to communicate to students how well they are learning the course content. However, students and instructors are often displeased with the process and outcome of grading.
Statement of the Problem: We contend that conventional grading inadvertently detracts from student learning and simultaneously replicates systems of oppression in academia. We discuss Labor-Based Grading Contracts (LBGCs) as an alternative to conventional grading.
Literature Review: We review the conceptual and empirical literature on LBGCs as an alternative method of assessing student work and extend its application to psychology and neuroscience courses.
Teaching Implications: We present recommendations for implementing LBGCs and address common concerns instructors have about this approach. We also make a call for more research on LBGCs in psychology and neuroscience teaching and learning.
Conclusion: LBGCs represent a promising shift in the purpose and approach to assessing student work and learning by centering laboring to learn and developing skills. LBGCs also create a more equitable grading structure for all students.
AssariS. (2019). Parental educational attainment and academic performance of American college students; Blacks’ diminished returns. Journal of Health Economics and Development, 1(1), 21–31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31372601/
3.
BeanJ. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
ChinM. J.QuinnD. M.DhaliwalT. K.LovisonV. S. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240
6.
CranneyJ., & DunnD. S. (2011b). Psychological literacy and the psychologically literate citizen: New frontiers for a global discipline. In J. Cranney & D. S. Dunn (Eds.), The psychologically literate citizen: Foundations and global perspectives (pp. 3–12). Oxford University Press.
7.
DeLozierS. J.RhodesM. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9
8.
DiAngeloR. J. (2010). Why can’t we all just be individuals?: Countering the discourse of individualism in anti-racist education. Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/D461000670
9.
DompnierB.DarnonC.ButeraF. (2009). Faking the desire to learn: A clarification of the link between mastery goals and academic achievement. Psychological Science, 20(8), 939–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02384.x
EddyS. L.HoganK. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work?CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
12.
FreemanS., EddyS. L., McDonoughM., SmithM. K., OkoroaforN., JordtH., & WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
13.
FreireP. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
14.
GurungR. A. R., & McCannL. I. (2012). How should students study? In B. M. Schwartz & R. A. R. Gurung (Eds.), Evidence-based teaching for higher education (pp. 99–116). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13745-006
15.
HarackiewiczJ. M.DurikA. M.BarronK. E.Linnenbrink-GarciaL.TauerJ. M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105
HughesM.BertramS. M.YoungA. M.MerryJ. W.KolluruG. R.DunlapA. S.Danielson-FrancoisA.WeissS. (2020). Teaching animal behavior online: A primer for the pandemic and beyond. Ethology, 127(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13096
18.
Hulme, J. A., & Cranney, J. (2021). Psychological literacy and learning for life. In International handbook of psychology learning and teaching (pp. 1-29). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
19.
InoueA. B. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. Parlor Press.
20.
InoueA. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. WAC Clearinghouse.
KrygerK.ZimmermanG. X. (2020). Neurodivergence and intersectionality in labor-based grading contracts. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 13(2). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0934 × 4rm
24.
LandrumR. E.GurungR. A. (2013). The memorability of introductory psychology revisited. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487417
25.
LipnevichA. A.GuskeyT. R.MuranoD. M.SmithJ. K. (2020) What do grades mean? Variation in grading criteria in American college and university courses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(5), 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1799190
26.
MenaJ. A., FlackW. F., & ColemanA. (in press). Cultivating cooperation and community in the psychology classroom. Manuscript in press. In M. Fortner & I. Katzarska-Miller (Eds.). Empowering students as change agents in psychology courses. Society of Teaching of Psychology.
27.
MenaJ. A.StevensonJ. R. (2021, December 21). Labor-based grading contracts sample materials. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/6fdmj/
28.
PulfreyC.BuchsC.ButeraF. (2011). Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023911
29.
SparkmanL. A.MauldingW. S.RobertsJ. G. (2012). Non-cognitive predictors of student success in college. College Student Journal, 46(3), 642–652.
30.
StilesB. L.WongN. C. W.LaBeffE. E. (2018). College cheating thirty years later: The role of academic entitlement. Deviant Behavior, 39(7), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520
31.
SurrW.ZeiserK. L.BriggsO.KendzioraK. (2018). Learning with others: A study exploring the relationship between collaboration, personalization, and equity. American Institutes for Research, 1–54. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED592089
32.
TheobaldE. J., HillM. J., TranE., AgrawalS., ArroyoE. N., BehlingS., ChambweN., CintronD. L.CooperJ. D., DunsterG., GrummerJ. A., HennesseyK., HsiaoJ., IranonN., JonesL., JordtH., KellerM., LaceyM. E., LittlefieldC. E., … FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
33.
WardE. (2021a). Easing stress: Contract grading’s impact on adolescents’ perceptions of workload demands, time constraints, and challenge appraisal in high school English. Assessing Writing, 48, 100526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100526
34.
WardE. (2021b). An integrated mixed-methods study of contract grading’s impact on adolescents’ perceptions of stress in high school English: A pilot study. Assessing Writing, 48, 100508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100508
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
