Here are the overall principles I’m using for Ungrading:

Making mistakes is a good thing.
You will not be penalized for not knowing how to do things the first time out.
Learning happens in the revisions you make.
You have 13 weeks to build your knowledge and your skills in this course, and you will not be docked for not understanding things in the first few weeks.

This course will feel a little different from others that you may have taken, in that you will be building a case for your grade as the term goes on (rather than receiving points for each assignment and not knowing precisely why you got those points). You will be receiving a great deal of feedback on each assignment, which will support you in further revising it. Here’s how it’ll work…

Submitting your work

You will be submitting something in Moodle for each of the three projects. Project 2 is a little different because it’s a panel, but you will be submitting a summary proposal document that will be the basis for my feedback. For each assignment, you will receive the criteria for what will be considered a “complete” assignment.

How your projects are marked

I’ll give you feedback on every submission, and a mark of Complete or Redo. There are no partial credits and no point deductions. It’s a straightforward call: is the work there, or not yet?

If you receive a Redo, which in Moodle shows as Incomplete, you will need to use my feedback, revise based on that feedback, and resubmit through the same Moodle link. There’s no limit on the number of redo attempts for Projects 1 and 2 (Project 3 redos are due between 2026-12-01 and 2026-12-08), and this is the place where some real learning can happen to improve your own writing. (Note that a Redo on Project 2 means that the summary proposal you have submitted will have to be revised based on my feedback on your interaction in the panel itself. If your revised proposal is still marked Redo when Project 3 is due, your Project 3 annotation shows how you addressed that feedback instead.)

What you’ll learn

By the end of this course, you’ll be able to:

Explain core concepts of SFL, including the ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions.
Evaluate the clarity, tone, and credibility of public discourse across varied genres.
Deconstruct the linguistic strategies used in contested and false claims in public debate.
Construct and defend a position on a public issue using SFL-informed language choices.
Revise and extend one’s own communication in response to feedback, applying CDA and SFL concepts to strengthen linguistic and rhetorical choices.
Reflect critically on the ideological role of language in shaping public discourse and power relations.

Everything below, the three major projects and your final self-assessment, connects back to these six outcomes.

Project	Key concepts	A Complete mark means…	Connects to
Project 1 — Individual discourse analysis	SFL foundations, applied to one of the given texts	You have submitted (and revised) an essay in which you have: identified and applied at least two metafunctions tied to specific evidence; andanalyzed how the metafunctions operate in the text; andwritten in your own words except where quoting the text you are analyzing	Outcomes 1 and 5
Project 2 — Panel activity (recorded panel)	Applying CDA/SFL concepts to live, unscripted discourse	As a panelist, you have submitted a summary proposal before the panel; applied at least one course concept to something actually said in the panel; engaged at least once with a co-panelist’s contribution using conceptual language; and revised your proposal adequately based on my feedback; and written in your own words except where quoting from relevant texts.	Outcomes 2, 3 and 5
Project 3 — Individual continuation	Extending your own panel topic using feedback from Chris	You have submitted (and revised) a project in which you have: accurately applied course concepts (both SFL and CDA) to a topic that builds on your proposal in Project 2; and attached a one-page annotation that summarizes your use of feedback in Project 2 in your project; andwritten (or spoken if an audio or video submission) in your own words except where quoting relevant texts.	Outcomes 1 through 6

Your final self-assessment

Your final assessment is where things get juicy. That’s where you point to evidence from your previous submissions and the work that you’ve done to improve them, as well as your interactions with me and others in class, to indicate what grade you believe you have earned in the course. Refer to the criteria below to see how you make that case.

Use the questions below as a guide, not a checklist. Write directly to me, in your own voice, and draw evidence from all three major projects.

Competency

Did I explain the core concepts of SFL, including the ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions? (Outcome 1)
Did I evaluate the clarity, tone, and credibility of the public discourse I worked with? (Outcome 2)
Did I deconstruct the linguistic strategies at work in a contested or false claim? (Outcome 3)
Did I construct and defend a position on a public issue using SFL-informed language choices? (Outcome 4)
Is my reasoning and writing clear enough that someone outside the class could follow it?
Did I draw evidence from all three major projects, not just my strongest one?

Excellence

Did all three projects reach Complete, and did that take genuine revision, or minimal patching? (Outcome 5)
When I got a Redo, did I actually use the feedback to change the work?
Is my writing and speaking clear and controlled across written, live, and revised work? (Outcome 4)

Growth

Did my grasp of CDA and SFL concepts visibly deepen from Project 1 to Project 3?
Did feedback on the panel change how I approached Project 3?
Can I point to a specific moment my thinking shifted, not just a general sense of getting better?

Risk-taking

Did I take on a harder or more exposed position in the live panel, rather than the safest one?
Did I engage seriously with feedback I didn’t expect or agree with?
Did I take “format of your choice” on Project 3 or this self-assessment seriously, and pick something that actually challenged me?
Did I go beyond the assigned material at some point in the term?

Therefore, my grade should be…

Re-read what you wrote above. Look back at your feedback and redo history on the three major projects. Then propose the grade you believe is fair, and explain how you met the six course outcomes, citing specific examples from your own work. If there’s a real gap between the evidence and the grade you’re proposing, I’ll bring the gradebook evidence into the conversation, and we’ll figure it out together.

How your final grade works

Your final grade comes from the four qualities above, not a point total.

A = Competency, Excellence, Growth, and Risk-taking, all four.
B = Competency and Excellence, plus either Growth or Risk-taking.
C = Competency and Excellence.

Here’s the reassuring part: if you complete all three major projects, even if it takes a few Redos, you’ve already shown competency and excellence. That grade, a C, is your floor. Growth and risk-taking are how you build from there toward a B or an A.

AI disclosure: I used Claude to organize this document and to ensure that it aligned with details in the course outline.

What is Ungrading?