Making the grade: Student perceptions of labor-based contract grading

References and suggested readings

• Aikens, K. (2019). Prioritizing antiracism in writing tutor education. In K. G. Johnson, & T. Roggenbuck (Eds.), How we teach writing tutors: A WLN digital edited collection. https://wlnjournal.org/digitaleditedcollection1/Aikens.html 
   Google Scholar
• Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard College. (n.d.). Labor-based grading. https://barnard.edu/labor-based-grading
   Google Scholar
• Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of world englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57, 586–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carillo, E. C. (2021). The hidden inequities in labor-based contract grading. University Press of Colorado. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv20zbkwn
   Google Scholar
• Gaudet, L. (2022). Labour-based grading contracts in an indigenous-specific section of academic Reading and writing. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 32, 418–428. https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.975
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, L., Otsuki, G., & Anderson, J. (2022). “The most seen I have ever felt”: Labour-based grading as a pedagogical practice of care. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 10(SI), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v10iSI.538
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoue, A. B. (2022). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom (2nd ed.). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1002195
   Google Scholar
• King, P. E. (2016). When do students benefit from performance feedback? A test of feedback intervention theory in speaking improvement. Communication Quarterly, 64(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1078827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klomegah, R. Y. (2007). Predictors of university performance of university students: An application of the goal efficiency model. College Student Journal, 41, 407–415.
   Google Scholar
• Kostouros, P. (2023). Labour-based grading: An attempt to decolonize. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning, 15, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.26209/td2023vol15iss31758
   Google Scholar
• Kromka, S. M., Goodboy, A. K., & Banks, J. (2020). Teaching with relevant (and irrelevant) storytelling in the college classroom. Communication Education, 69(2), 224–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1657156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kryger, K., & Zimmerman, G. X. (2020). Neurodivergence and intersectionality in labor-based grading contracts. Journal of Writing Assessment, 13, 1–12. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0934×4rm
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, V., Smith, C., & May, A. (2022). The communication discipline and peace education: A valuable intersection for disrupting violence in communication centers. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 6, 122–155. https://doi.org/10.31446/JCP.2022.1.12
   Google Scholar
• Mena, J. A., & Stevenson, J. R. (2022). The promise of labor-based grading contracts for the teaching of psychology and neuroscience. Teaching of Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283221119783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist “College Lite”: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education, 56(2), 145–167. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601164259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, F., Novak, J., & Bartell, T. (2017). To engage students, give them meaningful choices in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717734188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, J. C., Carmon, A. F., Child, J. T., & Semlak, J. L. (2008). Why the range in grades? An attempt to explain the variance in students’ public speaking grades. Communication Quarterly, 56(4), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370802448188
   Google Scholar
• Santos, M. C. (2022). How I implemented Asao B. Inoue’s labor-based grading and other antiracist assessment strategies. CEA Critic, 84(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2022.0019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, C. R., Richey, D. E., & Goen, K. A. (2019). Regulatory fit explains the effects of speech grades on students’ intended effort. Communication Education, 68(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1571621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2013). Making the grade: A history of the A-F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.790480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turman, P. D., & Barton, M. H. (2004). Bias in the evaluation process: Influences of speaker order, speaker quality, and gender on rater error in the performance based course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 1–35.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, T. (2017). Cripping time in the college composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 69, 260–286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44783615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar