andrew, This is a really neat paper that argues that more detailed grading systems (e.g, A–F) are worse for student motivations and outcomes than more simpler ones https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.12.001
It tracks with my own check-based grading system (✓, ✓+, and ✓−), and now I have more evidence backing that up :)
Plus it uses a cool quasi-experimental design that combines regression discontinuity and diff-in-diff
My own grading system details: Problem sets To practice writing R code, running inferential models, and thinking about causation, you will complete a series of problem sets. You need to show that you made a good faith effort to work each question. I will not grade these in detail. The problem sets will be graded using a check system: ✔+: (33 points (110%) in gradebook) Assignment is 100% completed. Every question was attempted and answered, and most answers are correct. Document is clean and easy to follow. Work is exceptional. I will not assign these often. ✔: (30 points (100%) in gradebook) Assignment is 70–99% complete and most answers are correct. This is the expected level of performance. ✔−: (15 points (50%) in gradebook) Assignment is less than 70% complete and/or most answers are incorrect. This indicates that you need to improve next time. I will hopefully not asisgn these often.
Difference in discontinuity plot showing a lack of student improvement around a January 1 grade cutoff after the introduction of an A-F grade system in Sweden