Overview
Labor-Based Contract Grading is a system of grading based on the research of Asao Inoue (2015; 2018) and other scholars in writing studies. It differs from traditional grading in that you do not receive a grade based on the subjective quality of your work, but instead based on the labor you put into the course. In other words, you will receive feedback from me, comments, suggestions for revision, encouragement, and support, but you will not receive an “A, B, C, D, or F” based on how “well” you complete a project.
I’ve chosen to use contract grading because it aligns with my beliefs about what creates the most productive environment for students to develop as writers:
- writers should have the opportunity to be experimental and exploratory, rather than focusing on being “correct” or doing exactly and only “what the assignment requires”
- time and labor are valuable, and students who are investing more time, energy and effort into the course should have those efforts recognized
- students should always have a clear sense of how they’re progressing and where they stand
- study after study has demonstrated that the best way to improve as a writer is to write, and contract grading encourages that without an accompanying fear of failure
- students don’t enter an organic chemistry class knowing everything about organic chemistry. Similarly, you should not be evaluated based on your prior knowledge or experiences with writing. In other words, all students should have the same potential to earn an A.
Contract grading is freeing for both teachers and students, allowing us “to think more about writing and less about grades” (Danielewicz and Elbow, 2009, p. 249). With less focus on the grade, we can all focus more on the feedback and the overall learning that happens when we write. I want you to be able to approach the class and its activities with a sense of curiosity, enthusiasm and excitement and with less fear and worry, allowing you to trust yourself and the process, letting yourself make mistakes, take feedback into consideration, and engage in dialogue with me (and each other) about your projects and writing.
The table below shows how to determine your grade in the class:
| Letter Grade | Late Weekly Work | Missing Weekly Work | Late Major Assignments | Missing Major Assignments | Meetings w/Kevin | Additional Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-/A | 4 or fewer | 0 | 1 or fewer | 0 | 2+ | 2+ |
| B-/B/B+ | 4 or fewer | 2 or fewer | 2 or fewer | 0 | 1 | N/A |
| C-/C/C+ | 5-6 | 2 or fewer | 2 or fewer | 1 or fewer | 0 | N/A |
| D-/D/D+ | 5-6 | 3-4 | 3 | 2 | N/A | |
| F | 7+ | 5+ | 2+ | N/A |
Definitions and Clarifications
LATE: Work is “late” if turned in after the deadline. (While deadlines are technically midnight, I will accept work as “on time” if it is submitted before I wake up the following day.)
MISSING: If late work is not submitted by midnight on Friday of Week Ten, it is missing.
COMPLETE: Work is considered “complete” if it satisfies the criteria in the relevant prompt. This means that work is not just done, but done in the manner expected. (That is, work that does not make a good faith effort to engage with the prompt or that is clearly rushed will not be counted as “complete.” The good news is that you can try again, with it only counting as “late” or “made up.”)
WEEKLY WORK: Weekly work includes both participation notebooks and dialectical journals. Each are considered a separate element, so if you miss an entire week’s worth of weekly work, you have missed two things.
MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS: This refers to the concept paper, rhetorical context analysis, and final project.
ADDITIONAL WORK: This refers to the “Additional Work” sections of each major assignment and/or the Discourse Community Analysis.
