Contract Grading¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 8 studies (5 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 5 of 8 report an effect size

Description¶

Contract grading replaces ad-hoc evaluation with an explicit agreement: the instructor specifies in advance what work at each grade level requires (quantity, quality criteria, revision expectations), and learners choose a contract tier and complete the agreed work. Grades are then awarded for fulfilling the contract rather than for relative ranking against peers. The approach shifts the instructor's evaluative role toward specification and feedback, and the learner's role toward planning and self-management.

Design Implications¶

Contract grading works by making expectations explicit and giving learners control over their level of engagement, which supports autonomy and reduces evaluation anxiety Autonomy supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]. Its effectiveness depends on the contract criteria being genuinely aligned to learning goals and on feedback remaining substantive — a contract that specifies only workload (e.g., "write 5 pages for a B") can degrade quality standards, whereas one that specifies quality criteria and requires revision sustains rigor [~M]. Because the grade is decoupled from in-the-moment judgment, contract grading pairs naturally with Assessment for Learning: feedback becomes informational rather than evaluative, and learners act on it to meet contract terms Assessment for learning improves achievement. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Clear, criterion-referenced descriptions of what each contract tier requires (aligned with Competency-Based Assessment)
• A mechanism for learners to select and, where appropriate, negotiate their contract
• Ongoing formative feedback so learners can verify they are meeting contract terms before final submission
• A revision/resubmission policy, since contract grading presumes work can be improved to standard

Constraints¶

• Contracts specifying only quantity of work (page counts, completion checklists) can lower quality and encourage minimal compliance [-M]
• Less suitable for learning goals requiring calibrated judgment of relative performance (e.g., competitive selection, norm-referenced certification) [-M]
• Learners with weak self-regulation may choose low tiers and under-invest; contracts without check-ins or milestones allow drift [~M]
• In large classes, the individualized negotiation and revision cycles increase instructor workload substantially [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Tiered contracts: instructor pre-defines A/B/C work bundles; learners select a tier
• Negotiated contracts: learner proposes deliverables and criteria, instructor approves — higher autonomy, higher overhead
• Hybrid contracts: some components (core competencies) are required of all; electives differentiate the tiers
• Labor-based contracts (e.g., Inoue's model in writing studies): grade attaches entirely to completed labor and revision, with all work assessed feedback-only

Target Learners¶

• Adult and self-directed learners who can plan work against explicit criteria Autonomy supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]
• Anxious or grade-averse learners, for whom removing competitive evaluation reduces avoidance and supports risk-taking in Practice [~M]
• Less effective without support for learners new to managing long-horizon work; pair with Check-Ins and milestone deadlines [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Sustained production tasks: writing portfolios, projects, codebases, research work
• Self-regulated learning: planning, monitoring, and revising against criteria
• Skill mastery where quality standards can be specified in advance, supporting Competency-Based Learning & Assessment

Instructions¶

1. Define 2–4 contract tiers, each specifying required deliverables, quality criteria, and revision expectations; align criteria with course competencies (Assessment).
2. Publish the contract menu at course start and have each learner select (or propose) a tier in writing.
3. Provide formative feedback on drafts against the contract criteria, framed informationally rather than evaluatively Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S].
4. Schedule milestone Check-Ins so learners can adjust effort or renegotiate tiers before it is too late.
5. Award the contracted grade when criteria are met; require revision cycles until standard is reached rather than deducting points.

Related Strategies¶

• Mastery Learning — shares the "meet the standard, not beat the curve" logic; contract grading is its assessment-agreement wrapper
• Ungrading / Labor-Based Assessment — a radical variant that removes grades entirely during the term
• Specification Grading (Nilson) — a structured commercial variant using token economies and binary rubrics
• Negotiate learning contracts at the start of term and allow test retakes until mastery
• Handle fuzzy effort criteria as charitable yes/no binary requirements with periodic check-ins

Examples¶

• Peter Elbow's contract grading in composition courses (e.g., Embracing Contraries, 1986): students earn a B by completing all assigned writing and responding to peers; an A requires a negotiated extra project.
• Asao Inoue's labor-based grading contracts (Fresno State / University of Washington Tacoma), documented in Labor-Based Grading Contracts (2019): all writing receives feedback only; grades attach to documented labor and completion.
• CUNY and open-education syllabi (e.g., the publicly shared "contract grading" syllabi of Cathy Davidson at CUNY Graduate Center) that let students collectively negotiate the contract in the first class session.

Key Sources¶

• Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
• Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. WAC Clearinghouse / University Press of Colorado. doi:10.37514/per-b.2019.0216.0
• Nilson, L. B. (2014). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487