By Marwa Abdel Latif, PhD, Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Introduction
Alternative grading systems (AGS), while differing in design, share a core feature: structured reassessment through redo opportunities that allow students to demonstrate clearly defined, mastery-based learning outcomes (Clark & Talbert, 2023). Rather than treating assessment as a final judgment, the redo process encourages students to engage in the learning process, respond to feedback, reinforce or restructure foundational knowledge, and apply corrected reasoning until they can provide convincing evidence of learning.
As a junior faculty member at the University of Detroit Mercy, a primarily teaching-focused institution, I was initially skeptical of AGS when it was discussed at conferences and symposia. In retrospect, my skepticism may have stemmed partly from misconceptions about this type of grading, limited familiarity, or fear of implementing it incorrectly. It may also have come from a deeply ingrained belief that conventional grading is the true measure of academic rigor.
My examples come from organic chemistry, in classes of 50 to 60 students, where I mark each learning outcome as no pass, pass, or exceeds, but the reasoning applies across disciplines. In this essay, I address three objections that skeptical colleagues commonly raise about AGS, objections I once shared.
Objection 1: The AGS redo system reduces rigor because it is simply a grade-recovery opportunity, no different from conventional redos
This objection assumes that AGS merely gives students another attempt to improve a grade, much like the corrections, retakes, or extra-credit opportunities offered under conventional grading. It overlooks the multidimensional design of redos in AGS. A well-designed redo requires students to act on feedback, demonstrate the same learning outcome again, and apply corrected reasoning in a new context.
In my practice, students’ corrections based on feedback are only the first step of a redo. Grades do improve, but only because the student has produced new evidence of learning on a new problem, which makes a redo more demanding than the original attempt. Two redo designs, common in our community of practice, illustrate this.
- Alternative problem sets on the same learning outcome. After students complete corrections and review feedback, they apply their new understanding to a different problem targeting the same learning outcome. For example, a student who misidentified the acid in one reaction is given a new reaction and asked to identify the acid and justify the choice. This is not a repeat of the original problem.
- Scaffolded redos on the same learning outcome. Rather than a single new problem, the student works through a sequence that builds back up to the original level of complexity. For example, a student who could not reason whether an acid-base reaction is favored first uses curved arrows to show the proton transfer, then compares the relative strengths of the acids on each side, and finally predicts which side is favored. The purpose is to produce stronger evidence of mastery, not simply to replace a low score.
Objection 2: Pass/no pass decisions in AGS are essentially partial credit under another name
Partial credit rewards fragments of a larger task. Pass/no pass rewards only a complete demonstration of a smaller, clearly defined one. Conventional grading helped me see recurring student errors and foundational misconceptions, but partial credit can allow students to accumulate points without fully mastering essential skills. AGS instead requires complete demonstrations of clearly defined learning outcomes. Before establishing pass/no pass decisions, faculty must therefore consider three things: how clearly the learning outcomes are defined, how complex each outcome is, and what counts as mastery.
When I started teaching, I would say things like, “I want you to demonstrate your understanding of acid-base chemistry.” Looking back, that statement was vague and undefined. Under conventional grading, I would award partial credit if some of a student’s work touched on aspects of acid-base chemistry. That is not the case in AGS.
Clearly defining learning outcomes
A major part of implementing AGS was reflecting on what I actually meant by “demonstrating understanding of acid-base chemistry.” What did I truly want my students to demonstrate? How did I want them to demonstrate it? And how complex a line of thinking, measured in steps, did it require them to navigate? Thinking from the students’ perspective, and about their learning process, was critical.
I also reflected on the activities we did together. During problem-solving sessions, did I clearly explain what each acid-base question contributed to their learning? In other words, did I give them both the tools and the reasoning for using those tools, or did I focus on one aspect, such as definitions, and expect them to do more?
Breaking complex outcomes into smaller ones
The complexity of an outcome depends on the action I expect students to perform. To my surprise, I found myself breaking each learning outcome into smaller outcomes based on the thinking process involved. Can the outcome be demonstrated through recall, drawing, critiquing, or reasoning? For acid-base chemistry, the levels might look like this:
- Level 1: Define what makes a substance an acid, or identify the acid in a chemical equation.
- Level 2: Use curved arrows to show what an acid does in a reaction, rather than only defining it.
- Level 3: Reason whether an acid-base reaction is favored.
Each level demonstrates understanding of acids, but at a different level of complexity, and I now state the expected level clearly in each problem set.
Under conventional grading, a student who completed Levels 1 and 2 of a Level 3 problem would usually earn partial credit. In AGS, that rarely happens, because each problem is written to target a specific level. If a student struggles at Level 3, they are redirected to Level 1 and 2 questions. Leveled outcomes are therefore not partial credit with extra steps: a student earns credit for a Level 1 or Level 2 outcome only by completing it in full, never as a fraction of a Level 3 problem. Breaking outcomes down according to how students actually think helps them see the differences between these smaller outcomes. These smaller demonstrations provide meaningful progress while keeping attention on conceptual mastery rather than point accumulation.
In our AGS, reporting both the number of outcomes completed and the level of mastery demonstrated is what distinguishes a “pass” from an “exceeds.” And unlike under conventional grading, I no longer have an internal battle over giving “no pass” on a multistep problem. In AGS, “no pass” simply means “try again,” accompanied by detailed feedback on what was missing at the requested level of complexity. My focus is on feedback that corrects the misconception and offers enough guidance to try again, rather than on supplying answers or awarding partial credit for work that used an incorrect approach or fell short of the required level of complexity.
Calibrating mastery across instructors and the discipline
Under conventional grading, what counts as proficiency or mastery can vary with each instructor’s standards. Instructors also interpret percentages, partial credit, and performance standards differently. AGS does not resolve this problem on its own, but it does prompt a recalibration of what mastery means, and it invites conversations with colleagues about shared learning outcomes and expectations for proficiency.
As with any pedagogical change, belonging to a learning community helps. Such communities are a common practice in chemistry, and mine lets me openly discuss problems, practices, and expectations with colleagues inside and outside Detroit Mercy. I find myself seeking more opportunities to attend conferences and participate in communities focused on alternative grading and organic chemistry education, such as OrganicERs. These communities build my awareness and help me check that my definition of mastery aligns with expectations in the discipline.
Objection 3: AGS, particularly grading redos, requires too much faculty time to be practical
Time spent on design and implementation is not unique to AGS. Conventional systems also demand time for curriculum redesign and rubric revision, because educators continually reassess their teaching. It is also worth counting a cost that conventional grading hides: the time I should have spent helping students address their exam errors. That time rarely materialized, because few students revisited their exam performance.
Under AGS, that time is built into my week. I hold five to eight office hours each week, and groups of fifteen or more students working on the same unit attend. Students work independently on their redos, talk through problems with one another, and bring their questions to me, so my role is to facilitate the conversation rather than to correct each paper one at a time. Weighed against the hidden cost of conventional grading, I would argue the time is roughly comparable. Even where AGS does require more time, I believe the investment is worthwhile, for two reasons.
Redo policies improve with iteration
AGS let me rediscover teaching through a new lens. Iteration is as essential in AGS as in conventional systems: faculty can evaluate how well each redo design supports learning and revise or remove the most time-consuming ones. In my own practice, the redo policy changed significantly between my first and third years of implementation. I began with no policy at all. When I saw that students were attempting redos without doing the homework, I required completed homework before a redo. With more experience, I noticed that many students did not know how to prepare well-summarized notes from lectures. The policy now requires a summarized portfolio for each learning outcome, with clear problems and strategies, before a student submits a redo.
The redo process also becomes easier over the academic year. I see students embrace learning: they get better at presenting their arguments and engage more proactively with problem sets that distinguish the smaller learning outcomes.
Redos build learning communities
Student questions shift toward the kind of reasoning I hope to see, such as, “What if I used the base to discuss how strong the acid is? Would that be a good critique?” Redos become dialogues that foster student-student and student-faculty learning communities. When students talk through a redo together, they learn to guide one another rather than simply share answers, and each student must then explain the reasoning back to me. Faculty can steer these dialogues to make the best use of limited time, and they come to see that time as supporting deeper learning rather than transactional correction. The investment ultimately contributes to greater student independence and shared learning.
Conclusion
I began as a skeptic who believed conventional grading was the true measure of rigor. Implementing AGS changed that view.
Some faculty may argue that AGS can only be implemented on a full scale. My own experience suggests otherwise: I initially implemented it partially, because I believed in the purpose of its practices as an educator, and I am now a full-fledged AGS practitioner. Partial implementation might mean using AGS only for quizzes, homework, or a major exam or project rather than for every assignment in a course, which is far more manageable when first starting out. If you are curious, you do not have to start with everything.
Implementing AGS has also helped me rediscover myself as a lifelong learner, with teaching centered on dialogue with students and a community of practice driven by curiosity. It has made me appreciate the challenge of intentionally revisiting established learning outcomes and designing scaffolded, long-term reassessments. Well-designed redos, clearly defined and leveled learning outcomes, and disciplinary calibration of mastery keep the focus on mastery rather than partial-credit accumulation. That, I now believe, is a more honest form of rigor.
Acknowledgments
I thank my Detroit Mercy colleagues Dr. Mara Livezey, Dr. Matthew Mio, and Dr. Daniel Maxwell for the continuing conversations about problems, practices, and expectations that shaped this work, and for their scholarly contributions to our ongoing projects on AGS.
References
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.