Contract grading is an academic grading practice with multiple forms. While some contracts entail completion of a number of assignments of specified quality, corresponding to letter grades granted by an instructor, contract grading can be decided unilaterally by an instructor or arranged between instructors and students. Contract grading methods are based on labor, learning objectives, mastery-learning, and self assessment corresponding to the respective agreements of said contracts. In traditional grading, educators determine assignments, exams, and projects before the course begins. Students are expected to follow the syllabus and complete the tasks presented. The grade the student receives is a reflection of how well they completed the pre-determined syllabus. In this system, students are expected to follow a path that reflects the syllabus. In contrast, contract grading allows students to negotiate with an instructor, encouraging communication between both parties, contrasting traditional grading practices which focus on instructor's assessment of students' work. Contract grading is discussed in writing studies as an alternative to the traditional grading systems, with scholars testing its educational purposes and efficiency. Research has shown that contract grading can improve students' perceptions of fairness and reduce stress, while also increasing their sense of agency.
Contract grading may be contrasted with other grading methods such as grading on a curve or percentile systems. These curve and percentile systems include the Common Curve, Missouri Curve, and The Gaussian Curve. Grading on these curves creates an expectation that the number of "A"s and "B"s should correspond to the number of "D"s and "F"s, with the majority of students receiving a "C".
In the 2010s, contract grading was discussed and promoted as a method to respond to racism within academia and, more specifically, writing in academia. Labor-based contract grading has been identified as a more equitable approach, allowing students from diverse backgrounds to access pretty similar grading outcomes no matter their prior experiences.Asao Inoue, a major contributor to this topic, wrote in his book Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom:
"Designing fair and meaningful grading practices is about cultivating with our students an ecology, a place where every student, no matter where they come from or how they speak or write, can have access to the entire range of final course grades possible."
Research suggests that contract grading can encourage students to become more engaged in the writing process by emphasizing revision, feedback, and growth. In a study of first-year writing courses, students reported increased confidence in their writing and a greater willingness to seek feedback from peers and writing center tutors. The authors found that contract grading encouraged students to view feedback as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a source of judgement, helping them develop stronger writing habits and long-term connections to academic support resources.
Overview Contract grading allows students to devise their own path for a class by allowing them to pick and choose which assignments or projects they intend to complete. Grades are assigned on the basis of the agreement between the student and the professor. With contract grading, students have a say in their curriculum, as well as in how their grade is ultimately assessed. For some students, this grading system requires a more active role.
Although the student decides what is to be accomplished throughout the course, as with a contract, both the student and professor must come to an agreement. Grading contracts range from students turning in their initial contract or proposal, where the teacher then may make revisions or require that changes be made before a final agreement is made to the teacher introducing a contract to their student(s) with predetermined expectations for a guaranteed grade. A grade contract is often signed by both parties, confirming the agreement for a particular grade. However, the contract grading system is not as binding as a business contract. Some agreements allow for the student to resubmit the contract mid-semester provided the professor approves the changes.
Throughout the school terms students may get overwhelmed with other classes they might be taking, so taking a shortcut on their contract grading class by working through the assignments quickly does not get any understanding from the work they had just done. Having checkpoints between the school terms could help the students stay on track while helping them utilize their school campus resources. This could also tie in to meeting with the professor a certain amount of times throughout the durations of the contracts in order to show that the student has committed to the work and asking for help on their assignments.
Although many students responded positively to contract grading, some expressed resistance to the system. Students from a variety of backgrounds, including neurodivergent, honors, and BIPOC students, reported feeling uncomfortable without traditional grading. While they understood the concept of contract grading, many felt anxious cause grades had long been served as a way to measure their success and validate their identity as "good students". As a result, some students struggled to adjust to a system that emphasized learning and labor over conventional grade-based evaluation.
Contract Styles
Labor-Based Contract Grading Numerous writing scholars argue that writing assessment comes from social constructs, and therefore is subject to change and evolution. In 1993, Peter Elbow problematized traditional writing assessment by suggesting a shift in what to assess. When a teacher uses a letter, number, grid, symbol, or another kind of ranking system to reply to a student's writing assignment, they are evaluating according to a hypothetically unilateral standard of writing. A standard to which writing is measured, however, is subjective. In his article published in the journal College English, Elbow suggests that writing assessment be based on effort rather than on a subjective evaluation aligned with a standard. Asao B. Inoue has contributed to the literature on this topic, especially in the context of the writing classroom. He emphasizes a version of contract grading called labor-based contract grading as practice of antiracist writing assessment. This form of grading is connected to the effort a student puts forth rather than a "standard" form of writing.
Recent studies by Julia Voss, Nicole Branch, and Loring Pfeiffer from Santa Clara University, interviewed a group of international students. They learned that the students are good writers and have strong critical thinking and literacy skills but fail to show their writing skills in a normal traditional grading system and also due to the strict rubric which students have to follow in order to meet the satisfactory requirement for their essay. Labor-based grading allows students to take their time on research while guiding them towards the final paper.
Hybrid contract grading Hybrid contract grading is described as an adaptation of contract-based assessment that keeps the expectations while also incorporating evaluations of the quality of student work. Hybrid Grading Contracts combine elements of Labor-Based contracts with traditional grading contracts. Hybrid Grading Contracts assess both labor and quality of a student's work in determining a student's grade. Hybrid contracts enable students to earn higher grades by doing extra tasks or earning extra points. Studies of hybrid contracts support measurable increases in student motivation, performance, and responsibility.
Unilateral Contract Grading Unilateral contract grading is a form of contract grading, where a contract is set by an instructor. Students cannot negotiate the contract with their instructor. Some elements of unilateral contracts may include a labor requirement, regular attendance, participation, and revision of work. Even if students cannot negotiate the contract, instructors are obligated under contract to reward the grade. Jane Danielewicz and Peter Elbow popularized a model of unilateral contracts which also includes elements of Hybrid Contract Grading. Since unilateral contracts allow for very little student input, the grade of a student is determined by the final quality of their work.
Guaranteed "B" Contract In 2009, Jane Danielewicz and Peter Elbow proposed a "Guaranteed B Contract", where they set the requirements of their course to their student(s) for a guaranteed "B" grade. Their model of the guaranteed "B" contract, used commonly, requires that students create a final portfolio while meeting a set of conditions to obtain a "B". Instructors disregard the quality of work done by their student(s) up to a "B" in favor of the conditions contracted. After the conditions of the contract are met, students are able to earn an "A" at the instructor's subjective discretion. This grading scheme is placed under the umbrella of Unilateral Contract Grading and Hybrid Contract Grading. The model is widely discussed within the contract grading space.
Implementation Students, in addition to choosing the grade they desire and how many assignments they will complete, must also commit themselves to the completion of their contract. Once the student determines the number of works he or she chooses to complete, contracts are then signed and agreed upon. There is a grace period for changing of contracts, but it is ultimately up to the professor to accept or to reject any proposals. The student then has the responsibility to complete and turn in the contracted assignments, with a few deadlines to meet. Iterative negotiation of contracts is often recommended to ensure fairness and clarity, allowing students to revise their agreements mid course if needed. First a teacher presents the grading contract to this class then the class if often given time to read over the contract. Next, if the teacher chooses to do so, the teacher will negotiate the terms of the contract. This means that the number of missed or late assignments to achieve a certain grade will be negotiated. There may or may not be a grace period to allow changes in the contract. Ultimately, all final decisions are left to the teacher. At the end of the contract, students will earn the grade that matches the terms of the contract.
Labor-based contract grading is also used to combat systemic racism in the classroom by calculating grades based on labor and having less restrictive guidelines in the classroom. Select scholars claim that writing standards and assessments favor students from white backgrounds over students from other cultural backgrounds. Labor-based grading contracts help solve this issue by valuing effort and voice over conventional grammar rules.
Studies and research