Designing a Welding Program for Growth, Not Just Grades

At the start of my teaching career, I graded welds the way many welding instructors do — by the bucketful. At the end of each class period, I collected armloads of weld coupons, hauled them to my office, and spent hours sorting, evaluating, and entering scores in the gradebook. It was labor intensive, time consuming, and unsustainable, especially with large class sizes. 

More importantly, that system wasn’t serving students well. Feedback was delayed, progress felt disconnected, and students were often more focused on the number they received than on what they needed to improve. I realized that if I wanted students to grow toward industry standards, I needed a grading system that emphasized feedback, reflection, and improvement — not just point accumulation.

1. This realization led me to redesign my grading system with two goals in mind:
2. Free up instructional time so feedback could occur in the moment.
3. Align classroom expectations more closely with industry standards.

The result was a shift to a four-point grading scale combined with real-time assessment using time cards, a system that has fundamentally changed how my students learn and how I teach.

A Four-Point Scale Aligned to Industry Standards

The foundation of this system is a simple four-point rubric used to assess weld quality.

1. Emerging. The weld has been attempted but does not yet meet expectations.
2. Approaching Standard. Some correct elements are present, but improvement is needed.
3. Meets Industry Standard. The weld meets the criteria outlined by industry expectations.
4. Exceeds Industry Standard. The weld demonstrates exceptional quality and consistency.

To establish what qualifies as “industry standard,” I reference Table 6.1 in AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code — Steel (2010 edition), as a guide when determining a score of three. This provides students with a clear, objective benchmark and introduces them early to how codes and standards function in real-world welding environments.

At first, students often question how a three out of four is a strong grade. In a traditional grading mindset, 75% can feel mediocre. However, in this system, a three represents success — meaning the weld meets industry standards. That is the goal.

In my class, consistent threes with occasional fours earn an A. All threes typically result in an A- or B+. This adjustment reframes success and helps students understand that perfection is not the expectation, competency is.

Immediate Feedback with Time Cards

To support this grading scale, I implemented a time card system that enables immediate, in-person grading with the student present. Students track shop time and bring their time card to me when they are ready to pass off a weld.

When a student presents a weld, the following occurs:

• We evaluate the weld together.
• I provide direct feedback.
• I assign a score.
• I sign the time card.
• The student returns to work.

This process eliminates the need to store, transport, and re-evaluate welds later. More importantly, it transforms grading into a conversation rather than a delayed judgment. Students receive specific instruction while the weld is still fresh in their minds, which significantly improves retention and performance.

From an instructional standpoint, this change freed up hours of after-school grading time each week and allowed me to focus on what matters most — coaching students in the booth.

Scaffolding Skill Development and Encouraging Growth

The welds in my curriculum are intentionally scaffolded. Students are expected to pass off each weld multiple times throughout the course. Early attempts often earn a one or two, which is both expected and encouraged. As skills improve, students revisit the same welds and work toward earning threes and eventually fours.

This approach reinforces a growth mindset. Students see improvement as a progression rather than a single performance. The focus shifts from “What did I get?” to “What do I need to change to improve?”

Because the grading scale is designed to reward progress and consistency, students are motivated to keep refining their technique rather than settling for the minimum.

Project-Based Learning for Real-World Application

In my Level 1 welding classes, each quarter focuses on a different welding process. Approximately half of the quarter is dedicated to learning the process, equipment operation, and safety practices. The remaining time is spent completing a project based on a set of prints I’ve designed.

Each project includes the following:

• A blueprint
• Dimensions
• Welding symbols
• A bill of materials
• Hold and check points

Students may work individually or in pairs and complete the project at their own pace, with all work due by the end of the quarter. While some projects appear simple, they are intentionally designed to require planning, sequencing, and problem solving.

One notable example involved a student who had nearly completed a bar-height stool project. While the welds looked solid, a final inspection revealed a noticeable lean. This became a valuable teaching moment — emphasizing the importance of stepping back, checking dimensions, and evaluating the entire project rather than focusing solely on individual welds.

Utilizing Teacher Assistants in Large Classes

In large classes, efficiency and support are critical. One strategy that has significantly improved workflow is the use of trained student teacher assistants (TAs). These students are not enrolled simply for extra shop time; they are expected to assist, teach, and model best practices.

TAs help by troubleshooting equipment issues, demonstrating techniques, assisting with organization and setup, and supporting new students during practice.

I train TAs to assess welds scoring ones and twos, while I retain responsibility for final evaluations of threes and fours. This allows more students to receive timely feedback while maintaining consistency in grading at the industry-standard level.

Teaching others reinforces the TAs’ own understanding and builds leadership skills that extend beyond the welding booth.

Backward Designing the Gradebook

For the system to function effectively, the gradebook must align with the instructional philosophy. I backward designed my grading scale using Excel, starting with point values for assignments such as daily work, time cards, weld pass-offs, projects, and written assessments.

Percentage ranges were adjusted to ensure that students who consistently met industry standards, demonstrated effort, and completed required work earned strong grades. Students whose work needed improvement saw that reflected accurately in their final grades.

With administrative approval, I removed the D grade from my scale. In welding, work either meets the standard or it does not. This decision reinforced high expectations and discouraged students from settling for minimal effort.

Conclusion

This grading system evolved through reflection, trial, and a desire to spend more time teaching and less time managing paperwork. By aligning grading with industry standards, emphasizing immediate feedback, and designing systems that support growth, I’ve seen meaningful improvements in both student performance and classroom culture.

For welding instructors considering changes to their assessment practices, designing your systems intentionally will yield the best results. When grading, feedback, and instruction all point toward the same goal, students thrive  and instructors reclaim valuable time to teach.

This article was written by Jared Massic (Maple Mountain High School) for the American Welding Society.