(Up)Grading: A (Re)Humanizing Assessment Process with a Focus on Feedback

Abstract

Researchers across two universities and three different mathematics education courses implemented their vision of a novel grading approach called (Up)grading. (Up)grading shifts the focus of assessment from grades to growth. Key features of implementing (Up)grading included (a) providing students with opportunities to reflect upon and grow from their learning experiences, and (b) giving them a voice in determining their course grade. The findings suggest that most students perceived (Up)grading as a positive experience in their learning and as an assessment approach. The features of (Up)grading students believed contributed to the positive experience included giving them opportunities to reflect on their work and learn from their mistakes, as well as targeted feedback, enabling them to independently move their thinking forward. Tensions in the process did arise, including students’ initial anxiety with the norm shift from grades to growth and instructors’ management of the flow of assignments.

1. Introduction

In the quest for teaching mathematics for understanding, the connection between learning and assessment often becomes disjointed if the assessment practices are based on compliance and completion. The call for assessment practices of teacher candidates that mirror K-12 began in the 1990s [1] as standards-based instruction became the focus. The standards-based movement was grounded in learning theory and environments that support constructivist practices [2]. Although teacher education programs have incorporated performance assessments and have been revised to align more with those in their P-12 counterparts, the requirement of grading and particular grading scales hinder a focus on assessment for growth, reflection, and feedback. The grading system never was meant to increase engagement but fostered a climate where “mistakes are unwanted, unhelpful, and punished” [3] (p. 30). It is noted that mathematics teacher educators (MTEs) wishing to “rehumanize” [4] (p. 1) elements of their instructional practice to better align with perspectives on teaching and learning are often faced with challenges from their departments and institution [5]. Despite the move to be more standards-based and student focused, grading remains something we do to students rather than with students, meaning there is not a shared authority in the process. Problematically, “grades […] have contributed to the ever-widening divide of learners based on race, socioeconomic status, sex, gender identity, ability, and more, granting even more access and opportunities to those who already had access and opportunity” [6] (p. 163). Because the act of grading causes a detachment from the purpose of the learning experience, students tend to focus on checking off requirements versus internalizing the content and practice [6]. The focus on earning a grade rather than engaging in the learning process can be troublesome for teachers and teacher candidates as they navigate the complexities of the teaching and learning of mathematics. With the need for teachers to focus on student understanding in mathematics classrooms, the preparation and development of teachers should support and provide exposure to assessment practices aligned with fostering understanding.

2. Literature Review

In the following section, we outline research and practices related to humanizing assessment to create an environment of growth and development rather than compliance and hierarchy.

2.1. Standards-Based Assessment

Despite assessment practices being promoted to determine what students know and can do, grading practices have encompassed non-cognitive factors like behavior, dispositions, and compliance. As early as the late 1950s, it was noted that grading practices in elementary schools were based on a mix of academics and non-cognitive factors [7], even with calls from measurement research to be based on achievement. Likewise, and decades later, Brookhart [8] noticed similar assessment practices and believed they were deeply rooted in societal expectations and norms and included factors that were not about learning, growth, and achievement. Because of the comingling of academics and non-cognitive factors, traditional grading practices are unsound in capturing student achievement [9].

Standards-based assessment practices are primed to keep the focus on what students know and can do in alignment with the standards. Students are assessed on specific content standards in terms of mastery or proficiency [10,11]. Standards-based assessment practices communicate precise areas where students need support, allowing students to address the gaps in learning, and provide targeted feedback to students and families [11,12]. Although there is no consensus on the approach to standards-based assessments [13,14], research does indicate three specific criteria that are essential in standards-based assessment practices: (1) grades are based on standards and often include multiple grades in place of a single content grade; (2) performance categories are used to help communicate proficiency; and (3) academic grades are presented separately from non-cognitive grades [14,15].

2.2. (Re)Humanizing Assessment

The humanity of students is at the forefront of rehumanizing mathematics education and mathematics identity development [16]. Addressing power, status, and agency structures and practices within the teaching and learning of mathematics works to humanize students [16]. Ensuring the assessment practices are aligned with a humanizing approach is vital to supporting positive identities and success. “Grades are not good incentive, not good feedback, not good markers of learning, encourage competitiveness over collaboration, don’t reflect the idiosyncratic, subjective, often emotional character of learning, and they are not fair” [17] (p. 28). Variations in grading practices that veer away from traditional practice can provide “mirrors” through which teachers view their growth and “windows” [4] (p. 1) through which teachers can gain new views of practice. These mirrors and windows put the focus of assessment on feedback, reflection, and growth and do not lower standards or rigor [18].

Within a more humanized approach to assessment, grading policies should be “responsive to [learners], sustain, and revitalize” [19] (p. 86). By including students in the grading process, the authority shifts away from the instructor and provides a space for feedback that helps teachers examine their teaching practice [19]. Optimal feedback must be valued by the student, provide open dialogue between the student and the teacher, and help to establish trust [20]. Additionally, the purpose of intentional feedback is for students to “develop their capacity to calibrate their own judgements and appreciate the qualities of their work and how it might otherwise be improved” [21] (p. 4). The shared authority increases communication and a shared relationship between students and their instructors and thus cultivates personal responsibility [22].

A rehumanizing approach to grading may require an increased involvement from the instructor and does require more work and flexibility [18]. Teaching philosophies can also be a factor in the implementation of rehumanizing grading approaches [23]. For example, by allowing for flexible deadlines, there are issues since assignments often build upon each other causing difficulty for instructors and students if the students are on varying paths and levels of understanding [18]. “Teachers become designers and sustainers of the learning milieu; establishing conditions in which students can operate with agency” [21] (p. 710). Moreover, student-focused assessment has proven to support student learning in higher education [24].

Blum [6] emerged with her conceptualization of rebuilding and redesigning assessment practices in what she coined “ungrading”. She notes that others have called it de-grading or going gradeless. The “ungrading” process changes the cornerstone from grades to learning [6]. As we have worked within this philosophy, we put an emphasis on feedback as the cornerstone of our assessment practices. As such, we refer to our approach as (Up)grading to denote the shared partnership around growth, feedback, and reflection. We believe that it is an elevated assessment approach that (up)lifts students’ voices and agency in the process.

3. Theoretical Framework

We entered this work with a lens for equitable and just instructional practices. We centered ourselves in TODOS’s essential actions that include eliminating deficit views, eradicating mathematics used as a gatekeeper, engaging in the sociopolitical turn of mathematics education, and elevating the professional learning of mathematics teachers and leaders with a dual focus on mathematics and social justice [25]. Additionally, we draw on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Catalyzing Change series key recommendation to “[implement] equitable instructional practices to cultivate students’ positive mathematical identities and a strong sense of agency” [26] (p. 45). More specifically to assessment practices, frameworks that have informed our different approaches include labor-based grading [27], self-evaluation using progress processing reflective writing/metacognition (e.g., [17]), practices that promote social justice and equity [4], and diminishing hierarchies and promoting student contributions [28,29,30].

We draw specifically on the last two assessment frameworks for the purpose of this study and our approach to assessment: practices that promote social justice and equity and seek to increase student involvement within the assessment process. The essential aspect of incorporating (Up)grading practices is a shift in the process and the importance of feedback. Instead of traditional feedback, the instructor is challenged to “feedforward”. The practice of feedforward involves providing the learner with statements and questions that provide the potential to advance the nature of their thinking and/or improve the quality of their responses via resubmissions. Hirsch [31] argued that feedforward feedback is about assisting students with repair. Instead of providing ratings and judgment based on past performance, feedforward focuses on development, growth, and additional learning through repairing misconceptions and mislearning [31]. Specifically, there are six attributes to the approach of feedforward: (1) regenerates talent to increase engagement, (2) expands possibilities and supports creativity and opportunities, (3) particular and laser-focused on essentials, (4) authentic and based on practice, (5) provides impactful feedback that is practical and useful, and (6) refines group dynamics [31] (p. 7). We argue that the use of feedforward feedback provides a more equitable and inclusive learning environment, centering student contributions and providing them with more agency and authority in their learning [4,28,29,30].

4. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore students’ lived experience, via reflection, as they participated in a grading experience that was a significant disruption from their traditional experiences with grading and grades. The two research questions that we sought to address were: (1) What perceptions did students have about their (Up)grading experience?, and (2) What tensions did students and MTEs experience as they navigated the (Up)grading experience?

5. Methodology

5.1. Participants and Setting

(Up)grading was implemented in three different courses, across two universities, with a total of 65 teacher candidates and practicing teachers. At one public, doctoral/professional institution located in the Midwest region of the United States, the (Up)grading practice was implemented in two different undergraduate semester-long courses for teacher candidates with differing foci, elementary mathematics methods (n = 18) and a statistics and probability course for future teachers (n = 15). Additionally, (Up)grading was implemented in a graduate course (n = 32) at a large, research-intensive university in the southeast region of the United States. The graduate course consisted of practicing K-12 mathematics teachers and focused on mathematical discourse and high-quality tasks. Each author received approval from their university Intuitional Review Board (IRB-FY2020-695, Pro00079356, and IRB-FY2024-414). The IRB approval for one MTE required student consent forms, which were presented to students during the first week of class. These consent forms were kept secure until final grades were posted; then, the MTE reviewed consent and pulled survey data and reflections for the consenting participants. The IRB for the third author at the same institution required consent after the close of the class and the MTE contacted students for consent. The IRB at the other institution (second author) did not require consent forms. This MTE used anonymous surveys that were sent after final grades of the course were posted.

5.2. (Up)Grading Approaches

Within each of the three courses, an overarching goal was a more humanistic approach that valued student voice in assessment through what we call (Up)grading. Features that were consistent across the three courses were: (a) students were given opportunities to revise their thinking to show an advancement in understanding after receiving targeted feedback from the MTE, and (b) students had a substantial voice in determining their final grade for the course. Despite student work not being “graded” in a traditional sense, students were made aware that there would be a grade attached to their efforts at the end of the course and that they would be the one responsible for providing a grade with supporting evidence to justify that grade. It was communicated early in the semester that the assessment process would be based on labor (i.e., completing assigned work) and evidence of growth in understanding of the key concepts of the course. We sought to focus students’ attention on the journey of continuous reflection and revision with the goal of attaining higher levels of academic rigor and greater retention of conceptual ideas. We are learning that context matters in how we approach (Up)grading; as such, each MTE approached (Up)grading in a slightly different way as described below.

Elementary Mathematics Methods. For the elementary mathematics methods course, students set goals at the beginning of the semester, and the (Up)grading process was explained. For smaller assignments, the codes “Got it” or “Missed something” were used. For larger assignments attached to their work in schools, a weighted scale was used to help students see the impact of their work on elementary students and the placement teacher. Students were provided detailed descriptions outlining the expectations of the assignment. Target due dates were used coupled with an expanded window for submission. If the assignment was turned in within this window, assignments could be resubmitted after adhering to the feedback. Weekly, students communicated their participation level, preparation level, and key understandings, and they could ask additional questions within a folder system for communication and documentation. The folder system included a physical folder with reflective prompts each week that supported two-way communication between the MTE and students. Students had weekly entries to document attendance, participation, reflections, and questions. The focus of the feedback was to help students to reflect, rework, and resubmit their work to increase understanding. At the midpoint of the semester, there was a check-in for both the process and student understanding. To culminate the semester, students provided a critical reflection and justification for the overall grade complying with university expectations. Students could refer to their folder for the weekly documentation.

Statistics and Probability Course for Future Teachers. Within the statistics and probability course for future teachers, students were told at the beginning of the semester that they would not be receiving traditional numerical or letter grades on assignments, mini-projects, or assessments. In place of these markings, the instructor would provide targeted feedback to support their efforts to improve their understanding and, when appropriate, a phrasing that would suggest the level of work needed to be done to demonstrate an advancement of understanding. One example of these ratings was “Nailed It”, “Almost There”, “Not Yet”, and “Help”. Throughout the semester, the instructor would assign reflective written assignments, asking students to compare their thinking to responses that the instructor believed had “Nailed It”. These assignments typically asked students to reflect on what was missing from their response and specifically what they now understand that they did not before. Throughout the semester, it was stressed that there was always an opportunity for growth on any work that was submitted. The challenge for this course is the unfamiliar content and the modeling of high-quality teaching of statistics and probability with the hope that the students will be comfortable implementing these same activities and practices in their own classroom someday.

Mathematical Tasks and Discourse Graduate Course. For the graduate course on discourse and tasks, the focus was allowing teachers the space to apply their learning in their classrooms without fear of “grades” limiting their risk-taking, as they were being asked to push themselves out of their comfort zones with their mathematics teaching. The goal was to focus on growth, not on grades. To do this, students were asked to write critical reflections and rationales for their grades on all assignments. For instance, reading responses were completed weekly; however, “scores” were obtained through three retrospective reflections by the students, while the instructor provided feedback each week. For the major assignment in the course, the students were asked to work through the 5 Practices [32]. The 5 Practices (Smith and Stein, 2018 [32]) provides a model for facilitating productive and high-quality discourse in mathematics classrooms through: (a) setting goals and selecting tasks—Practice 0, (b) anticipating student thinking—Practice 1, (c) monitoring students’ work—Practice 2, (d) selecting student strategies to share—Practice 3, (e) sequencing the strategies to be shared—Practice 4, and (f) connecting shared strategies—Practice 5. Assignments were designed to allow teachers time to dig into each practice and implement it within their various classroom settings. For example, for Practice 0, setting goals and selecting tasks [32], the teachers worked to identify the learning goal and develop the task they would ultimately implement with their own K-12 students. The MTE’s role was to provide feedback, wherein this was an iterative process where the practicing teacher could revisit and refine the task. The teachers would then “grade” themselves through a critical reflection on their process, focusing on their learning and growth through this phrase of the 5 Practices [32], and ultimately scoring themselves out of 10 points possible with a detailed justification for their score. The same process occurred across each of the major course assignments. While no rubrics were provided, detailed descriptions for assignments were used, and revisions and refinements were encouraged.

5.3. Data Collection

Data focused on the MTEs’ initial implementation of (Up)grading and consisted of an open-ended survey given to students seeking perceptions of their (Up)grading experience. Sample open-ended survey questions included: (a) How has the (Up)grading experience shaped your perception of “growth” versus “grades?” (b) Did the (Up)grading process provide you with a voice and ownership in your learning and assessment? If so, how? (c) What aspects of the (Up)grading process were most helpful in advancing your learning? The survey also asked students about how to improve the assessment process. Survey data were collected for all the enrolled students in the elementary methods course and for statistics content course; however, the task and discourse graduate course had a 53% return rate (n = 50 total surveys, n = 18 for elementary methods course, n = 15 for statistics content course, n = 17 for task and discourse graduate course). Additionally, each MTE kept anecdotal and semester-long reflections, including a mid-point check-in. The reflections included open-ended questions to monitor how students were doing with the process and helped monitor student needs along the way. These were often part of exit slips in class. Each MTE did these a little differently, but the intent was to help inform supports and student growth. Each MTE also kept notes of their thinking and changes throughout the semester.

5.4. Data Analysis

Each MTE conducted a case study analysis of their students’ responses to the survey. The goal of this analysis was to identify themes in students’ lived experiences with (Up)grading, aspects of (Up)grading that student found most helpful, and ways the (Up)grading experience could be improved. After this analysis was completed, a comparative analysis [33] of emerging themes across the three courses for each question was conducted to identify consistent themes across the data. The first step was to code for perceptions and tensions within the survey data, reflections, and the MTE anecdotal notes. To ensure reliability of the study, data obtained were analyzed first by the MTE of record, then checked by another member. Once we analyzed the student perceptions, we organized the perceptions according to the six feedforward attributes as defined by Hirsch (2017) [31] as depicted in Figure 1. Additionally, each MTE coded these perceptions; then, to ensure reliability, another MTE checked the initial coding. Disagreements were decided by the third MTE.

6. Findings

6.1. Student Perceptions of (Up)Grading

Collectively the students’ perceptions revealed students had a favorable response to (Up)grading. Their perceptions were rooted in the shift from a focus on grades to a focus on growth in understanding. Three main themes emerged as students reflected on aspects of (Up)grading that were most helpful to them. These included: (a) depressurization of grades and stress, (b) opportunities to self-reflect, and (c) opportunities to learn from mistakes and explore ideas. We expand on each theme in the following paragraphs.

As indicated, one significant theme that emerged across all courses was the depressurization of grades, as evidenced by this student who noted, “Having the pressure of grades released allowed me to take time with the projects and fully learn the material rather than just getting it done for points”. Another student noted, “I loved the ungrading experience because I felt like I could focus more on my actual learning and what I wanted to do in the classroom, other than turning in an assignment and worrying about a grade”. Other words and phrases students used to describe the depressurization of grades were “liberated”, “freedom”, “ownership”, “reducing fear”, “take away stress”, and “motivated”.

(Up)grading allowed students to take a more holistic approach to their learning, allowing them a multiple of opportunities to self-reflect and have ownership in their growth and subsequent grades. For instance, one student indicated, “This was a foreign experience for me. As a student I am not used to being in such a large degree of ownership for grading. I have owned my learning before, but this layer allowed me to own my learning, growth and results”. Additionally, a student expressed, “The upgrading experience definitely helped me to reflect on what I did, what I learned, how I interacted with the course and my peers. I found it to be much more effective because of the reflection piece. In my own teaching, I reflect constantly so I found it to be much more easier and my work was better”. These student responses highlight how the (Up)grading assessment approach allowed them to be involved in their learning and grading process, rather than having it done to them or working to simply check something off a list of tasks. Students also noticed that the purpose of the courses and assignments was about them and their growth and not a particular class ranking. A student commented, “It has showed me how it matters more about the content of your work and the understanding behind it than the letter grade result”.

Another advantage of (Up)grading for students was the opportunities to learn from mistakes and explore ideas. For instance, a student realized that the work and resubmission process was focused on the opportunity to learn from mistakes or misunderstanding, noting “It has made me see that I am able to keep trying till I master the material, rather than what I get is what I get. I was able to fix my learning and get feedback from the teacher”. The idea of expanded opportunities to learn was highlighted by one student who indicated, “The upgrading experience has been enlightening. I focused on my growth and my meeting of expectations much more than the number grade. I felt like I was critical but in doing so I found room for improvement and was able to go back through and improve!”. The process allowed for students to make changes without the feeling of stress caused in traditional grading approaches as noted by one student’s comment: “I find that the upgrading process really allowed me to look at my work and make changes. I never really think much about grades. There was definitely more reflection on my part”. Additionally, students appreciated the time and having more flexibility in their working pace as essential to relieving the stress of worrying about grades.

Students also provided insight into ways to improve the (Up)grading process. For instance, students indicated that additional guidance and time to become comfortable with (Up)grading would be beneficial. One student expressed the idea of a more gradual integration of (Up)grading, saying it may be helpful to “Ease students into the notion of upgrading. Rather than completely removing all grading aspects, leave some structure, maybe some rubrics, to allow students to learn to reflect and become more comfortable”. This sentiment was echoed by another student who noted, “The upgrading process requires a shift in thinking. As you introduce it to students for the first time, consider using a combination of traditional teacher-graded activities and ungraded activities. It took me some time to become at ease with the technique”. Additionally, students noted that providing more opportunities to reflect on learning, think about the nature and structure of assignments could also help to improve the (Up)grading process. One student provided a suggestion of providing examples to “show what that looks like (an example of a written response)” to support the development of self-reflection.

Connection to Framework. As we worked to offer feedforward feedback, we relied on Hirsh’s [31] recommendation with repair as the key purpose of feedback and growth. In analyzing students’ perceptions, we organized the perceptions as they related to the six attributes of feedforward feedback. We sought to see if the influence of the attributes were noted in the student reflections (see

Table 1. Examples of feedforward attributes.

Feedforward Attribute	Influence on Students’ Examples
Regenerates Talent	I felt like I could focus on my actual learning and what I wanted to do in the classroom, instead of just turning in an assignment and worrying about a grade. I got to focus on what I was doing in the classroom both in class and at my placement school rather than working on assignments.
Expands Possibilities	Growth allows students to make mistakes, explore ideas, get feedback. The lack of a grade provided better motivation.
Particular	I found it very helpful that you were very clear on exactly what my understanding was. You told me what I needed to elaborate on, what I was off, and what I was almost there. In addition, you let me know when I nailed something. The explicit feedback.
Authentic	Being able to redo assignments after getting useful feedback from teachers. To reflect on how I implemented a given task in my classroom. This provided me with the energy to give myself grace when it did not go well but to continue implementing it in order to improve.
Impact	That it was not about a grade, it was about actually learning the information and how we put that information into effect in the classroom. Upgrading made me do more than I probably would have done in the first place. It’s easy to phone things in when someone else is grading your work. When you are critiquing yourself, it’s hard to lie to yourself.
Refines Group Dynamics	The most helpful aspect of upgrading experience is the collaborative element in it. We can all grow quicker and stronger if we’re all trying together. One big aspect that helped me was hearing other students share. I learned just as much from other students’ understanding of the concept as I did from you giving us the information.

for examples).

As we analyzed the data, we realized that these reflective assignments with the support of the feedforward feedback provide a “window” into the students’ lived experience that extends far beyond the grade. Often, the instructor has no idea as to each student’s journey and learning processes within a given assignment or even course. As we read over the student reflections, we were taken with the impact these experiences have had on not only students’ intellectual development but also their social-emotional development. The following reflection from a student encompassed the benefit of the overall process and feedforward feedback:

“This was an interesting and thought-provoking assignment. It had me answer questions and think in a manner that is the exact opposite of everything I have experienced regarding grades in school. Not only does it make me think critically about what I know, I find it difficult to advocate for myself in any assignment, so this assignment is challenging. In the beginning and still a bit now I feel like I’m giving myself a pat on the back for what I’ve accomplished, which once again is something I’m not prone to doing. Had I not done this assignment I would have never recognized those things about myself. For that reason, I am already grateful for this assignment, in the sense that it showed me things about myself that clearly need some growth because I should be proud of what I learned and the effort I have put in”.

6.2. Student and MTE Tensions around (Up)Grading

Several themes emerged from the analysis of tensions around (Up)grading, including clarity of assignment expectations and criteria, redundancy of reflection, and navigation of a new assessment process. As each MTE navigated the (Up)grading process, the student tensions were similar in that students still wanted the comfort of step-by-step guides to how to assess rather than realizing that, for teachers, a cookie-cutter approach does not work as each grows in their knowledge and instructional practice. For instance, a student suggested, “…maybe show what that looks like as an example of a written response”. Additionally, students still wanted to quantify their work. For instance, one student said, “Maybe a rubric that explains…give yourself 10 points if you did “xyz” 9 points if you did “abc”. As the focus shifted to the students with an increase in reflection, students found some of the reflection activities to be redundant. An example from a student included this, “there were times where I felt like I was being redundant in my self-reflection”.

(Up)grading represented a disruption to the norm of grading that students had experienced throughout their schooling. This disruption brought on a range of emotions from students that required the MTE to empathetically navigate: “my initial thoughts and feelings towards upgrading was that it was unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity brought on a sense of fear and anxiousness as it was an experience I have never encountered. It has been strange and difficult because it is so different because it is so different…however, it is a fabulous concept”.

The MTEs also experienced tensions within implementing the (Up)grading within their courses. A significant tension the MTEs faced in implementing (Up)grading was managing the flow of assignments. In traditional grading, there is a linear flow of assignments: students turn in the work, the teacher provides a grade, and the work is returned to the student. However, in (Up)grading, the process is more cyclical in nature, with iterations of MTE feedback and revisions. The cyclical nature of grading can cause the process of coordinating assignments to become more demanding on the MTE because they are providing feedback on the same assignment multiple times. Additionally, balancing hard and soft deadlines to assist students with structure added to the pressures of a constant influx of assignments to provide feedback and guidance. Likewise, figuring out how to use (Up)grading on smaller assignments that support the authentic application assignments (e.g., reading/article reflections) was a difficult process to navigate for the MTEs. It was easier to focus and foster a feedforward focus on the authentic application assignments verses the supporting assignments, perhaps indicating that (Up)grading is not a one-size-fits=all approach. Another tension for the MTEs was shaking themselves from the traditional thinking of point values on assignments. MTEs still wanted to weigh or handle assignments in a way that felt more traditional and comfortable.

7. Discussion

The goal of (Up)grading is to focus students’ attention on the journey of learning through continuous reflection and revision of assessment responses with the goal of attaining higher levels of academic rigor and greater retention of conceptual ideas. Previous research has indicated that with traditional grading, students focus on the number or grade and do not attend to the feedback (e.g., [34]). To rehumanize the assessment process, we have found a way to provide feedforward feedback within a climate of (Up)grading, putting students’ growth and reflection at the forefront of the learning experience. Specifically, this exploratory study provides insights into students’ perceptions of (Up)grading as an assessment approach, students’ perceptions of the influence of feedforward feedback as part of the (Up)grading approach, and the tensions felt by both students and MTEs as they experienced and implemented (Up)grading.

Each MTE approached (Up)grading differently; like Brown and Robbins [35] noted, a “one size fits all approach” is not possible when seeking to focus on rehumanizing assessment practices (p. 64). However, looking across the three different cases, insight was gained around specific strategies that students believed best supported their learning, as well as ways to improve the (Up)grading experience. Like Gorichanaz [22], we found that students were able to focus more on the feedback received by the MTEs rather than grades assigned to their work. The assessment approach of (Up)grading provided new ways of learning. Students across all courses were able to see the bigger picture of the assignments in that the courses were benefiting their development as learners and teachers. It is important to note that using a feedforward approach within (Up)grading yielded strong positive perceptions and growth. Each MTE worked to facilitate a positive learning experience with the purpose of growing reflective practitioners [21]. As each MTE worked to provide feedback, monitor the student growth, and optimize the experience, trust was established between the MTEs and their students [20]. We believe that once students experience the benefits of (Up)grading and there is better initial communication by the instructor of features of (Up)grading, the tensions students face as they experience (Up)grading for the first time can be lessened.

Limitations

We recognize that there are limitations in the current study since the main source of data is a single end-of-course survey and the MTE reflections and notes from the student reflections. It is also an important limitation that most of the studies like this one have been with smaller class sizes and not large lecture courses (e.g., [35]). Additional research is needed to understand how to incorporate (Up)grading within those larger lecture courses to make the assessment practices more humanizing.

8. Closing

The detractors of (Up)grading would argue that there is a “fuzziness” around the idea of upgrading. This is not necessarily the case. What it does is position the student as an advocate for themselves and an active participant in the process [21]. Often, grades are based on numerical data that do not consider the students’ journey. The often-quoted phrase “It is not the destination but the journey that matters” is appropriate here. More traditional grading practices centered on the destination with students are typically focused on a numerical value (e.g., weighted average) without regard for what has been done to reach that destination. This destination is often a product of grades that are typically assigned by the instructor.

Moreover, we would argue that a feedforward approach could be used in both an (Up)grading and a more traditional grading approach that allows resubmissions. Let us be clear that all grades, even those within our (Up)grading approach, are subjective. It is the instructor who more than likely chooses what is to be assessed, how it is assessed, and how student responses are evaluated. Along the same vein, the student sees the grade that is assigned to those evaluation instruments as a final destination, fixed in time with no opportunity to benefit from reflection. We learn more from our mistakes than we will from what we did correctly. Giving students opportunities to reflect on those mistakes and advance understanding is motivating while, at the same time, it shifts from a fixed destination mindset to a continued growth, journey-driven mindset. In these situations, benefits arise for both the student and the teacher; the student has an opportunity to be rewarded for their intellectual advancement, while the instructor has visible evidence of these advancements in learning. As we work to prepare and support teachers, it is essential that the focus be on helping them grow within their practice and knowledge and giving up the constraints and hierarchy of traditional grading practices. We hope the exposure to student-focused assessment practices will yield more humanizing assessment practices in P-12 schools.