Sub-Theme
Building Learning Relationships
Keywords
Ungraded, authentic learning, collaboration, meaningful relationships
Category
Paper Presentation
Introduction
Traditional grading systems, though intended to provide benchmarks and accountability, often foster a performance-driven, hierarchical classroom culture that can undermine relationships and meaningful learning (Blum, 2020; Herrington & Oliver, 2000). Reducing complex growth to numerical scores or rigid criteria shifts students’ focus from genuine understanding to external validation. As the pursuit of high grades takes precedence, curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking frequently yield to a fixation on marks, resulting in diminished intrinsic motivation, engagement, and depth of educational experience (Kohn, 2021).
These grading structures also affect relationships in significant ways. Competition for top marks frequently fosters rivalry rather than collaboration, decreasing openness and trust among students. Such dynamics inhibit help-seeking behaviours and weakens the sense of belonging and mutual respect essential for building effective learning communities. Research indicates that performance-oriented assessment can discourage students from seeking feedback or engaging in collaborative learning, impeding the development of relational skills vital for both academic and professional growth (Winstone et al., 2017).
By contrast, formative feedback and authentic, ungraded learning experiences nurture different relational dynamics. Focusing on growth, self-reflection, and peer interaction rather than competition, ungraded activities promote deeper engagement with both content and peers. Such settings cultivate genuine collaboration, constructive dialogue, and trust, as students feel more comfortable taking risks and supporting each other’s learning (Panadero et al., 2017; Carless & Boud, 2018). Peer feedback and group reflection further strengthen relationships by developing evaluative judgment, empathy, and a shared sense of responsibility (Carless & Chan, 2021).
Authentic learning—defined as involvement in real-world tasks and meaningful exchanges with genuine audiences—closely parallels professional environments, where individuals must communicate effectively, collaborate, and adapt to feedback (Herrington & Oliver, 2000). These experiences build critical thinking and interpersonal skills, while structured reflection supports metacognitive growth and the transfer of learning beyond the classroom (Furman & Sibthorp, 2013; Boase-Jelinek et al., 2013). In ungraded spaces, relationships shift from hierarchical and transactional to more equitable and supportive partnerships among students and between students and teachers.
Nevertheless, grading has an important role in higher education. It mirrors workplace performance measurement processes—such as appraisals and measurable targets—providing clarity and preparing students for environments where accountability and formal assessment are integral (Feldman, 2019; Sadler, 2009). When coupled with transparency and fairness, grading can also foster respectful, productive relationships and mutual respect.
Grading and ungrading, therefore, need not be viewed as oppositional. Thoughtful integration of both can be complementary: grading offers structure, clarity, and accountability, while ungraded, authentic experiences open space for risk-taking, self-reflection, and collaboration. Together, these approaches support measurable achievement and the cultivation of meaningful relationships, mirroring the complexity of real-world professional contexts.
This paper investigates the value and impact of introducing an intentionally ungraded, authentic learning activity—“Table Talk”—within a traditionally graded professional communication course at the School of Computing (SOC) in the National University of Singapore (NUS). Table Talk involves real-time conversations to build interpersonal skills like active listening, questioning, and extemporaneous speaking. By deliberately removing grades from this activity, the instructors aimed to create a safe space where students could participate without anxiety or the strategic behaviour such as saying what they think the instructor wants to hear or avoiding risks for fear of losing marks. Free from the pressure of grades, participants were encouraged to engage more authentically, reflect on their learning, and provide substantive peer feedback, fostering a supportive classroom environment. Data was gathered from students’ descriptions of their learning experiences and key takeaways from the activity, offering insight into the impact of ungrading. Findings indicate that, when thoughtfully embedded within a graded structure, ungrading significantly enhances student engagement, learning outcomes, and the quality of classroom relationships.
References
Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
Herrington, J., Parker, J., & Boase-Jelinek, D. (2014). Connected authentic learning: reflection and intentional learning. The Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 23–35.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
Carless, D., & Chan, K. K. H. (2017). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930–941.
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.
Furman, N., & Sibthorp, J. (2013). Leveraging experiential learning techniques for transfer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2013(137), 17–26.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
Kohn, A. (2013). The case against grades. Counterpoints (New York, N.Y.), 451, 143–153.
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Botella, J., in Science, L., (LISMA), M., för lärarutbildning, F., of Education, F., Kristianstad, H., & University, K. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 42(11), 2026–204