Contract Grading Increases Student Engagement and Reduces Anxiety

Have you ever had a student approach you and ask, “Dr. Reeves, what do I need to do to get an A in your course?” I have. I often suggest reviewing the syllabus and the percentage points associated with each grade category. I suggest reviewing the rubrics, planning ahead for upcoming due dates, and working with a partner to stay motivated and in conversation about course topics. While these are useful suggestions, they don’t necessarily address the quality or quantity of work students must create or give them the autonomy and choice they crave to build the knowledge and skills necessary to take their thinking to the next level. One way to better answer this familiar question and increase student motivation, autonomy, and responsibility (Hiller and Heitapelto, 2001; Strong et al. 2004; Danielewicz and Elbow, 2009; Bonner 2016; Litterio 2018) may be to adopt contract grading. Though many of the contract grading studies have been designed for and implemented in courses with a writing component, the models are easily adapted for other types of courses, as well. If you’re interested in exploring some examples of contract grading, check out the 3 models below.  

1. Danielewicz and Elbow’s (2009) Hybrid Contract Grading: The Case for the Guaranteed B 

Danielewicz and Elbow’s grading model focuses less on numeric scores and more on students’ skill development, engagement, and critical thinking. To do this, Danielewicz and Elbow designed the Hybrid Contract Grading model, which essentially invites students to agree to complete the amount of work, as outlined, that will automatically result in a B. This model is characterized by:  

1. Identifying a minimum number of assignments (completion is the only requirement) students must complete to automatically earn a B in the course.   

2. If the completed assignments “demonstrate exemplary effort and a marked attempt to build skills (judged against a rubric), students can potentially be upgraded to an A.”  

3. Faculty using this model focus less on assigning numeric grades to every assignment to reduce student anxiety and worry related to student GPA and focus instead on giving substantive feedback that, if acted on, may result in an elevated grade. (ASCODE)  

In this model, if students commit to completing the assignments that result in an automatic B, they experience less anxiety and worry about failing the course. At the same time, the hope is that instructors can nurture student agency in a way that leads to greater engagement and deeper learning beyond the B requirements. 

This model works well with writing courses, but also lab courses, internships and practicums, and any courses that scaffold the parts of learning and processes over time and then require a comprehensive exam or collection of artifacts at the end of the course.  

Image borrowed from P.L. Thomas, 2024. 

2. Litterio’s (2018) Student-Created Contracts: Collaborating with Students 

Litterio describes models that build on Danielewicz and Elbow’s Guaranteed B Model by incorporating greater collaboration, where the teacher and student or students work together to generate assessment criteria and then use self-assessment or peer-review to determine if the criteria have been met. These models may include guidelines on the minimum work required to earn a B, but students also contribute to designing the rubrics and giving each other feedback. In these models: 

1. Students and teachers collaborate to determine the number and type of assessments.  

2. During the collaboration process, some instructors provide a menu of options the student(s) can choose from and then customize. The menus can include assessments, projects, assignments, as well as absences, late work, extra work, or incomplete work that contribute to achieving particular grades in the course (see table below). 

3. The assessments are then peer-reviewed or self-assessed to determine if the student’s work meets or exceeds the course objectives.

This model works well in classrooms where high-stakes exams are not a priority or if the professor wants to move away from the exclusive use of high-stakes exams. This model is also effective in classes where students are studying and using research methods, conducting research projects, or engaging in active learning. Check out NYU’s Hybrid Grading Contract where faculty and students design the quality rubric for earning a grade above a B. 

Image borrowed from SUNY Cortland Grading Contracts 101. 

3) (Campbell et al. 2020, Cilli-Turner et al. 2020, Towsley and Schmid 2020) Edit to Mastery: Using a mixture of traditional performance-based grading and editing processes

This model requires greater collaboration and guidance from the professor and typically has students working on a single project during the course of a semester. This model magnifies the importance of communication, reviewing and acting on instructor feedback, and achieving a strong understanding of concepts, skills, and abilities associated with course outcomes. This model is characterized by:  

1. Students working on a single project for the entire course to be evaluated by an instructor created rubric.  (See project examples below).

2. Students understand the success of their project is dependent on communication, collaboration, and cooperation with faculty and classmates. Students are open to and expect constructive, growth-oriented feedback and know that course material supports the development of the project throughout the semester.  

3. Faculty evaluate the students’ work frequently and will determine when the project needs no more revision and is complete. The grade is assigned based on how close the student came to the assignment objectives and the amount of time and energy the student devoted to achieving this level of learning. 
   
4. This model may also integrate well with Labor-Based Contract Grading. In this model, the grade typically still defaults to a B, but students earn an A based not on the quality of their work, but on the time and effort that went into generating the work, finding and reading/viewing sources, completing extra credit, including more examples or citations, or extending the length of papers, presentations, videos, or podcasts (Inoue, 2019). This model may also see greater collaboration between faculty members and students to design and evaluate learning progress.
   

Image borrowed from Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, IUB.

Communication and regular feedback are central to the success of the Edit to Mastery model, making it a strong match for smaller, upper division courses. This model may also work well in courses using problem-based learning, project-based learning, or design thinking. The scope of the course should ensure that students have enough time to achieve proficiency or excellence and illustrate how they are prepared to move on to more advanced learning and application beyond the course. This model may work well in computer science courses, engineering courses, architecture courses, portfolio assessment courses, fine arts courses, mass communication courses, graphic design courses, finance courses, and marketing courses among others. (See brief explanation of advanced statistics mastery grading here). 

Contract grading doesn’t just help lessen student anxiety associated with high-stakes tests and exams. It aligns with evidence-based frameworks that nurture and support student learning and retention while providing a flexible, adaptable learning experience closely aligned with the NACE Competencies for a Career Ready Workforce. Contract grading also invites innovative course design, digital tool integration, and an opportunity to challenge and engage with Gen AI. Check out this interactive Google Site from NYU’s Angela Zito’s course, Monsters and Their Humans, and start planning your next contract grading course today!