Exploring the Implications of Implementing Ungrading in Two Graduate-Level Global Health Courses
Anna Kalbarczyk, Emily Miller, Arman Majidulla, Carla Tarazona-Meza, Pranab Chatterjee, Molly Sauer, Svea Closser
Abstract
The practice of assigning grades is a universal quality of educational institutions, but the effects of biases in grading as well as its potential to distract from actual learning can make grading particularly problematic in the context of global health education. Ungrading is an anti-oppressive strategy to teaching which seeks to promote students as the experts of their own learning. It de-emphasizes grades and focuses on improved student engagement over time facilitated through thoughtful instructor comments and ongoing conversations. We implemented ungrading in two graduate-level global health courses at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; this manuscript documents the implementation process, the teaching teams’ experience, and student evaluations related to ungrading. Overall, quantitative course reviews were much improved from previous year(s). Qualitative responses revealed that students across both courses felt that ungrading improved their ability to focus on learning course material without anxiety about GPAs. Ungrading also encouraged students to embrace comments for learning, take risks, and leverage their lived experiences in responses. The teaching team felt students put in more effort, not less, and enjoyed a transformation in interactions with students—away from grades and toward content. Ungrading is a promising approach in graduate global health education that can facilitate inclusive and reflexive learning spaces.