Contract Grading in an Experiential Learning Course

Vol. 5
2026

Jessica Mace

Abstract

I detail how and why I implement contract grading in an experiential learning course and how students respond to this model of assessment. The article contains practical ideas and structures for how to deepen student learning, by combining experiential learning and contract grading.

      I first heard about contract grading, or labor-based grading, at a pedagogy conference in 2022. The keynote speaker, Sue Shon, Assistant Professor at Emily Carr University, held us in thrall as she explained the concept of laying out a contract to reward student effort, and allowing students to have a say in their final grade (Shon, 2022). It was one of those moments where the excitement in the room was palpable. I went home buzzing, but learning about a new idea is one thing, implementing it was quite another.

     How could I make this work in my courses? How does it work in practice? On reflection, paired with some further research and discussion with colleagues¹, I decided to try it in my experiential learning course. In this course, students work with a community partner on a real world project, which supports students’ skill development and subject knowledge application.

     Assessing experiential learning can present difficulties; for instance, assigning grade weight to deliverables beyond disciplinary norms, and grading reflections, which are integral to experiential learning. Contract grading provided an elegant solution, harmonizing with experiential learning’s focus on engagement with the workplace and applied knowledge. It worked out so well that I have since used this model a number of times in similar contexts.

     Experiential Learning

      In the past few years, my focus has been on developing experiential learning opportunities for students, in the arts. Though experiential learning is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of practices, in general, it can be described as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). That is learning by doing, reflecting on what was learned, and having the opportunity to put that learning into practice.

     Organization partners. As a pilot enterprise in my department, I have been working with fourth-year undergraduate students, in seminar courses of 10-18 students, in an organization-partnered experience. For example, one course worked with a local heritage organization (Mace, 2023a; Mace 2023b), and another worked with a private club with an art collection. In broad strokes, the task for each was for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world problems, preparing work with and for their respective partner organizations.

     Grading challenges. Grading, in an experiential learning course, however, presents a number of challenges. To name a few, first, the deliverables are different than those of a traditional course. Deliverables in standard upper-year undergraduate seminars, in my discipline, involve a research essay, making use of secondary sources. In the experiential learning courses, students work with a real-world case study that might necessitate primary/archival research. Students may also be required to do a community consultation, working closely with the host partner. I’ve had classes measuring and cataloguing artworks and classes conducting in-depth provenance research through auction sites/exhibition catalogues, and only producing a few short lines of text for a curatorial statement… (see Appendix A for summaries of my past experiential learning classes’ curriculum.).

      Second, in experiential learning, there is more collaboration, with input from the instructor, the partner, and sometimes the cohort of students, as everyone works toward a common goal.Third, in experiential learning, reflection is integral to the learning process, the grading of which feels overly subjective when assigning a number or letter grade: each student will take something different away from each step of an assignment. Who is to say who reflected “better” than another person? Contract grading provides a solution, harmonizing with my experiential learning course’s focus on engagement with the workplace, and the focus on applied knowledge.

Contract Grading

     A solution to the challenges, posed by assessing experiential learning is contract grading, which has become more prominent in higher education, in the past few years​. A subset of “ungrading,” in contract grading (sometimes called labor-based grading), grades are based on data that quantifies students’ efforts and time spent on an assignment, instead of using criteria that may be more subjective. The quality of students’ work is assessed, but contract grading decouple[s] assessment from grades (Danielewicz & Elbow, 2009, p. 254).

     Aligns with real world contracts. While this method can be used for part of a final grade or for a certain assignment, I used it as the assessment model for the entire course. In my view, this approach aligns with the organization-partnered project and with the kind of contract a person might receive were they to work with a business, nonprofit, or government partner to complete a similar project in the “real world.”​ What does contract grading look like in practice?

     Contract grading’s implementation. At the outset, along with our course syllabus, my students receive a letter from me that describes our contract grading and why we will use it (See Appendix B). I give students time. in class. to read the letter and ask questions.

   A contract, within the letter, details the amount of labor required to earn each grade​: A+, A, A-, B, and so on (Table 1). Students then choose the workload that best suits them, considering their schedules and their university grade point average goals, for instance, and sign a contract committing to complete their chosen workload.

Table 1
Contracted Grade Criteria

     Contract design and implementation. To design the contract, as shown in Table 1, I brake down the course requirements and project steps, tying them to the corresponding grade point. “B” is the default standard grade, where the student comes to class regularly, completes the readings and corresponding weekly discussion questions, and completes the required components of the organization partnered project. To earn a higher grade, a student must put in additional work and effort.

     Individual assignments are not weighted as a percentage of the final grade, but marked as complete, if a student does all that is requested of them. For example, if students are required to write a paper, I might set out a final word count, that research is required from X library, the use of Y number of sources, and that the text is on a given topic.  Expectations and terms are clear from the outset. If students do the work requested, they get the grade. Students do receive detailed feedback on the quality of their work, but it is divorced from the check for completion and ultimately, their final, pre-agreed upon grade for the assignment or the course​.

    Process checklist. I mark for completion, according to a checklist (Figure 1) that highlights the process and labor that go into completing an assignment. Rather than checking for a perfectly written and edited final text, where the process – typically the lengthiest part of any assignment and where the learning happens – goes unnoticed and unrewarded, the checklists’ items emphasize process.

Research Report

Begin researching your selected building and its historic context. Complete steps a & b:

a) Prepare an annotated bibliography.
The bibliography must be formatted alphabetically and using a recognized style of citation. (You may use any recognized citation format you choose, as long as it is consistent.)
Your bibliography must include no fewer than 5 significant sources that you have found relating to your topic (no more than 2 of which can be internet/non-library sources).
For each source, you must write one paragraph (~250 words) describing the main argument and/or information contained within that source.
You must also note how you foresee this resource contributing to your project and/or deeper understanding of the site.
It should be clear from reading your bibliography that you have found the key sources on your topic, and that you have the core information that you will need to proceed with your writing. If the sources are not relevant to your topic, the assignment will not be complete.

b) Prepare for your visit to the archives by reflecting on the following:
What kinds of materials have you found so far?
How have these contributed to your understanding of the site? Have they confirmed or challenged your knowledge?
What is missing from your search?
What might be left to find in the library, online, etc.?
What do you hope to find in the archives?
How will you incorporate current architectural and heritage literature/theory that does not relate directly to your building?
What do you need to proceed with your presentation & report?
How can you best direct your time in the archives?
You do not need to respond to each of these questions, but think about them carefully before your archival visit. Write a response of 300-500 words summing up your ideas & action plan for the archival visit.
Both parts a & b must be submitted to receive a “complete” for this assignment.

Figure 1. This is an example of assignment checklists I provide my students.

     Checkpoints. The various checkpoints, along the way, provide scaffolding to my students, with constant qualitative feedback that they can then apply to the next step. It has drastically improved the quality of the work, overall, since students have a chance to incorporate feedback.

     Meetings. Students signing up for an A+ or an A, are required to have one-to-one meetings with me. A+ students do a midterm assessment meeting and a final assessment meeting. A students can choose one or the other. Students first write a reflection, responding to a set of questions I provide, then we meet to talk about the course, the topic, the project, etc. In the age of AI, the one-to-one meetings have also helped to check for understanding and engagement.

Grades kept us from having a real exchange. Most just wanted to follow my orders, or took everything I said as an order, but I wanted them to talk through my words, think with me about their writing, and make their own decisions.
(Inoue, 2019, pp. 48-49)

     Adjusting contracted grade. In the case of a student who decides they want to aim for a higher course grade than they originally had indicated, they can reach out and we can discuss and reassign their contracted course grade. The transparency of the model allows for this – students know what they have to do to reach that next level, and by the same token, if a student doesn’t meet it, they also know exactly where they stand.

    If a student does not fulfill requirements for their contracted grade, we compare what they have accomplished to the requirements for a lower grade. by looking at the contract table, students are aware of what their grade will be, well before final grades are submitted to the registrar. But I also communicate with them before the end of the term to let them know.

…students are now open to my feedback, which without a letter grade on the line, they see as helpful rather than critical.

     Eliciting quality work. In my courses, where the project is divided throughout the term, the practice of giving feedback to the student and discussing the quality of the work, as distinct from the grade, ensures work of higher quality than I had seen in most of my traditionally assessed courses. Anecdotally, students comment on the value and depth of my feedback on their individual assignments (which does not differ much from the kind of feedback I typically give in any of my courses).

     What matters is that the students are now open to my feedback, which without a letter grade on the line, they see as helpful rather than critical.We discuss and emphasize quality, at the outset of each assignment; and all of the feedback students receive assesses the quality of their products and activities. It is just not how students are graded. If an assignment does not meet the quality that I (or the community partners anticipate), the student and I discuss ways in which the student can strengthen their work. Without slapping a discouraging average or low grade on it, the student is encouraged to improve and to learn from the process. Almost every student I’ve had in my contract courses have said they actually learn, versus going through the motions, like they do in other courses. It might seem paradoxical, but the quality of work is usually much higher with contract grading.

Reflections

Contract grading not only helps, in my courses, to promote a greater equality, but it also brings respect and joy back into the classroom.

    Overall, students respond well to the contract grading model. Many note that they feel less pressure, work harder, and learn more than they might have otherwise. Several observe that they surprised themselves, discovering that they actually enjoyed the assignments or testing their skills, in a non-punitive environment.,

        These examples, however, present certain limitations. My courses were relatively small, and it might be challenging to scale up. Regular check-ins and sometimes individual discussions with the students about their progress is important, and made possible due to the seminar-sized class. While the approach worked to level the playing field, in certain ways; it might be detrimental in others. For example, in asking more work of students to earn a higher grade, I saw strains on mature students with family responsibilities and students with demanding jobs. The work of several scholars highlights this issue as well (for example Inoue, 2019; Smith, 2024).

     The students I have been working with are in their final year of undergraduate study; the approach might not be appropriate for entry-level students. There is a certain maturity and disciplinary knowledge that helps with outside organization partnering and with selecting one’s own grade.

     Even with the upper-year undergraduate students, it is a risk. Especially in the early iterations: I did not know if students would sign up and simply do the bare minimum. But, realistically, there are always students who do less than others, although this is not always visible. Traditional grading rewards those who know how to navigate the system and to work to please the instructor, typically students who are white, privileged, and who have English as a first language. Grades can seem arbitrary or punitive for anyone else.

     Motivating students to improve and deepen their learning are central to my decision to use a contract scheme. Students are able to take risks and try new things, where they might not otherwise. In a traditionally graded course, the student often is looking to do something perfectly or to please the whims of the instructor. Here, the students know they will get the grade, even if they hit a dead end in their research and have to start again, or if they present a new or controversial idea, perhaps one that I have not even considered.

     We are able to work together in a respectful, rather than antagonistic environment. That is, I am able to teach and not simply to rank students or police them. Students are more open to feedback, and using feedback and their own reflections, to strengthen their work. I enjoy reading and discussing work with the students, and they, in turn, report that they enjoy learning and learn more effectively. Contract grading proves incredibly rewarding in the context of experiential learning, both from the instructor and student perspectives. Contract grading not only helps, in my courses, to promote a greater equality, but it also brings respect and joy back into the classroom.

        References

Danielewicz, J., & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 244–268.

Gibson, L., Otsuki, G., & Anderson, J. (2022). “The most seen I have ever felt”: Labour-based grading as a pedagogical practice of care. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 10, 1–20.

Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Mace, J. (2023, February 27). Transforming architectural history through experiential learning. PLATFORM. https://www.platformspace.net/home/transforming- architectural-history-through-experiential-learning

Mace, J. (2023, October 23). Community partners in the classroom. PLATFORM. https://www.platformspace.net/home/community-partners-in-the-class

Shon, S. (2022, June 16-18). Art’s work: Pedagogies for art’s alternate histories [Keynote address]. Open Art Histories Pedagogy Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Footnotes

1. I am particularly indebted to my colleague Devon Smither, Associate Professor, University of Lethbridge for her generosity in discussing her experience in using contract grading and sharing resources with me. I am also grateful for the number of scholars and educators who have published their practical tips on this topic, including Christina Hendricks (University of British Columbia), Michelle Larson (SUNY Cortland), Jesse Stommel (University of Denver), and to those who have published their contracts, including Missy Watson, Emily George, and others. Last but certainly not least, the work of Asao B. Inoue (2019) has been of incredible influence.

Appendix B
Contract Grading Letter and Contract

Jessica Mace, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream, Department of Art History, University of Toronto, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada, and Secretary
Association of Critical Heritage Studies. Jessica Mace can be reached at jessica.mace@utoronto.ca.