Adaptive grading policy to allow students to recover after a stumble
This nifty thing is brought to you by Marie-Soleil Beaudoin, a senior instructor in the department of Physiology & Biophysics (Faculty of Medicine); and Faculty Associate with the CLT. Nifty things are small, but potent, easy-to-implement pedagogical tactics or interventions that elegantly, satisfyingly, or efficiently solve a teaching & learning problem, or achieves a teaching & learning goal.
What teaching & learning goal or problem does this thing set out to achieve or solve?
Adaptive grading allows students to recover from poor performance on a midterm exam. The practice also reduces exam anxiety, and shifts student perception toward forward-looking study improvement strategies.
In which course and/or teaching context is this nifty thing deployed?
This approach is used in PHYL 1001, 1011, 1002, 1012. These are large, first-year human physiology courses. PHYL 1001 and 1002 are taught online with in-person exams. PHYL 1011 and 1012 are hybrid courses, taught based on the flipped classroom model. Enrolment in these courses vary between 300-450 per course.
How is it done, from start to finish?
These courses are organized into three blocks (A, B, and C) and include two midterms (one covering block A and one covering block B) and a final exam. All assessments consist exclusively of multiple-choice questions. The final exam is semi-cumulative: 70 questions assess block C material, while 25 questions each cover blocks A and B.
By default, each midterm is worth 15% and the final exam is worth 35% of the overall course grade. However, we implement the adaptive grading policy to support student resilience and motivation. If a student performs better on the block A and/or block B sections of the final exam than on the corresponding midterms, the weight of the relevant midterm(s) is reduced to 7%, with the remaining weight transferred to the final exam. Students are automatically awarded whichever weighting scheme results in the highest overall grade (see this Excel template for a concrete example).
From an instructional perspective, this policy is straightforward to implement, requiring only a few additional columns in an Excel spreadsheet to calculate each student’s optimal grade.
In the syllabus, the excerpt below is included to inform the students of the rationale for this policy:
”Why are there 2 options for exam weighing for this course? First-year university is exciting, but also challenging. Many changes happen at once: new school, new instructors, new expectations, new freedom, new friends, new living arrangements, new food, new sleeping habits, etc. It’s always normal for students to experience challenges and failures as they learn, but this is especially true when moving from high school to university. Luckily, most students will become much more comfortable with university and improve their performance throughout the term. We want to encourage and reward hard work that leads to such improvement. So, if your midterm grades aren’t what you expected, don’t give up, contact us (phyl10xx@dal.ca), and know that you can considerably improve on your final exam.”
Why is it so nifty?
From a student perspective, the most immediate benefit is psychological. The policy lowers the stakes of early missteps without lowering standards. Students often report that it reduces anxiety around midterms, especially when they are overwhelmed with other courses/competing responsibilities. Some students even reported that this policy allowed them to focus on other things in their lives (rather than the PHYL midterm), that they deemed more important at that specific time. While this may not be what we like to hear as instructors, it definitely gives power and agency back to the hands of the students.
This policy also reduces the number of grade-related complaints or requests for exceptions, because the built-in flexibility already addresses many common concerns (e.g., illness, adjustment difficulties, or a single, poor exam day). Perhaps most importantly, it also changes the tone of post-midterm interactions: instead of focusing on lost marks, conversations are more forward-looking and centred on strategies for improvement. It shifts the narrative from “midterms define your outcome” to “your final level of understanding matters most.” This encourages students to revisit earlier material, adopt more effective study strategies, and engage in more sustained learning.
Finally, it is “nifty” because it achieves all of this without adding significant workload. Once the grading spreadsheet is set up, the system runs automatically and consistently for all students.
What should we know if we would like to try it ourselves?
1. Clarity and transparency are essential: Students need a clear, simple explanation of how the policy works, ideally with concrete examples.
2. Automate the calculation early: While the policy is simple in principle, it relies on comparing multiple grading scenarios. Setting up a well-structured spreadsheet is critical to ensure accuracy and efficiency, especially in large classes.
3. Align assessments carefully: The policy works best when exam components are comparable in format and difficulty (e.g., all multiple-choice, similar cognitive level). This ensures that improvements on the final fairly reflect learning rather than differences in assessment design.
4. Communicate the purpose, not just the mechanics: Framing the policy as a tool for growth, resilience, and learning helps students engage with it in the intended way. Emphasize that it rewards improvement and sustained effort.
What is its level of niftiness, for you?
The image shows a star rating. One start indicates that the thing is nifty, but limited; three starts indicate that it’s a key part of the teaching toolkit; and five starts indicates it’s a key tactic and the author uses it all the time. The author has rated this four out of five stars.