Whether we like them or not, grades are an important part of being a student.

Grades can determine success rates, accessibility to schools and resources, and overall satisfaction.

But how grades are calculated can vary drastically. Grading in the U.S. has traditionally been a process of applying standardized measurements to evaluate students.

Classes focused on skill development should implement self-reflective grading systems as opposed to traditional methods. We can prevent the inaccurate and destructive nature of grading by putting grades in the hands of the students.

Traditionally, placing importance on grades can hinder a student’s ability to develop critical thinking skills and self-awareness by serving as a distraction from individual growth. Grades inaccurately reflect the abilities of students and how much they learn.

With traditional grading, students are reduced to performing only at the standards of their teachers, competing against one another, and experiencing inconsistent levels of motivation.

Grading is a subjective measurement of student performance. Educators have the power to impose personalized standards to grade their students. Thus, achieving good grades becomes a question of who can best satisfy the requirements of every teacher.

This leads to students competing against one another. By viewing peers as competition, students can deprive themselves of the benefits provided by other student perspectives.

A grade serves as an absolute key figure rather than constructive feedback. By not directly referencing areas of growth and improvement, poor grades can give students a negative impression about themselves, thus impeding their motivation to learn.

Grading should be a process of self-reflection. When students are tasked with grading themselves, they set their own standards for learning without having to worry about the judgment of an educator.

We often place the responsibility of education on educators. However, the responsibility of learning is entirely with the student. Regardless of who is instructing us, we are in control of what we choose to learn.

University of Iowa rhetoric lecturer Robert Peck said he had students who wrote their assignments on his rubric in past semesters.

“As a result, I would get a series of performances that met my expectations but did not seem to capture the real value of speech as a form of communication,” Peck said.

Peck uses a system he called the contract grading system. In this system, he presents his students with a short list of broad requirements needed to pass the course. Like a contract, he guarantees that if the requirements are met, the student’s score will be no lower than a B letter grade.

“In past semesters, I would seem to get students who would write their assignments to my rubric,” Peck said. “As a result, I would get a series of performances that met my expectations but did not seem to capture the real value of speech as a form of communication.”

Peck started using the contract grading system this year. He believes it is effective for speech and writing courses.

“Students are more willing to take risks, they are more willing to be creative in their expression,” said Peck. “To those who don’t have interest in speech and do enough to fulfill the basic requirements, all power to you, you still pass the course.”

Contract grading may not work for science and lecture-based courses. It provides an example of how students can further develop skills such as speech and writing when they don’t have to worry about a grade.

Self-reflective grading promotes growth and development by preventing subjective teaching standards, student competition, and impediments on motivation.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.