2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Grades and grading bring up a variety of feelings for both engineering students and educators – many of which are negative. Grades have been shown to reduce intrinsic motivation, lead to decreased creativity and innovation, and perpetuate inequities for students from underrepresented groups in engineering. Therefore, it is imperative that the engineering education community critically looks at the grading practices being used and how they promote or inhibit student learning. One alternative grading practice designed to promote student learning is the Iron Range Engineering (IRE) 5-point grading scale , which evaluates student work on a scale from 1-5 with a 1 representing “not acceptable”, 2 representing “needs improvement”, 3 representing “acceptable”, 4 representing “desired”, and 5 representing the work of a professional engineer.

The goal of this self-study is to present literature that supports the use of alternative grading scales such as the IRE 5-point scale, define the various levels of the grading scale, detail its use across the curriculum (e.g. in technical, design, and professionalism learning), and share strengths and proposed areas for improvement and growth. These strengths and proposed areas for improvement will be shared in the context of the three pillars of equitable grading developed by Joe Feldman: accuracy, bias-resistance, and intrinsic motivation. Accurate grading practices reflect a student’s current level of understanding of material; bias-resistant grading practices ensure that students receive feedback with little implicit bias from the instructor; intrinsic motivated grading helps students connect grade with expected learning outcomes.

The IRE grading scale promotes accurate grading practices by eliminating the ambiguous 0-100 scale and replacing it with a context-based 0-5 scale; this shift narrows the window of choices for grades and focuses more on the quality of work rather than specific numerical values. The scale also promotes bias-resistance through its flexibility developed through open discussions among experienced engineers, instructors and students. Finally, it promotes intrinsic motivation by framing the grade in terms of growth and feedback; rather than doing activities to earn points or avoid punishment, students participate to receive feedback and grow in their knowledge and skills.

IRE has been implementing and continually improving this grading system for over a decade, and the takeaways presented here are the culmination of these many years of practice. The paper will share suggestions for implementing such a grading scale and – equally importantly – developing a positive mindset among students and faculty that makes this grading scale an effective guide for learning.