Pass-Fail Schemes Should Replace the Traditional Grading Systems
We have grown so accustomed to the grading system that many of us don’t even know that this isn’t how it has always been, nor is it how it must be. Grades were originally used to inform other institutions about the quality of an institution’s students, not to provide feedback to students (Schinsky and Tanner 2014). Their purpose is not in line with that of education: they shift the emphasis from developing the next visionaries into training people to follow commands.
There are a plethora of problems with the current grading system that are solved by the pass-fail system. For instance, grades instill a fear of error in students that is detrimental to their risk-taking abilities, and therefore their creativity. Successful people often report that their ability to take risks despite the risk of failure is one of their greatest assets (Miller 2015). Pass-fail thus supports creativity and encourages students to take courses outside their comfort zones (McMorran et al. 2017). In doing so, it prepares them for the real world, where there are no grades. Further, grades shift the focus of a teacher onto evaluating the students rather than fostering their academic and personal development. In the 1990s, teachers spent 7.9 hours per week on class-related activities without students present, and grading was the most time-consuming of these activities (Rossi, 1994). Most of this time is diverted into teaching students under a pass-fail system, which reminds teachers of their purpose of teaching (Schinsky and Tanner 2014). Finally, grading cultivates a competitive environment that is stressful and thus detrimental to the mental health of our students. Through bell-curving, we’ve created a system where the success of our peers is detrimental to our own success. Pass-fail conversely creates a cooperative environment where students want each other to pass. It has been proven time and time again that cooperation — not competition — fosters a love for learning and an increase in information retention. It is also less stressful, which is good for student’s mental health and self-esteem (Nault and Hallinan 1975).
While it has been claimed that the pass-fail system takes away from student motivation and provides no mechanism for academic distinction, there is little evidence to support these claims. Research has demonstrated that pass-fail enhances student well-being while not adversely affecting academic performance (Spring et al. 2011). Further, study habits, study attitudes, study orientation, and attendance patterns were also not adversely affected (Pike 1971). Under the current system, students are taught to be grade-oriented rather than learning-oriented, but research has shown that an internal locus of motivation is healthier, fosters a love of learning, and is more predictive of long-term success. It further increases interest, increases enjoyment in classwork, decreases anxiety, increases performance on follow-up tasks, and decreases competitiveness. Upon receiving a mark, most students turn a blind eye to any constructive criticism, indicating their extrinsic motivation, which is discouraged in the pass-fail system (Schinsky and Tanner 2014).
Furthermore, the current system is thought to be better in terms of assessing a student’s true academic potential, however, its subjectivity calls this into question. By depending on the grader and not necessarily on the student’s quality of work, grading is subjective. Students take advantage of this by taking easier courses and enrolling at easier institutions. A student will receive a different grade on an assignment depending on who marks it. They will also receive a different grade if graded by the same person but at different times. An epidemic of grade inflation for the same quality of work is further problematic (Nualt and Hallinan 1975). Under the pass-fail system, students distinguish themselves in a more holistic sense by their impact within their community. Volunteerism, work, and supporting a local cause give insight on a student’s personality and work ethic that grading never could.
As a strong proponent for scientifically based systematic implementation, I believe that our pedagogy will continue to advance as more research is conducted. But for now, there is enough research to definitively suggest that a pass-fail system of grading would be beneficial to students all over the world.
References
McMorran, C., Ragupathi, K., and Luo, S., 2017. Assessment and learning without grades? Motivations and concerns with implementing gradeless learning in higher education. Routledge. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 42: 361–377.
Miller, A. K. (2015). Freedom to fail: How do I foster risk-taking and innovation in my classroom?. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASCD.
Nault, R., and Hallinan, M., 1975. High School Pass/Fail Marking Plans: An Analysis of Their Implementation. JSTOR. University of North Carolina Press. 58: 113–121.
Pike, J., 1971. Comparison of The Effects Between Letter-grades And Pass-Fail Grades on The Attitudes and Achievement of Eleventh Grade United States History Students (thesis).
Schinske, J., and Tanner, J., 2014. Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently). CBE. Life Sciences Education. 13: 159–166.
Spring, L., Robillard, D., Gehlbach, L., and Moore Simas, T., 2011.Impact of pass/fail grading on medical students’ well-being and academic outcomes. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Medical Education. 45: 867–877.
Rossi, R., 1994. How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work? National Centre for Education Statistics. 95: 708–709.
