Equitable Grading Strategies

Grading not only measures student performance; it also shapes how students perceive themselves as learners. It communicates how well students have met learning objectives, shapes their academic identities, and influences their motivation. Historically, grading systems have focused heavily on compliance (e.g., punctuality, attendance) or relative performance (e.g., curving). Equitable grading shifts focus to whether students truly master the skills and knowledge intended by the course, while also promoting transparency, growth, and accountability in ways that serve all learners. Adapting our grading practices to be equitable—transparent, accurate, and growth-oriented—helps foster a more inclusive learning environment.

Below are three key aspects of equitable grading, followed by common myths and misconceptions:

Using Rubrics

Rubrics are not just scoring tools; they are communication frameworks that ensure both instructors and students have a shared understanding of course expectations. By defining performance levels and criteria, a rubric makes learning objectives explicit and helps students see exactly how their work is assessed. Each of these criteria is tied to what you actually taught and emphasized. Exams and assignments should reflect the content you covered; rubrics make it explicit that “we grade what we teach.”

Joe Feldman, in Grading for Equity, emphasizes that rubrics are crucial for transparent and fair evaluation. When students know what high-quality work looks like, they spend less energy guessing how to meet vague expectations and more energy engaging deeply with the material. Also, transparent rubrics contribute to equity by dismantling “hidden curricula” that might otherwise privilege students already familiar with academic norms.

Designing Equitable Rubrics

Align with core learning objectives

Each rubric category should map directly to a skill or knowledge area taught in your course (Brookhart, 2017). For example, if your course objective is “analyze primary sources in American history,” your rubric might include a specific category on “Primary Source Analysis.”

Use descriptive levels of achievement

Replace raw point scales with qualitative descriptors like “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” or “Needs Revision.” This focuses feedback on growth instead of point deduction (Feldman, 2019).

Make the process collaborative

Whenever possible, co-create rubrics with students. Sharing draft rubrics in class, collecting student feedback, and revising the rubric accordingly fosters agency and clarity.

To learn more about rubrics, you can visit our page on Assessment Rubrics

Maintaining Consistency Through Grade-Norming

Rubrics reduce bias, but they work best when all graders share the same interpretations. A short “grade-norming” session—half-hour meeting where instructors or TAs grade the same sample paper or project. These discussions reveal subtle differences in interpretation and help standardize how criteria are applied. Even small adjustments can prevent subjective biases from creeping into the grading process, thus supporting more equitable outcomes.

Providing Timely & High-Quality Feedback

While rubrics clarify what is being graded, feedback guides students on how to improve. In an equitable classroom, feedback functions as a conversation about growth, not just a label of success or failure. Joe Feldman argues that feedback should identify gaps in understanding while inspiring students to revise and improve, rather than simply penalize them for errors.

Feldman contends that equitable grading requires regular, meaningful feedback. Without it, students often fixate on a single letter or number and lose sight of how to improve. When feedback is timely, targeted, and action-oriented, students see concrete steps they can take to revise or refine their work. Regular, iterative feedback cultivates a growth mindset and reduces high-stakes anxiety.

At the same time, giving feedback can be time-intensive for instructors; it can also be frustrating if students don’t apply the comments you’ve painstakingly provided. The strategies below aim to make feedback more effective for students and more sustainable for instructors.

Structuring Feedback for Depth and Clarity

Timely: Timeliness is critical. When students receive feedback days—or weeks—after completing an assignment, the momentum for improvement can wane.
Forward-looking vs. backward-looking: Consider offering comments not only after a final product (backward-looking) but also during the drafting process (forward-looking). This approach helps students apply the feedback and fosters continuous improvement (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Concrete & specific: Instead of general praise or criticism, point students toward exact places to revise. Example: “Your thesis could be clearer if you explicitly connect it to the evidence you cited on page 3.”

Concise & targeted: Too many notes can overwhelm students, making them unsure where to start. Highlight 2–3 main areas you want them to address first.
Higher-order vs. lower-order concerns: Early drafts often benefit from feedback on big-picture issues—argument coherence, organization, clarity—while later drafts can focus on style or mechanics.

Criteria-based comments: Relate your feedback to the rubric categories or the assignment’s goals.

Encouraging Revision and Resubmission

An equitable approach often provides opportunities for revision. By allowing students to revisit their work, you shift the focus from penalizing mistakes to learning from them. These chances can be offered selectively—such as one major re-write option per semester—or built into the very structure of assignments (like multiple draft stages). Students who invest time in revision also tend to retain knowledge more effectively, as they learn to correct misconceptions and refine their thinking processes.

Giving Feedback in Large Classrooms

In large-lecture courses with hundreds of students, providing individualized feedback can feel daunting. Below are strategies to maintain quality and equity while managing your workload:

Group feedback sessions: After grading, compile the most common issues and arrange students into breakout groups (in person or online). Spend 10–15 minutes reviewing these trends; invite questions or clarifications. This approach ensures each student gets targeted insights on typical pitfalls, while still allowing you to handle volume
Mini-workshops: Dedicate a portion of class time—e.g., the last 20 minutes—to addressing the “top three” areas for improvement you’ve observed. Provide anonymous examples to illustrate how to strengthen arguments or correct misconceptions.
TA office hours: Encourage TAs to hold “feedback clinics” where students drop in to discuss grading comments or exam corrections. Provide TAs with clear rubrics so they can deliver consistent guidance.
Automate simple feedback

Rubrics and Comment Banks: Rubrics in bCourses or Gradescope let you quickly select from a preset comment bank. This consistency saves time and ensures that all students receive a comparable level of feedback (Reddy & Andrade, 2010).

Focus on trends and patterns

If 70% of the class is missing the same concept, address it with a short video or class announcement, rather than writing the same note 200 times. This targeted approach can prevent repetitive feedback and ensure consistent messaging (Feldman, 2019).

Reconsidering Grading on a Curve

Curved grading typically assigns grades according to a predetermined distribution, implying that a certain percentage will receive As, Bs, Cs, and so forth, regardless of absolute performance. Historically, this was popularized under the assumption that student achievement would naturally fall into a bell curve. However, Research from educational psychologists (Dweck, 2006) consistently shows that extrinsic motivators—like competing for limited A’s—can undermine intrinsic interest in mastering content.

Moreover, the curved grading system inherently disadvantages students from underrepresented or underprepared backgrounds. Bowen and Cooper (2021) argue that by ranking students against each other, curved grading disproportionately penalizes those with fewer resources or less prior exposure to subject matter. This structural disadvantage is amplified in fields like STEM, where diverse backgrounds and preparation levels are common among students.

Strict curves can undermine equity in several other ways:

Promotes competition over mastery: By fostering a zero-sum competition for grades, curved grading erodes classroom collaboration. Students are discouraged from working together or supporting one another, as success is framed as a limited resource. Bowen and Cooper (2021) underscore how this environment runs counter to the collaborative skills essential for success in modern workplaces and research communities.
Affects mental health:The competitive nature of curved grading increases anxiety and undermines student motivation.
Misaligns with objectives: A strong cohort might all deserve As, yet a strict curve forces some students into lower brackets. Joe Feldman describes this as an “artificial scarcity” of high grades that can misrepresent actual achievement levels.
Distorts meaningful feedback: A student might earn a C, not because they lack proficiency, but because the curve dictates that only so many can earn higher grades.

Equitable Alternatives to Curving

Mastery-Based Grading

Here, each student’s performance is measured against specific learning outcomes, not against the performance of peers. If everyone meets or exceeds the standard, everyone can theoretically earn an A. This approach can bolster collaboration, since students realize helping each other won’t hurt their own standing. To explore more ideas related to this please visit our page on Alternative Grading Frameworks

Adjusting Assessments or Scaling Scores

If an exam proves unusually difficult or yields uncharacteristically low scores, you can use the following strategies:

Dropping poor or ambiguous questions (especially if data shows a large majority misunderstood the same prompt).
Offering partial-credit opportunities for corrections, so that students learn from mistakes.
Scaling the entire test by a uniform number of points if your top-scoring student still fell below a reasonable threshold of mastery.

In each scenario, the goal is to remain fair and transparent, explaining to students why adjustments are made and how they relate to true learning.

Common Misconceptions

Myth 1: Equitable grading = Easier grading

Reality: Equitable grading raises rigor by focusing on content mastery. Policies such as multiple attempts and grading on revision require students to learn and prove mastery, not merely comply with deadlines.

Myth 2: Reducing penalties for late work encourage procrastination

Reality: In equitable grading, late policies are carefully balanced with accountability. Consider granting one or two “late passes” that let students delay an assignment without penalty. Overusing these passes can still have consequences (e.g., mandatory check-ins or reflections), ensuring students don’t rely on them habitually.

Myth 3: Repeated retakes inflate grades

Reality: Retakes, if designed thoughtfully, require students to address gaps in understanding. Students might redo an exam after working through practice problems or meeting with a tutor. The key is ensuring that extra attempts reflect mastery rather than “free points.”

References

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How learning works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching.

Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom, 2nd ed.Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, C.W., & Cooper, M.M. (2021). Grading on a Curve as a Systemic Issue of Equity in Chemistry Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(5), 1381-1388.

Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to Use Grading to Improve Learning. ASCD.

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning. (2022). Assessing Equitably with All Learners in Mind.

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning. Feedback for Learning.

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms.Corwin. F

iock, H., & Garcia, H. (2019). How to Give Your Students Better Feedback with Technology Advice Guide. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Leibold, N., & Schwarz, L. M. (2015). The Art of Giving Online Feedback. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(1), 34–46.

Malini Reddy, Y., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of Rubric Use in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448.

McKeachie, W. J. (2011). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 13th ed.

Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Poproski, R. (2019). Notes on Curving, Scaling, and Adjusting Grades. Georgia Institute of Technology.

University of Illinois Chicago Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence. Equitable Assessments & Grading Practices.