Interesting that 50 years ago most STEM courses were graded based on the midterm and final - pure learning by what you are saying. No homework or participation scores. I also had a physics prof that let each of us chose how to weight our homework and exams. From what I could tell it mostly relieved anxiety.
I also don't understand how multiple grading schemes addresses preparation/equity. (White, male, wealthy - equals better schools, more time to study, etc.) This can't be easily fixed - like being taller in basketball - we don't make the taller people wear additional weights do we? I have so many questions about this.
Thanks for bringing up these points. You’re right that Multiple Grading Schemes (MGS) doesn’t address preparation. A high-structure course seems to help level the playing field for students with more or less preparation (1,2). But “Systemic Advantages” like being white or male can’t be reduced to just preparation. Even students with similar preparation, who learned the same amount in a course, often won’t have similar exam scores because exam scores don’t always faithfully represent what a student has learned.
We know, for example, that stereotype threat can reduce students’ scores on high-stakes exams. Stereotype threat is when an individual knows a stereotype about a group to which they belong (for example, the stereotype that women, or racial minorities, have less capacity to succeed in STEM) and their fear of confirming that stereotype increases their fear and anxiety in high-stakes settings, thus impacting their performance in that setting. Research has shown, for example, that in multiple biology courses, women performed worse than men on high-stakes exams, but equally as well (or better than) men on low-stakes assessments (3). Thus *exam performance itself* can be affected by the stakes of the assessment, but more so for some groups of students than others.
It is this latter issue that MGS starts to address: that different groups of students perform better in some types of graded assignments than others – not because of absolute skill per se, but because of the conditions under which the assignment was completed. By having different grading schemes, the course provides multiple paths to success for different types of learners.
I’m not arguing that Multiple Grading Schemes is *the* solution to equity in college classrooms, nor even that it is *the grading policy* to solve equity. There are many aspects of the grading system, course structure, and teaching approaches that have been shown to improve equity (4). However, MGS is an easily-adoptable, first-step approach that we’ve shown especially benefits students who are systemically disadvantaged in STEM classes.
Thank you for your response. I teach chemistry and currently we have more women than mean the women consistenly are the top performers in our courses. Other minorities are not large enough to give reliable statistics so I'm not sure where they sit in this discussion. I'm not sure I can separate test anxiety from stereotype threat, but I am aware of it. I also do things like dropping the low hour exam score and only taking the best 9 out of 15 quiz scores.
As it turns out I am more worried about preparation issues which we have not had much luck addressing. The battle continues!
Interesting that 50 years ago most STEM courses were graded based on the midterm and final - pure learning by what you are saying. No homework or participation scores. I also had a physics prof that let each of us chose how to weight our homework and exams. From what I could tell it mostly relieved anxiety.
I also don't understand how multiple grading schemes addresses preparation/equity. (White, male, wealthy - equals better schools, more time to study, etc.) This can't be easily fixed - like being taller in basketball - we don't make the taller people wear additional weights do we? I have so many questions about this.
Thanks for bringing up these points. You’re right that Multiple Grading Schemes (MGS) doesn’t address preparation. A high-structure course seems to help level the playing field for students with more or less preparation (1,2). But “Systemic Advantages” like being white or male can’t be reduced to just preparation. Even students with similar preparation, who learned the same amount in a course, often won’t have similar exam scores because exam scores don’t always faithfully represent what a student has learned.
We know, for example, that stereotype threat can reduce students’ scores on high-stakes exams. Stereotype threat is when an individual knows a stereotype about a group to which they belong (for example, the stereotype that women, or racial minorities, have less capacity to succeed in STEM) and their fear of confirming that stereotype increases their fear and anxiety in high-stakes settings, thus impacting their performance in that setting. Research has shown, for example, that in multiple biology courses, women performed worse than men on high-stakes exams, but equally as well (or better than) men on low-stakes assessments (3). Thus *exam performance itself* can be affected by the stakes of the assessment, but more so for some groups of students than others.
It is this latter issue that MGS starts to address: that different groups of students perform better in some types of graded assignments than others – not because of absolute skill per se, but because of the conditions under which the assignment was completed. By having different grading schemes, the course provides multiple paths to success for different types of learners.
I’m not arguing that Multiple Grading Schemes is *the* solution to equity in college classrooms, nor even that it is *the grading policy* to solve equity. There are many aspects of the grading system, course structure, and teaching approaches that have been shown to improve equity (4). However, MGS is an easily-adoptable, first-step approach that we’ve shown especially benefits students who are systemically disadvantaged in STEM classes.
1. Freeman et al. (2011) – https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105
2. Eddy & Hogan (2014) – https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
3. Cotner & Ballen (2017) – https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189610
4. NASEM (2025) - https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/28268/interactive/
Thank you for your response. I teach chemistry and currently we have more women than mean the women consistenly are the top performers in our courses. Other minorities are not large enough to give reliable statistics so I'm not sure where they sit in this discussion. I'm not sure I can separate test anxiety from stereotype threat, but I am aware of it. I also do things like dropping the low hour exam score and only taking the best 9 out of 15 quiz scores.
As it turns out I am more worried about preparation issues which we have not had much luck addressing. The battle continues!