Assistant Professor Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
Introduction: : Traditional grading systems in undergraduate engineering education often rely on cumulative point-based assessments across homework assignments, quizzes, exams, and projects. Grades are typically assigned based on overall averages, with limited emphasis on the demonstration of specific competencies. As a result, students may prioritize point accumulation over true mastery of fundamental concepts, often leaving critical knowledge gaps unaddressed. Simultaneously, instructors face substantial grading burdens and administrative inefficiencies, particularly in managing minor assignments and student requests for accommodations. Furthermore, traditional exam practices treat exams as one-time, high-stakes assessments with no opportunity for revision, contributing to elevated student anxiety and dissatisfaction. Here, we compare outcomes from two sequential offerings of a sophomore-level course, Introduction to Biomaterials. The first offering employed a traditional grading model without exam correction opportunities, while the second offering implemented a competency-based grading system combined with exam correction opportunities and a token-based flexibility system.
Materials and
Methods: : Both course offerings included six homework assignments, three exams, and one project. Student grades, course evaluations, and instructor workload measures were analyzed to assess outcomes.
Offering 1 (Traditional Grading): - Grades were based on weighted averages: homework (20%), project (20%), and exams (60%). - Homework was graded on a 0–100 point scale. - No exam corrections or token system were available; late submission requests required email justifications.
Offering 2 (Competency-Based Grading): - Final grades were determined based on three criteria: (1) cumulative homework performance, (2) excellence and individual contribution to the project, and (3) individual exam performance (≥90% on two exams and ≥80% on one exam required for an A). - Homework was graded on a 0–2 scale emphasizing effort and conceptual understanding. - Each student received three tokens to use for deadline extensions or exam corrections. - Exam corrections were allowed through in-person interviews, permitting students to regain up to 50% of the points lost.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions::
Results: A total of 42 students were enrolled in Offering 1 and 39 in Offering 2.
Grade Distribution: - Offering 1 (traditional): 9 A, 21 B, 8 C, 4 incompletes. - Offering 2 (competency-based): 27 A, 11 B, 1 C, 1 incomplete. - Retrospective application of the competency-based criteria to Offering 1 would have resulted in 11 A, 13 B, 13 C, and 4 incompletes, suggesting that competency-based grading and exam correction opportunities contributed to improved student outcomes.
Course Evaluations: - Offering 1: Overall course rating 3.9/5; amount learned 3.9/5; feedback timeliness/helpfulness 3.6/5. - Offering 2: Overall course rating 4.7/5; amount learned 4.3/5; feedback timeliness/helpfulness 4.5/5. - Regarding the competency-based grading scheme, students reported, “I think the grading system works very well. It honestly helps ensure that students learn the material, even after the exam has been taken. It allows students to better understand what they did wrong, with reasonable incentive as well.” - Regarding the exam correction policy, students reported, “ I liked being able to use tokens for exam revisions to learn from my mistakes and better understand concepts from lectures.”
Student feedback indicated strong support for the new system, with comments highlighting that competency-based grading and exam corrections enhanced learning, promoted reflection on mistakes, and reduced stress. Homework feedback was returned faster (within 2 days) in Offering 2 compared to about 1 week in Offering 1. Furthermore, the token system eliminated the need for individualized deadline extension requests (zero email requests in Offering 2 compared to over 20 in Offering 1). Only 23% of students used all three tokens.
Discussion: Implementing competency-based grading improved student learning outcomes by providing clear targets for achievement, supporting iterative improvement, and increasing grading efficiency. Allowing exam corrections fostered a growth-oriented environment, encouraged students to learn from mistakes, and significantly reduced exam-related stress. Although exam correction interviews required additional instructor time, this investment was offset by improved student engagement and performance. The token system introduced structured flexibility, reducing instructor workload and improving the student experience by eliminating the traditional request-approval cycle for deadline extensions.
