An Argument for Labor-Based Contract Grading with Dr. Kim Thompson

Teaching runs deep for Dr. Kim Thompson, whose passion for education was nurtured from a young age, inspired by their mother’s 43-year career as a high school English teacher. In their writing courses—ranging from Writing Foundations to advanced composition—Dr. Thompson is dedicated to helping students appreciate the power of effective communication. “In school, I didn’t see myself as a strong writer, but I always recognized the value of writing,” they reflect. “When I had to do something like take a multiple-choice or true-false test, there was either a right or a wrong. But in writing, there’s a myriad of different possibilities.”

However, traditional grading systems often hinder the learning process. “As someone who went through an educational system with traditional grading, it sometimes felt more harmful than helpful,” Dr. Thompson shares. The Covid-19 pandemic intensified these concerns as students entered classrooms grappling with increased anxiety and mental health challenges. “The pressure around writing seemed to amplify their struggles,” they observe. “I have been in classes as a student where, if I miss a comma or had a comma splice in a paper, I was docked 3 points from my final grade. That was really painful. What is the value in that?”

Research supports Dr. Thompson’s concerns, indicating that the extrinsic motivation linked to traditional grading diminishes joy and amplifies anxiety (Kohn, 2011). Moreover, conventional grades may not accurately reflect student learning, as evidenced by significant GPA inflation across U.S. colleges without corresponding improvements in educational outcomes (Flaherty, 2019; Guskey, 2006; Rojstaczer & Healy, 2012). Recognizing these issues, Dr. Thompson sought a new approach to grading.

Dr. Kim Thompson

Exploring Contract Grading

Contract grading, also known as labor-based grading, separates assessment from traditional grading metrics (Danielewicz & Elbow, 2009). In this model, students’ work is evaluated based on the quantity and quality of their effort rather than on the final product alone. This method requires instructors to engage in thoughtful planning, considering how to create meaningful tasks that foster deep learning and how to track student progress.

Contracts can be formal documents, digital or physical, outlining how students can achieve specific letter grades. This transparency empowers students by clarifying expectations and progress throughout the semester. Rather than emphasizing the quality of work, contract grading prioritizes the labor invested in assignments. Instructors focus on providing constructive feedback—highlighting strengths, identifying areas for improvement, and offering revision suggestions—without the pressure of justifying a specific grade.

When Dr. Thompson first introduced contract grading to their students, initial reactions were mixed. “At first, they were concerned. There were some reservations, some nerves about it,” they recount. “But after I simplified the syllabus language in an email. Then they were like, light bulb? ‘Oh. Ok. This is beneficial to me. This places me at an advantage in some ways where I can have more of a voice in what I do.’” The shift was significant: students started wanting and striving to complete additional labor, even if they didn’t need it.

Benefits of Contract Grading

Dr. Thompson appreciates the collaborative nature of contract grading: “I don’t have to be the one that controls everything. It is up to negotiation.” This shift in power dynamic enhances flexibility, transparency, and focus in the classroom. Each contract can be tailored to meet individual student needs, fostering a personalized approach that acknowledges their existing skills while addressing gaps in knowledge.

Clear expectations create a sense of accountability, while structured feedback enables students to understand their strengths and areas for growth. By downplaying the emphasis on grades, students can engage more deeply with the learning process.

“The benefit of contract grading is we can remove the numerical grade that takes up all this headspace.” Dr. Thompson emphasizes. “This alleviates writer’s block and allows students to focus on reaching mutually agreed-upon goals.”

Effective communication is crucial, particularly in fostering student engagement during office hours. “Before the pandemic, students eagerly sought my feedback,” Dr. Thompson notes. “But that changed as we transitioned out of lockdown.” Maintaining open lines of communication enables better support and guidance for students, particularly in online settings.

Contract grading also promotes equity and fairness in the classroom, creating an inclusive environment that values each student’s unique contributions. It removes biases associated with socioeconomic status, gender, or ethnic background, allowing all students to earn high grades through hard work and dedication (Inoue, 2012; Lee, 2016; Leahy, 1980).

For contingent faculty, like Dr. Thompson, who often juggle heavy teaching loads, contract grading streamlines the grading process. “With many of us managing four or more classes each semester, this approach simplifies our workload,” they explain.

Dr. Thompson finds that contract grading enriches their feedback on student writing, allowing for discussions that go beyond assignments to explore the significance of the skills being taught. “We can delve into the ‘why’ behind document design and genre conventions,” they share. “In traditional grading, the focus often narrows to rubrics, but contract grading fosters more meaningful conversations about rhetoric and audience.”

Works Cited

Danielewicz, J. & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition & Communication, 61(2), 244-268.

Flaherty, C. (2019, April 1) When grading less is more. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/02/professors-reflections-their-experiences-ungrading-spark-renewed-interest-student

Inoue, A. B. (2012). Grading contracts: Assessing their effectiveness on different racial formations. Race and Writing Assessment, edited A.B. Inoue & M. Poe, 79-94.