Art and design education has the power to unleash creativity, foster innovation, and nurture individual voices. Yet, the traditional grading systems we employ can sometimes hinder this potential. During my time as a design educator, I’ve been privileged to observe, experiment with, and reflect upon traditional and experimental grading systems within contemporary pedagogy. Here are some of my thoughts, including considerations for diverse educational backgrounds and the challenges in implementing new methods.

In March 2023 at the IDEC Annual Conference in Vancouver, BC, I presented my pilot research examining how self-assessment could be used as the primary framework for grading a design studio course. In two different design studios, I implemented a self-assessment model for grading in which students completed an in-depth Google Form at midterm and final, culminating in their assigning themselves a grade. This process also included one-on-one meetings and detailed feedback I provided the students throughout the semester. In focus groups led by graduate student research assistants, the students in these classes reported high levels of satisfaction with the self-assessment method and reported a higher willingness to take risks on their projects. While I reserved the right to adjust student-selected grades, this was rarely utilized, and in the cases where a grade change was warranted, the student typically graded themselves lower than what I thought they deserved. Considering the diverse cultural and educational backgrounds of students, it’s important to understand that self-assessment may resonate differently across these varied experiences, and guidance in reflecting on their work may be needed. Further exploration into how different perspectives impact perceptions of self-assessment and traditional grading would enhance our understanding of its effectiveness.

Traditional Grading and its Implications

At my institution, I’ve witnessed a vibrant culture that emphasizes student-centered approaches. The absence of overly burdensome, top-down oversight grants us the freedom to explore creative grading practices within our classes, yet this approach also yields inconsistencies across courses. While I’ve been experimenting with alternative grading methodologies for years, the Spring 2020 semester, amid the pandemic, revealed interesting aspects about the value of grades as an extrinsic motivator. Despite an emergency University policy that guaranteed grades of A or A- for all enrolled students, the quality of student work remained undiminished. Additionally, the pandemic and the subsequent racial reckoning in the summer of 2020 highlighted the importance of focusing on how our institutions and classrooms may reinforce systems of oppression. Grading is one such system that requires reevaluation, as it often inadvertently favors students of dominant racial, gender, and socio-economic backgrounds — those who have learned how to navigate the grading system and have access to the necessary training and support to achieve high grades.

Challenges in Assessment Methodologies

In my role helping oversee curriculum and learning, I have observed notable inconsistencies in grading practices across different courses, largely attributable to varying approaches to pedagogy (which is not always a bad thing!). For instance, while some classes employ complex rubrics integrated into the Learning Management System (LMS), others might completely eschew the use of rubrics. It’s important to note, however, that the use of rubrics is not without its drawbacks. Their creation and application can inadvertently perpetuate inequalities in the classroom. Particularly, if not thoughtfully designed, rubrics can uphold aspects of a white supremacist educational framework that values perfection, quantity, outcomes, and singular modes of knowledge and expression over process and multiple ways of knowing and sharing.

Grading in art and design disciplines often presents as a subjective task. Many educators are not comfortable with the use of rubrics, finding them restrictive or misaligned with their teaching philosophy. The introduction of co-created rubrics or self-grading methods, while progressive, can challenge the traditional hierarchies and norms established in some classrooms. Ceding power in the classroom can be uncomfortable for those accustomed to their privileged positionality. This discomfort should not be a reason to avoid these approaches, but rather seen as a barometer, pointing us toward the work we need to do to dismantle historic hierarchies. It’s also important to recognize the practical difficulties in adopting these alternative assessment methods is crucial, especially in larger classes or in institutions that may not have the same level of flexibility as Parsons. Equally important is the need for comprehensive faculty training and support during a transition to alternative grading methodologies. Such support is vital to ensure that educators are well-prepared and confident in implementing these innovative approaches to grading effectively.

Student Creativity vs. Assessment Pressures

The impact of grades on student creativity is multifaceted. Fourth year students in my design studio this semester expressed feeling constrained by assignment rubrics, longing for more autonomy in their design process. While some students thrive under the pressure of grades, viewing them as an extrinsic motivating factor, others find them restrictive. It’s important to consider the long-term impact of these grading practices on students’ careers and real-world preparedness, not to mention systems that require grades such as scholarships, visas, grad school applications, etc.

Looking Ahead: Future Considerations for Assessment

At the November 2023 Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD) symposium in Cincinnati, Ohio, I attended a talk by design researcher Jigyasa Tuli, entitled “Dismantle, Build, Repair: A collective re-thinking of our art & design education.” During the workshop portion of Tuli’s presentation, when asked to respond to various prompts considering how we implement systems of care in our institutions, It was interesting that in each of the groups of 5-8 educators, one of the top ideas was the removal or rethinking of grading. In particular, a shift toward credit/no credit systems or systems of self-assessment was favored. Grades were commonly seen as a point of resistance and represented antiquated hierarchical models that reinforce inequitable practices.

Reflecting on these experiences and the feedback I’ve received from students, I envision a future for grading where:

• Graduate-level courses aren’t bound by traditional grading — full stop.
• Self-assessment is recognized and supported as a legitimate grading strategy, and educators are given the time and grace to pursue the work needed to conduct self-assessment with their students effectively. This includes creating a culture of self-assessment and reflection where students are also comfortable with this practice.
• We invest in scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) research to understand the true efficacy of grades as motivators in order to move forward with quality evidence.
• We build a culture that prioritizes intrinsic motivation and recognizes the effort required for effective grading.
• Externally, I hope for a shift away from grade-dependent scholarships, visas, and admissions, reducing the pressure we feel for grade inflation and favoring students who know how to succeed in this grade-focused system.

In art and design education, our assessment methods must evolve to align with our teaching philosophies and the diverse learning needs of our students. Traditional grading systems, while having their merits in certain unique circumstances, require continuous scrutiny and reevaluation to ensure they serve all students equitably. As educators, it is our responsibility to challenge and reform these practices, particularly when they risk silencing the diverse, creative voices we strive to nurture in our classrooms. This critical examination and adaptation of assessment methods are essential, not just for academic progression, but to foster an inclusive and equitable learning environment. Such an approach ensures our pedagogy aligns with the dynamic nature of art and design and resonates with the unique potential and aspirations of every student we mentor.