Alternative Assessment & Grading: Approaches for Centering Student Learning
Overview
Traditional assessment and grading systems have not achieved parity with regard to validity, reliability, and effective indicators of how all students demonstrate their learning (Blum, 2020). Overreliance on high-stakes assessments (e.g., tests) and deemphasis of formative assessment is not well-aligned with the science of how students learn through deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993), can create opportunity gaps, and negatively impact students’ mental well-being (Eyler, 2024). A fixation on grades can place too high of focus on the numerical outcomes, distort student motivations, and distract from the actual learning process. Traditional grading approaches can be subjective and are not always reliable measures given that students in one course with similar content may receive a different grade if the same course is taught by a different instructor. Lack of built-in flexibility within grading systems does not acknowledge the complexity of student life. Further, with a few simple prompts, large language models can complete many types of common traditional assessments to a high degree of sophistication, calling into question if they are valid measures of student learning.
Goals
The purpose of this resource is to share a variety of alternative assessment and grading approaches that instructors may choose to use in their courses. The aim is not to describe every practice nor for instructors to adopt every approach, but rather to highlight major examples for consideration and reflection.
Instructors are encouraged to start small and consider one approach they could integrate that supports assessment and grading for growth. All instructors should follow school-based curricular review policies and procedures when redesigning their courses. Instructors working with TAs are encouraged to view the resource Establishing Effective Partnerships with Your TAs for guidance on establishing and maintaining effective communication practices through assessment, grading, and other course activities. Table 1 shows a summary of the approaches described in subsequent sections.
Table 1. Summary of Sample Approaches
Type |
Approach |
| Assessment | Low-stakes assessments |
| Assessment | Two-stage quizzes and exams |
| Assessment | Peer and self-graded assessments |
| Assessment | Take home exams |
| Assessment | Oral exams |
| Assessment | Project-based, case-based, and experiential learning |
| Assessment | Alternatives to common hour exams |
| Grading | Standards-based and mastery-based grading |
| Grading | Ungrading |
| Grading | Specifications grading |
| Grading | Contract grading |
| Grading | Anonymized grading |
Alternative Assessment Approaches
Below are a variety of assessment practices that extend beyond traditional high-stakes assessments such as essays and tests.
-
Rather than relying on a few high-stakes assessments, a recommended practice is to integrate more low-stakes assessments in a course with no grade or low weight. Such assessments support deliberate practice and are mutually beneficial, providing both students and instructors with opportunities to determine how much was learned and future opportunities to enhance learning. Examples include minute papers where students write about a concept in class, polling (either synchronous or asynchronous via Canvas), low-stakes quizzing via Canvas quizzes or on paper, and mastery-based quizzing with unlimited attempts.
- Examples: See the book Classroom Assessment Techniques: a handbook for college instructors by Thomas A. Angelo and Todd Zakrajsek for a variety of examples:
Angelo, T. A., & Zakrajsek, T. (2025). Classroom assessment techniques : formative feedback tools for college and university teachers (Third edition.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Access ebook through Rutgers Libraries
- 50 Classroom Assessment Techniques provides a list of 50 ideas for low- or no-credit assessment, organized by purpose.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Online quizzing: Canvas can be used to develop graded and practice quizzes to support student learning. Quiz questions can be randomized, and instructors can use question banks from which questions are pulled at random.
- Polling: Rutgers has a university license for the Slido polling tool. Make sure that you have enabled Webex through your Rutgers account to access this tool. Go to netid.rutgers.edu–>Service Activation—>Activate or update a service on my account. After enabling, login to WebEx, then go to Slido and click “Login with Webex” to log in and authenticate through Rutgers.
- Supportive grading: Gradescope is a tool that various instructors use at Rutgers and is integrated into Canvas to support grading. It can be particularly useful in larger courses. This tool has been used to reduce instructor time spent grading, give timely feedback, maintain consistency in grading, and increase student grades and satisfaction (Hansel et al., 2024).
-
Various instructors find success by integrating two-stage quizzes and exams into their classes, turning assessment into a dynamic learning experience. Two-stage examples typically involve:
- Stage 1: Individual – Students first complete quizzes or exams individually and submit their responses for a higher weight of the grade (e.g., 75-85%).
- Stage 2: Group – Students form small groups (e.g., four) to complete the same exam questions with their peers and reach consensus on the final answers for the remaining weight of the grade (e.g., 15-25%).
Such assessments give students the opportunity to demonstrate what they already know as well as work collaboratively to advance their learning (Wieman et al., 2014). This approach to assessment also models valuable career readiness skills: information gathering and teamwork (NACE, n.d.). The two-stage approach can also be applied to final exams. Callaghan et al. (2026) found that students preferred the two-stage final exam over the traditional one and reported more learning and less anxiety.
- Example 1: Wieman et al. (2014) describe the implementation of the two-stage exam in physics courses. In the introductory courses, stage 1 was 55 minutes, and stage 2 was 30. Researchers experimented with weighting individual/group stages at 75%/25% or 85%/15% of the grade and reported no differences between the groups.
- Example 2: Rempel et al. (2021) implemented two-stage quizzes and exams in introductory chemistry courses with 80-85% accounting for individual scores and 20-15% for the group scores. Students reported that the two-stage exam decreased their anxiety, and they enjoyed collaborating with and learning from peers. Students preferred the two-stage exam to the traditional format
- Example 3: Latulipe et al. (2025) conducted a multi-institutional study of two-stage exams in computer science courses. They found that relative grade improvement was similar for low- and high-performing students. Both students and instructors were positive about two-stage examinations.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Supportive grading: See references to using Gradescope above.
-
Deliberate practice supports students’ learning and aligns with embedding multiple formative assessment opportunities within a course (Ericsson et al., 1993). One approach to enhance deliberate practice is for students to complete and grade practice assessments. This also allows students to receive more feedback on their learning.
Assessments—such as practice quizzes and tests or draft papers—can be either self or peer graded. Research suggests that both may have value, and that it is important to give students clear criteria and training for when they engage in the grading process (Attkinson et al., 2028; Jackson et al., 2018).
- Example 1: Students take a practice quiz during class and then afterwards self-grade their assessment using an answer key provided by the instructor. To support their learning for questions they missed, they write out the reasons why the answer is correct and why their response is incorrect. This exercise could also be done as a whole class.
- Example 2: After undergoing a highly scaffolded process and a practice example, students workshop their papers with a peer using a rubric.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Canvas: Canvas allows options for conducting either anonymous and or non-anonymous peer review online.
-
For some courses, completing a take-home assessment is an accessible option that can support student learning (Bengtsson, 2019). For these assessments, students complete them within a defined time window(e.g., 48-72 hours), and they may also be given the opportunity to work on them collaboratively with peers.
To be valid assessment measures, such exams should not overly rely on questions that can be easily answered using external sources. They should challenge students to think at a higher cognitive level, applying what they have learned and aligning with course learning activities and assessments. They should also embrace transparent assignment design (Tam, 2022; Winkelmes et al., 2023).
- Example 1: An art history exam requires students to evaluate two paintings from local artists within the university art museum applying only concepts learned in class.
- Example 2: A marketing exam requires that students develop a strategy for a product sold by a local company owned by a guest speaker who visited the course.
-
Given the prevalence of generative AI and other factors, it can be difficult to know what concepts students have grasped in a course. Oral examinations can provide more insights into student learning (Theobald, 2021). Oral exams can also support career readiness skills such as communication (NACE, n.d.). Of importance is to provide students with a clear rubric for how they will be assessed orally and intentionally design an examination process that considers time and number of students in the course who will be assessed. Fenton (2025) also describes several practices for supporting oral exams such as online booking systems and using video conference software like Zoom.
- Example: In a statistics course of 60 students, Theobald (2021) provided students with the exam questions and a rubric prior to the exam. She then facilitated 10-minute oral exam seatings per student, focusingon questions that tested their conceptual understanding.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Booking software: Microsoft Outlook has booking software, and instructors can also set it up in their Google calendars to schedule oral exams.
- Conference call tools: The availability of Zoom and Microsoft Teams enables synchronous sessions to be held, recording of the oral exam for subsequent review, and the usage of waiting rooms.
-
For various courses, project-based, case-based, and experiential learning experiences can support student learning and can replace traditional assessments while still aligning with course learning outcomes. Project-based learning focuses on student development, putting intensive effort into a project that aligns with learning outcomes. In case-based learning, students apply course concepts to real-world situations. And in experiential learning, students are engaged actively in a learning opportunity that extends beyond the classroom. Each of these approaches can actively engage students in their learning.
- Example 1: Students take a field trip to the Rutgers University Zimmerli Art museum to view an exhibit and apply concepts from a communications and media course.
- Example 2: Students create design projects in an engineering course and share them in a public forum with the New Brunswick community.
Campus resource
- Classroom Enrichment Funding Initiative: This funding source, managed by the Vice Provost for Experiential Learning, provides seed money to instructors to implement high-impact learning experiences. Instructors can follow their application cycle and are encouraged to apply early if interested.
-
A common hour exam is typically a high-stakes assessment in which students enrolled in multiple sections of a course gather to complete the test at the same time outside of normal course hours. While this setup has its advantages for course coordinators and instructors such as the centralization of assessment and allowing more time during the course for students to learn material, holding exams outside of regular course hours can exacerbate inequities for students who have obligations outside of school hours. For these reasons, common hour exams are being phased out at Rutgers–New Brunswick.
To move away from offering common hour exams outside of regular classroom hours, recommendations include:
- Strategic course review: Examine the current course schedule and determine where assessments could be given during class time or as take-home or online assessments. This may mean intentionally condensing material discussed during class.
- Reimagine assessment approaches: Consider ways to increase the number of low-stakes assessments, within reason, within the course; reduce the number of high-stakes assessments. Draw on the approaches discussed elsewhere in this guide to reenvision assessments.
- Creative solutions: Some institutions have adopted testing center models that allow students to take tests more flexibly within a multi-day window.
Alternative Grading Practices
Below are various grading practices that support learning.
-
This approach can be applied to courses where students need to meet a particular level of mastery of specific learning goals. Each of the learning goals to be attained should be clearly defined and aligned with learning activities and assessments that allow practice and demonstration of learning. This approach is called backward design of instruction (Wiggins & McTighe, 2004).
Standards- or mastery-based grading approaches focus on students’ mastery of these learning goals, often providing students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their learning. An example might includeallowing students to retake assessments (e.g., quizzes, etc.) until they master a particular concept.
Consider the division of labor and timing of grading at the time of course design. Instructors who have graders assigned to their course are recommended to set up a schedule together in advance of the semester.
- Example 1: A Calculus instructor transforms their course into mastery-based grading where students can complete assessments an unlimited number of times until they reach mastery.
- Example 2: Uhing (2025) describes implementing standard-based grading in a coordinated college algebra course and reporting that students appreciated the low-risk environment and positive impacts on their sense of belonging.
- Example 3: See Chapter 5 in Grading for Growth by Clark and Talbert (2023) for in-depth discussion of standards-based grading. E-book is accessible through Rutgers Libraries.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Module requirements: Canvas allows instructors to add requirements to modules so that they cannot be unlocked until a student performs a certain action.
- Mastery-based grading: Instructors can set up the learning mastery gradebook to measure student learning.
- To use the learning mastery gradebook, instructors can add outcomes to their course and align outcomes to course rubrics.
-
This approach reduces the number of actual grades given to students and focuses heavily on feedback and iteration. One form is when students are given feedback on assignments throughout the course, but no grades. At midterm they engage in conferences with the instructor to discuss what grade they have in the course. At the end of the course, this process is completed again where students produce a final grade with their instructor, providing input into the learning process. This type of instruction has been found to decrease student anxiety. Instructors should provide deadlines or benchmarks so that students do not turn in all assignments at the end of a course and have time to receive feedback to revise or retake assessments. Instructors should spend time at the beginning of the course describing the ungrading process and guiding students through it, as many have not been exposed to this form of assessment. Additionally, when developing ungraded assignments, instructors should consider their own workload.
- Examples: See Susan Blum’s book Ungrading and Jesse Stommel’s essay “Ungrading: An Introduction” for a variety of examples:
Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press. Access ebook through Rutgers Libraries
Stommel, J. (2024). Ungrading: an introduction. Pedagogy, 24(3), 327-340. Access article through Rutgers Libraries
Possible digital technology integrations
- Speedgrader: This Canvas integration streamlines grading, and instructors can embed rubrics with criteria.
-
The premise of this approach is to reduce the focus on grades. Instead of giving number grades, assignments are designated as complete/incomplete, satisfactory/revise, etc. Letter grades are often determined by “bundles” of assignments, with simpler bundles required for lower grades and more demanding bundles required for higher grades.
- Example 1: Students complete multiple short essays for an English course that are graded on a satisfactory/revise basis. Each of these short essays will be integrated into a final portfolio for the course that is graded.
- Example 2: Katzman et al (2021) implemented specifications grading in a Cell Biology course and found that student attitudes were more positive while performance on content assessments improved.
- Example 3: Howitz et al (2020) describe a grading system involving specifications bundles aligned with course learning objectives in an Organic Chemistry Laboratory course.
- Example 4: See Chapter 6 in Grading for Growth by Clark and Talbert (2023) for in-depth discussion of specifications grading. E-book is accessible through Rutgers Libraries.
Possible digital technology integrations
- Canvas gradebook: Instructors can add a rubric to the assignment in the learning management system and also create a grading scheme that turns the specifications grade bundles into final grades.
-
Using this grading approach, typically students at the beginning of a course sign a contract as to what work they will complete for a course that corresponds to the grade that they will receive. This approach gives students the agency to choose how much effort they plan to put into the course.
-
This is a practice to support reliable grading across students. The approach is simple – the names of students are covered up or not revealed during the grading process. This practice will not be relevant for all assignments.
Relevant Conferences & Resources
- Center for Grading Reform: Grading Conference: Offers conferences, workshops, and other sessions for instructors interested in grading reform.
- The Grading Podcast: Episodes feature discussions of educators who are reimagining grading practices.
Resources and References
A variety of resources to support additional learning on alternative grading and assessment.
-
Nilson, L. B., Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education. Routledge.
Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press. Access ebook through Rutgers Libraries
Eyler, J. R. (2024). Failing our future: How grades harm students, and what we can do about it. JHU Press.
-
Angelo, T. A., & Zakrajsek, T. (2025). Classroom assessment techniques : formative feedback tools for college and university teachers (Third edition.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Atkinson, K., Sanchez, C. E., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2018). Who Makes the Grade? Research Comparing Self, Peer and Instructor Grades in College. International. Research in Higher Education, 3(3).
Bengtsson, L. (2019). Take-home exams in higher education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 9(4), 267.
Callaghan, K., Milbourne, T., Klales, A., Kestin, G., Arguelles, C., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026). Two-stage final exams: An assessment strategy for enhanced collaborative learning and reduced student stress. Journal of College Science Teaching, 1-10.
Clark, D., & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education. Routledge.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 [1]
Fenton, A. (2025). Reconsidering the use of oral exams and assessments: An old way to move into a new future. Educational Researcher, 54(7), 430-436.
Hansel, C. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Quick, J. D., Greene, A. H., & Ricci, M. (2024). Gradescope in Large Lecture Classrooms: A Case Study at Indiana University: How an online grading platform enhanced student learning and instructor feedback in large-scale courses. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 13(1).
Howitz, W. J., McKnelly, K. J., & Link, R. D. (2020). Developing and implementing a specifications grading system in an organic chemistry laboratory course. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(2), 385-394.
Jackson, M. A., Tran, A., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. (2018). Peer vs. self-grading of practice exams: Which is better?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), es44.
Katzman, S. D., Hurst-Kennedy, J., Barrera, A., Talley, J., Javazon, E., Diaz, M., & Anzovino, M. E. (2021). The effect of specifications grading on students’ learning and attitudes in an undergraduate-level cell biology course.
Kohn, A., & Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
Latulipe, C., Anvik, J., Lin, K., Nowrin, S., Railing, B. P., Reckinger, S. J., & Zarnegar, A. (2025). Two-Stage CS Exams: A Multi-Institutional Study of Course and Exam Feature Impacts on Student Perceptions and Performance. In 2025 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 176-216).
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (n.d.). What is career readiness? Retrieved from: https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined#competencies
Rempel, B. P., Dirks, M. B., & McGinitie, E. G. (2021). Two-stage testing reduces student-perceived exam anxiety in introductory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(8), 2527-2535.
Stommel, J. (2024). Ungrading: an introduction. Pedagogy, 24(3), 327-340.
Theobold, A. S. (2021). Oral exams: A more meaningful assessment of students’ understanding. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(2), 156-159.
Uhing, K., Bennett, A. B., & Wright, G. (2025). Students’ Experiences in a Coordinated College Algebra Course: A Case Study of Implementing Active Learning and Standards-Based Grading. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1-39.
Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Physics exams that promote collaborative learning. The physics teacher, 52(1), 51-53.
Winkelmes, M. A., Boye, A., & Tapp, S. (Eds.). (2023). Transparent design in higher education teaching and leadership: A guide to implementing the transparency framework institution-wide to improve learning and retention. Taylor & Francis.
Acknowledgement: We appreciate the review of this resource by the School of Arts and Sciences Teaching Team and TRIAD.
