There are three broad categories of grading criteria that have the potential to unite all teachers in the effort to grade more equitably, effectively, and efficiently. Bold claim—I know—yet I’m confident there’s something for everyone. In fact, I’m dying to hear what could be missing, so leave a comment if you think of a fourth “p” or something that doesn’t fall under one of the others. Guskey’s three categories were lurking in a 1996 article (“Reporting On Student Learning…”). He opens with a quote that sounded like it could’ve been written by a contemporary scholar, yet on the next page reveals that it was from 1933! Confirming my own experience with reading studies dating back to the early 1900s, Guskey saw consistent findings 60 years before his article, which now is approaching 30 years old. We’re talking about nearly a century of consensus on some things. One of those things is that everything teachers grade can fall under the following three broad categories of criteria:

Product – Grading what students know and can do at a certain time
Process – Grading how students get there
Progress – Grading how much students gain

These categories support my use of—and advocation for—grading process, and I’ve had an interest in grading progress, or what I’ve been calling “growth.” I’ve avoided grading product entirely. Why? My experience has been that learner differences seem far too amplified in a second language class for us to grade language ability in that way. In addition, recent discussions about grading performance & competency (i.e., product) do suggest there’s litte reason to do so. Regardless, we don’t have to go ahead and nix grading product altogether, especially if that’s what most teachers need to hold onto to get on board. Therefore, let’s look into how grading any one, or all three categories of product, process, or progress could unite teachers in a common pursuit of equitable, effective, and efficient grading (or ungrading)…