I describe the assessment framework of labor-based contract grading (LBCG). In a labor-based grading scheme, the time and effort (“labor”) a student spends on an assignment determines the credit they receive; the contract component requires students to design projects with clearly defined goals and deliverables, which must be satisfied to earn credit. LBCG is intended to promote student agency and engagement and to provide a more equitable assessment framework, given that students come with a wide range of prior experiences and preparation. I illustrate the LBCG framework within the context of an upper level physics course, using a particular assignment as an example; I also provide information on student experiences and engagement.
REFERENCES
1.
D. F.
Halpern
and
M. D.
Hakel
, “
Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer
,” Change
35
(4
), 36
–41
(2003
).2.
National Research Council
, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition
(
The National Academies Press
,
Washington, DC
, 2000
).3.
W.
Grolnick
and
R.
Ryan
, “
Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation
,” J. Personality Soc. Psychol.
52
(5
), 890
–898
(1987
).4.
B.
Hughes
,
H.
Sullivan
, and
M.
Mosley
, “
External evaluation, task difficulty, and continuing motivation
,” J. Educ. Res.
78
(4
), 210
–215
(2015
).5.
M. C.
James
, “
The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
(8
), 689
–691
(2006
).6.
H.
Beck
,
S.
Rorrer-Woody
, and
L.
Pierce
, “
The relations of learning and grade orientations to academic performance
,” Teaching Psychol.
18
(1
), 35
–37
(1991
).7.
C.
Pulfrey
,
C.
Buchs
, and
F.
Butera
, “
Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation
,” J. Educ. Psychol.
103
(3
), 683
–700
(2011
).8.
V. L.
Dickinson
and
L. B.
Flick
, “
Beating the system: Course structure and student strategies in a traditional introductory undergraduate physics course for nonmajors
,” School Sci. Math.
98
(5
), 238
–246
(2010
).9.
D. J.
Webb
,
C. A.
Paul
, and
M. K.
Chessey
, “
Relative impacts of different grade scales on student success in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
16
(2
), 020114
(2020
).10.
A. B.
Simmons
and
A. F.
Heckler
, “
Grades, grade component weighting, and demographic disparities in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
16
(2
), 020125
(2020
).11.
C. A.
Paul
and
D. J.
Webb
, “
Percent grade scale amplifies racial or ethnic inequities in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
18
(2
), 020103
(2022
).12.
T.
Espinosa
,
K.
Miller
,
I.
Araujo
, and
E.
Mazur
, “
Reducing the gender gap in students' physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
15
(1
), 010132
(2019
).13.
M.
Richard
,
J.
Delgado
,
S.
LeGresley
, and
C. J.
Fischer
, “
Implementing competency-based grading improves the performance of women and first generation students in introductory physics
,” (2022
).14.
J.
Arnold
and
D. J.
Clarke
, “
What is “agency”? perspectives in science education research
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
36
(5
), 735
–754
(2014
).15.
N. G.
Holmes
,
B.
Keep
, and
C. E.
Wieman
, “
Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
16
(1
), 010109
(2020
).16.
Z. Y.
Kalender
,
E.
Stump
,
K.
Hubenig
, and
N. G.
Holmes
, “
Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
17
(2
), 020128
(2021
).17.
D. H.
Rose
,
W. S.
Harbour
,
C. S.
Johnston
,
S. G.
Daley
, and
L.
Abarbanell
, “
Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application
,” J. Postsecondary Educ. Disability
19
, 135
–151
(2006
); available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ844630.18.
L. B.
Nilson
, Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time
(
Stylus
,
Sterling
, 2014
).19.
S. E.
Vitale
and
D. W.
Concepción
, “
Improving student learning with aspects of specifications grading
,” Teach. Philos.
44
(1
), 29
–57
(2021
).20.
A.
Rajapaksha
and
A. S.
Hirsch
, “
Competency based teaching of college physics: The philosophy and the practice
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
13
(2
), 020130
(2017
).21.
D. M.
Burnette
, “
The renewal of competency-based education: A review of the literature
,” J. Continuing Higher Educ.
64
(2
), 84
–93
(2016
).22.
“
Teaching and learning in higher education
,” Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead)
, edited by
S. D.
Blum
(
West Virginia U. P.
, Morgantown, WV
, 2020
).23.
See https://wp.stolaf.edu/cila/exploring-labor-based-grading-contracts/ for “
Exploring Labor-Based Grading Contracts as an Assessment Model That Builds Equity and Inclusion
” (accessed September 15, 2022).24.
G. M.
Pask
, “
Working to learn: Applying labor-based assessment to scientific writing and laboratory courses
,” in paper presented at the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology's Annual Meeting
, 2020
.25.
A. B.
Inoue
, Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom
(
WAC Clearinghouse/ U. P. of Colorado
, Denver, CO
, 2019
).26.
In the first iteration, all students did the same readings and worked on the same programming materials, with more challenging questions available to students who wished to pursue them. In the second iteration, the more experienced students were given a parallel track to learn about more advanced programming topics, although there was still cross collaboration in class.
27.
Students were expressly permitted and encouraged to work collaboratively on core assignments, with the requirement that they cite everyone they worked with in their final submission.
28.
The syllabus included a clause that students could argue for why some work which I had marked for revision did, in fact, satisfy the proficiencies. In practice, students just made the changes and additions I requested.
29.
See the supplementary material for reflections on my experiences as an instructor in the LBCG classroom, such as how I engaged with the assessment process, as well as a discussion of what changes I might make to policies in future iterations of the course.
30.
By formative, I mean feedback, which does not focus on correct/incorrect, but which is more in the spirit of comments on a draft. I typically highlighted student work, which showed good thinking, asked them to explain or elaborate upon points which were weak, pointed out contradictions or inconsistencies, and suggested resources which might be helpful based on the misconceptions or gaps in understanding I saw. For small syntax or typographical errors in code, I typically just told the students the fix.
31.
T.
Campbell
,
C.
Schwarz
, and
M.
Windschitl
, “
What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones toward making sense of the world
,” Sci. Teach.
83
(3
), 69
–74
(2016
).32.
J. W.
Cooley
and
J. W.
Tukey
, “
An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series
,” Math. Comput.
19
(90
), 297
–301
(1965
).33.
I spoke to them and ensured they understood what that meant for their grade. One student said that they were happy to have a “guaranteed” B if they were conscientious about completing all of the core assignments and preferred to focus additional effort on other classes; another said that they were fine with a B and were satisfied with their understanding of the material from working only on the core assignments.
34.
Here is a noteworthy departure from Ref. 25: I did not allow students to convert an unused freebie into an increment to their grade at the end of the semester. This is because such a policy, in effect, just makes the baseline grade one increment higher. Using the freebie does not really prevent a decrement in grade; it just means that the student is giving up a later increase in the grade and, thus, is still materially penalized for using the freebie.
© 2024 Author(s). Published under an exclusive license by American Association of Physics Teachers.
2024
Author(s)
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
