INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHANGES IN EDUCATION
Research Article
Aug 05, 2026 140 91

How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators

Shelli L. Casler-Failing 1 * ,
Montana Smithey 2
1 Department of Middle Grades and Secondary Education, Georgia Southern University, USA2 Department of Elementary and Special Education, Georgia Southern University, USA* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(2), 2026, 193-204, https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
Online publication date: Dec 24, 2024
Publication date: Aug 05, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This qualitative self-study, conducted as a multiple case study, investigated pre-service teachers (PSTs) experiences with non-traditional grading practices (NTGPs) in two mathematics methods courses taught by the authors – one designed for middle-grade PSTs (grades 4–8) and one designed for elementary PSTs (grades Pk-5). Archival data were analyzed through the lenses of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), self-efficacy, and growth mindset to investigate how PSTs’ experiences with the process of NTGPs supported their learning. Additionally, the course instructors sought to explore which strategies promoted the successful implementation of NTGPs. Data comprised PSTs’ assignments/artifacts, reflections, and mid-semester and end-of-semester self-reflections as well as instructors’ reflections, data spreadsheets, and notes/debriefs from conversations conducted as part of their critical friendship. Thematic analysis was used to examine data independently by case (each course was identified as an independent case), and then, a cross-case analysis was performed, iteratively repeating for each research question. Throughout each course, feedback on assignments was provided via verbal and written comments to support PSTs’ growth in learning and understanding. Key findings describe the development of PSTs’ PCK through asking questions, unpacking feedback alongside instructors, and applying feedback to initial submissions. The findings show it is necessary to provide clear expectations, timely and detailed feedback, and access to clear rubrics aligned with learning goals and success criteria. PSTs and instructors must be willing to commit to the time required to successfully implement NTGPs. Additional findings show that PSTs can be supported by NTGPs to improve their self-efficacy and growth mindset to develop their PCK due to the reduced stress felt when instructors remove grades. However, more studies investigating NTGPs are required to support these findings. The authors reiterate that NTGPs are a work in progress and reflection is necessary after each implementation to continue to improve one’s practices for future students.

KEYWORDS

ungrading non-traditional grading practices pre-service teachers assessment comment-only feedback

CITATION (APA)

Casler-Failing, S. L., & Smithey, M. (2026). How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators. International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
Harvard
Casler-Failing, S. L., and Smithey, M. (2026). How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators. International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(2), pp. 193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
Vancouver
Casler-Failing SL, Smithey M. How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2026;3(2):193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
AMA
Casler-Failing SL, Smithey M. How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2026;3(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
Chicago
Casler-Failing, Shelli L., and Montana Smithey. "How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators". International Journal of Changes in Education 2026 3 no. 2 (2026): 193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868
MLA
Casler-Failing, Shelli L. et al. "How Do Non-traditional Grading Practices Promote Student Learning: Perspectives from Two Mathematics Teacher Educators". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 3, no. 2, 2026, pp. 193-204. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023868

REFERENCES

  1. Bishop, P. A., & Harrison, L. M. (2021). The successful middle school: This we believe. USA: Association for Middle Level Education.
  2. Blum, S. D. (2020). Just one change (just kidding): Ungrading and its necessary accompaniments. In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 53–73). West Virginia University Press.
  3. Sackstein, S. (2015). Hacking assessment: 10 ways to go gradesless in a traditional grades school. USA: Times 10 Publications.
  4. Pai, G., Corby, J., Kras, N., Podlucká, D., & Yamamura, M. (2023). The dialectic transformation of teaching and learning in community colleges through ungrading. Zeal: A Journal for the Liberal Arts, 1(2), 117–126.
  5. Diacopoulos, M. M., Gregory, K. H., Branyon, A., & Butler, B. M. (2022). Learning and living self-study research: Guidelines to the self-study journey. Studying Teacher Education, 18(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2021.1992859
  6. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  8. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. USA: Jossey-Bass.
  9. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. USA: Random House.
  10. AMTE. (2020). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics. USA: Information Age Publishing and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. https://amte.net/sites/default/files/SPTM.pdf
  11. Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., … , & Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803–848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069
  12. Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A–F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.790480
  13. Stommel, J. (2020). How to ungrade. In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 25–41). West Virginia University Press.
  14. Newton, J. R., Williams, M. C., & Feeney, D. M. (2020). Implementing non-traditional assessment strategies in teacher preparation: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.01.3
  15. Stommel, J. (2023). Do we need the word “ungrading”? Zeal: A Journal for the Liberal Arts, 1(2), 82–87.
  16. Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded formative assessment. USA: Solution Tree Press.
  17. Wiliam, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2024). Student assessment: Better evidence, better decisions, better learning. USA: Corwin.
  18. Chiaravalli, A. (2020). Grades stifle student learning. Can we learn to teach without grades? In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 82–88). West Virginia University Press.
  19. Feldman, J. (2023). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. USA: Corwin.
  20. Richmond, G., Salazar, M. D. C., & Jones, N. (2019). Assessment and the future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118824331
  21. Georgia Department of Education. (2022). Teacher burnout in Georgia: Voices from the classroom. Retrieved from: https://cviog.uga.edu/_resources/documents/training/teacher-burnout-georgia.pdf
  22. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. National Compre-hensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521228.pdf
  23. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474
  24. Bremser, P. (2021). Assessment, evaluation, and grading: A reflection on my radicalization. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 11(2), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.5642/jhummath.202102.15
  25. Guberman, D. (2021). Student perceptions of an online ungraded course. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.8
  26. Blackwelder, A. (2020). What going gradeless taught me about doing the “actual work.” In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 42–52). West Virginia University Press.
  27. Gibbs, L. (2020). Let’s talk about grading. In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 91–104). West Virginia University Press.
  28. Kohn, A. (2020). Foreward. In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. xiii–xx). West Virginia University Press.
  29. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. USA: Westview.
  30. Winstone, N. E., & Boud, D. (2022). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687
  31. Burns, E., & Frangiosa, D. (2021). Going gradeless, grades 6–12: Shifting the focus to student learning. USA: Corwin.
  32. Akhtar, M. (2008). What is self-efficacy? Bandura’s 4 sources of efficacy beliefs. Positive Physchology UK. Retrieved from: https://positivepsychology.org.uk/self-efficacy-definition-bandura-meaning/
  33. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
  34. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Self-efficacy and human motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 8, pp. 153–179). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs. adms.2020.10.001
  35. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. https://educandojuntos.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/through_the_lens_of_a_critical_friend.pdf
  36. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods. USA: SAGE Publications.
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: SAGE Publications.
  38. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  39. NCTM. (2024). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. USA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  40. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: Acasebook for professional development. USA: Teacher College Press.
  41. Denial, C. (2019). The unessay. Retrieved from: https://catherinedenial.org/blog/uncategorized/the-unessay/
  42. Sackstein, S. (2020). Shifting the grading mindset. In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 74–81). West Virginia University Press.
  43. Keeley, P., & Tobey, C. R. (2017). Mathematics formative assessment, volume 2: 50 more practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. USA: Corwin and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.