In 2021, as the world was emerging from the pandemic, I had a sleepless night that reshaped my understanding of grading and its role in student learning. Earlier that day, I had an uncomfortable conversation with a student who aggressively challenged my course structure, demanding detailed instructions on how to get an “A” and criticizing group work. As someone who prides themselves on connecting with students, this interaction was unsettling. That night, I wrote what I titled, A Note to Students About My Grading Philosophy, and shared it online. To my surprise, the response was overwhelming, ranging from “Amen!” to “A message for all of us about how to live LIFE!”
That experience, combined with conversations with colleagues, led me to question the ways traditional grading systems might inadvertently disincentivize students from developing the skills they need—not just for the classroom, but for life. Through reflection and research, I found the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines to be a powerful tool for addressing these challenges.
Here are four key reflections that emerged from this journey, grounded in my teaching philosophy, research on grading, and the ACTFL framework.
1. Designing for the Edges with ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2024 provide a valuable framework for educators to design assessments that meet learners at their individual proficiency levels while encouraging growth. These guidelines include a dual focus on floor and ceiling expectations, which can help educators design for the edges.
- The Floor: At the lower end of a student’s proficiency level, the focus is on holding learners accountable for those linguistic aspects (function, accuracy, content/context, text type,) for which they already have basic control. For instance, Intermediate learners must consistently produce strings of connected sentences and maintain comprehensibility. Accountability at the floor level prevents fossilization of errors and ensures students build a strong foundation.
- The Ceiling: At the upper end of their proficiency, students are encouraged to stretch beyond their comfort zones. Risk-taking, creativity, and a willingness to attempt advanced linguistic functions—even with errors—should be recognized and rewarded. For example, an Intermediate student attempting paragraph-length discourse typical of the Advanced level deserves acknowledgment for their ambition, even if the attempt is imperfect.
This floor-and-ceiling model aligns with a growth-centered philosophy, allowing educators to challenge students without discouraging them. By rewarding both consistency at the floor and ambition at the ceiling, we foster an environment where learners are empowered to grow.
2. Grading Systems Can Stifle Risk-Taking
A colleague, in frustration, shared with me how her students often ask, “Is this for a grade?” If the answer is no, their motivation disappears. Conversations with colleagues and students echo this finding: many learners prioritize grades over learning. In Think Again, Adam Grant, an Organizational Psychologist from the Wharton School, describes how perfectionist students often excel in school but struggle to adapt in the workplace because their focus on mastering existing systems leaves little room for innovation. These students seek detailed checklists to ensure they can please the professor and get the requisite grade rather than exploring new ideas. On the flipside are jaded students that refuse to play the grade game, daring instructors to fail them. So, what is a growth-minded teacher or professor to do to encourage intrinsic motivation beyond grades?
In both of these instances, students are failing to catch the vision of the world that opens up when you can speak another language, and they cede the locus of control for their learning to the one awarding the grade. If educators are not careful, the grade-centered mindset they impart to their students discourages risk-taking, which is critical for developing higher-level proficiency which requires moving beyond what can be done comfortably. Proficiency development requires becoming comfortable with discomfort. When students focus solely on the “floor,” they miss opportunities to experiment with the “ceiling.”
The challenge for educators is to create systems that reward growth, curiosity, and the courage to take risks, even when those risks result in imperfect outcomes. For instance, weekly quizzes in which students can drop a predetermined number of low scores or allowing re-takes (especially when administered online through automatically graded systems) can reframe failing a quiz to be a learning opportunity and a chance for growth.
3. Moving Beyond Rubrics: Tools for Growth or Traps for Limitations?
Rubrics have become a staple in assessment, offering clarity and consistency. However, when used rigidly, rubrics can limit both students and educators. Learners may fixate on meeting rubric criteria, viewing assignments as checklists rather than opportunities for exploration.
When used rigidly, rubrics can limit both students and educators. Learners may fixate on meeting rubric criteria, viewing assignments as checklists rather than opportunities for exploration.
To address this, educators can:
- Use rubrics to establish the floor while leaving space for students to stretch toward the ceiling.
- Provide feedback that focuses on growth rather than simply assigning scores.
- Cultivate their own content expertise to offer meaningful, nuanced feedback beyond what rubrics dictate.
- Encourage students to co-create rubrics as a way to draw their attention to what high quality language production entails.
By treating rubrics as guides rather than constraints, we can foster a classroom culture that values innovation and risk-taking alongside accountability.
4. Grading for Growth: Shifting the Focus to Effort and Development
Traditional grading systems often emphasize outcomes—“What’s my grade?”—over the process of learning. However, grading can and should be a tool for growth. In my own classes, I emphasize effort, progress, and skill development.
For instance:
- Low-stakes assignments offer students opportunities to practice without fear of failure, encouraging risk-taking at the ceiling level.
- Iterative feedback highlights both strengths and areas for improvement, helping students grow at their individual pace.
- Growth-oriented reflection encourages learners to see how their efforts contribute to long-term skill development, not just immediate grades.
In A Note to Students About My Grading Philosophy, I emphasize:
“I don’t expect perfection. I expect effort. I expect a sincere desire to improve and learn. I expect evidence that you are developing skills.”
Final Thoughts: Redefining Success in the Classroom
Reflecting on these ideas, I’m reminded of a study highlighted by Adam Grant: Valedictorians often succeed by mastering existing systems but rarely become visionaries who challenge and reshape those systems. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, with their emphasis on floor and ceiling scoring, provide a way to redefine success—not as perfection, but as growth.
Grading for growth is challenging. With a myriad of educational settings, a one-size-fits-all solution is impossible. But in each instructors’ own setting, perhaps some self-reflection—a type of educator Hippocratic Oath—is warranted. Is my grading system “doing no harm”? Or might I be squashing the incentive of my students to learn on their own and more rapidly progress through proficiency in through the way I am enacting them?
It requires educators to rethink traditional structures, embrace complexity, and prioritize the individual needs of their students. But by designing for the edges—rewarding consistency at the floor and risk-taking at the ceiling—we can create classrooms that inspire learners to grow, innovate, and thrive.
