Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41400377›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026

Implementation of ungrading in a course-based undergraduate research experience: a framework for an alternative assessment scheme in laboratory courses.

Beth Beason-Abmayr, Thomas Michael McCabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Beth Beason-AbmayrRice University, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4999-0976
Thomas Michael McCabeRice University, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0505-4302

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We provide a framework for the implementation of ungrading in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and a case example of ungrading in an advanced laboratory course. Although assessments should measure and reflect learning, grades typically make students focus on the evaluation of their work, often limiting the learning process. Grades represent a difficult extrinsic motivator for students to overcome as they distract from students' learning progress and engagement. Ungrading increases the focus on feedback and growth by eliminating the emphasis on "points," fostering a collaborative environment where students are encouraged to learn. Student learning is assessed using qualitative approaches with an emphasis on quality feedback from the instructor and student self-reflection-students do not get letter or number grades for individual assignments. In addition to the course learning goals, each student sets individual goals for the course at the beginning of the semester, discusses their progress with the instructor, and shares evidence of their learning throughout the semester. At the middle and at the end of the semester, students suggest a course grade and explain how they arrived at that grade. With ungrading, students are more engaged during class and seem less stressed because they are not worried about earning as many points as possible for each assignment. Adoption of this alternative assessment strategy promotes student engagement and self-motivated learning and, while presented here in a format suited to adoption into CUREs, can be adapted to any level of laboratory or lecture-based instruction.

Indexed as

alternative assessmentcourse-based undergraduate research experiencelaboratory educationungrading

Identifiers

PMID41400377
PMCPMC13130998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.