A Pedagogical Model for Soft-Skill Education in Computer
Science: Pass/Fail Grading with Public In-Class Feedback
Nandi Zhang

Nelson Wong

University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada
nandi.zhang@ucalgary.ca

University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada
nelsonwong@ucalgary.ca

ABSTRACT

2

This paper presents a pedagogical model for soft-skill education in
computer science, integrating Pass/Fail grading with public in-class
feedback. We illustrate this approach through SCIE 398.2: Communication in Computer Science, a new undergraduate course at our
institution. By replacing letter grades with Pass/Fail grading and
public real-time feedback, this model fosters a low-stakes learning
environment where students can experiment, refine their communication skills, and improve iteratively.

The primary goal of SCIE 398.2: Communication in Computer Science is to equip students with essential oral communication skills.
The course aims to boost students’ public speaking confidence
and provide opportunities to explore their individual presentation
styles. By the end of the course, students should be able to deliver
presentations persuasively, engagingly, effectively, with audience
awareness, and collaboratively in teams.
The course consists of four presentation activities: elevator pitch
(1–2 min), individual presentation (8 min), group presentation
(10–12 min), and portfolio presentation (8 min).
Each student participates in all four activities during the course.
Before each presentation, the instructor gives a brief lecture on
communication strategies tailored to the specific presentation type.
These instructional sessions cover topics such as effective slide
design, adapting messages for different audiences, and using body
language to enhance engagement. Students present within selfselected computer science-related scenarios, such as pitching to
investors or networking.
After each presentation, students receive public feedback from
their peers and the instructor, a process detailed in Section 4. Within
three days of presenting, students submit a reflection report including an analysis of their performance, feedback they received, and
goals for future presentations.

KEYWORDS
Computer science education, Pass/Fail Grading; Computing education
ACM Reference Format:
Nandi Zhang and Nelson Wong. 2025. A Pedagogical Model for Soft-Skill
Education in Computer Science: Pass/Fail Grading with Public In-Class
Feedback.. In The 27th Western Canadian Conference on Computing
Education (WCCCE ’25), April 28–29, 2025, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2 pages.
https://doi.org/v10.60770/hjpf-2k34

1 INTRODUCTION
Technical expertise alone is not enough for success in the computer
science industry. Graduates must effectively communicate in job
interviews, technical presentations, and team collaborations [1, 6].
Unlike technical skills, soft skills do not have a single “correct”
approach. Applying traditional letter grading to soft skill development such as communication can be unnecessarily rigid and
labor-intensive, potentially discouraging individual style.
To address these challenges, we developed SCIE 398.2: Communication in Computer Science where we explore a new pedagogical
model for soft skill education. Instead of letter grading, the course
adopts Pass/Fail grading and utilizes public in-class feedback from
peers and the instructor as the primary driver for improvement.
This paper discusses the rationale, implementation, and scalability
of this model through the design and introduction of the course.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). For all other uses, contact the
author(s).
WCCCE '25, April 28-29, Calgary, AB, Canada
© 2025 Copyright held by the authors.
https://doi.org/10.60770/hjpf-2k34

COURSE STRUCTURE

3 PASS/FAIL GRADING
3.1 Design Rationales
Summative evaluations, such as post-hoc grading, often prioritize
assessment over improvement [8]. In soft-skill education, this can
create unnecessary pressure and restrict creative freedom, as there
is no single “correct” approach to communication. Moreover, rigid
rubrics may stifle creativity, discourage risk-taking, and limit students’ ability to develop their unique presentation styles.
Inspired by the concept of ungrading [5], this course adopts a
Pass/Fail system to reduce stress on students and grading effort
for instructors and TAs. This approach fosters a supportive environment for experimentation and iterative improvement, shifting
students’ focus from achieving a specific letter grade to the learning
process itself.

3.2

Implementation and Course Assessment

To pass the course, students must: (1) Deliver all four presentations.
(2) Provide constructive feedback to assigned peers. (3) Submit
self-reflection reports for each presentation.
Students are allowed to redo a presentation if their first attempt does not demonstrate sufficient effort. This course follows a

WCCCE 2025, Calgary Alberta

completion-based approach, emphasizing whether students understand how to improve rather than achieving a specific standard in
one single performance.

4 PUBLIC IN-CLASS FEEDBACK
4.1 Design Rationales
In a Pass/Fail grading system, the absence of letter grades can potentially reduce academic motivation [3]. However, for soft skill
education, public in-class feedback serves as a powerful alternative
incentive for learning and improvement [2]. The desire to impress
peers and instructors, coupled with the aversion to public embarrassment, motivates students to actively engage and refine their
skills and ensures a baseline level of performance [7, 11].
Timeliness is critical for effective feedback. Delayed feedback can
result in missed learning opportunities, as students may no longer
recall their reasoning behind specific decisions or actions. Research
in instructional practice underscores the value of real-time feedback
[4, 8]. A systematic review by Sinclair et al. [9], which analyzed
32 studies, found that immediate feedback significantly enhances
instructional effectiveness by enabling prompt adjustments and
reinforcing positive behaviors.
Additionally, studies on peer assessment [10] suggest that students engage more deeply with feedback from peers than with
instructor evaluations. Peer feedback fosters a sense of shared responsibility for learning and encourages active reflection. To support this, we designed the public in-class feedback system that
facilitates instantaneous, transparent, and collaborative feedback,
allowing presenters to receive diverse feedback and reflect on their
performance in real time.

4.2 Implementation
Building on the rationales, we implemented a system that enables
students to both provide and receive immediate feedback for each
presentation during class.
The system employs a shared spreadsheet to record feedback
in real time, allowing students to view and contribute simultaneously. Each student is randomly assigned to provide feedback for
three peers, ensuring every presentation receives at least three
mandatory feedback. Additionally, students can voluntarily leave
feedback on any presentation and choose to include their names. As
feedback is visible as it is written, audience members gain instant
insights into effective techniques, find inspiration, and reflect on
their own presentation skills. This process resembles a “real-time
sports commentary platform,” where feedback dynamically unfolds
throughout the presentations.
When providing feedback, students adopt dual perspectives: that
of the audience and of fellow computer science professionals who
may deliver similar presentations in their careers. For instance,
during elevator pitch presentations, each student selects a peer
as their mock target audience and delivers their pitch directly to
that individual in front of the class. The designated peer then provides verbal feedback immediately after the pitch, focusing on their
experience as the direct audience.
Following each presentation, the instructor guides students to review the feedback displayed on the screen and offers structured verbal feedback. This instructor feedback addresses key aspects such

Nandi Zhang and Nelson Wong

as delivery, slide design, and audience engagement, complementing
the written peer feedback to provide a balanced and comprehensive
perspective. Unlike letter grading, which primarily focuses on evaluation and assessment, this combined feedback highlights both areas
for improvement and the unique strengths of each presentation.

5

SCALABILITY AND FUTURE
IMPLEMENTATION

Currently, presentations and feedback activities occur during lectures, with a class size of 43 students and two 1.25-hour sessions per
week. To scale for larger cohorts, this model can adapt by shifting
presentations to tutorials, where teaching assistants (TAs) facilitate feedback. Shared digital tools preserve the transparency and
effectiveness of the peer feedback system, ensuring timely feedback
while maintaining interactivity and collaboration. This approach
minimizes grading effort for TAs, reduces the burden on instructors, and allows the course to scale without compromising its core
principles.
Future implementations could explore iterative in-class practice,
allowing students multiple attempts at activities to refine their skills.
Additionally, incorporating a wider variety of learning activities—
such as mock interviews, team debates, or storytelling exercises—
could address diverse learning objectives and further enhance the
course’s impact.

6

CONCLUSION

Pass/Fail grading combined with public feedback effectively supports soft-skill development by encouraging experimentation and
continuous improvement, providing a scalable alternative to traditional letter grading.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

Khaled Alshare and Nitham M Hindi. 2004. The importance of presentation
skills in the classroom: students and instructors perspectives. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19, 4, 6–15.
Zhengdong Gan, Jinbo He, Lawrence Jun Zhang, and Randall Schumacker.
2023. Examining the relationships between feedback practices and learning
motivation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 21, 1, 38–
50.
Richard M Gold, Anne Reilly, Robert Silberman, and Robert Lehr. 1971. Academic achievement declines under pass-fail grading. The Journal of Experimental Education, 39, 3, 17–21.
John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of
educational research, 77, 1, 81–112.
Alfie Kohn and Susan D Blum. 2020. Ungrading: Why rating students undermines
learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
Jennifer A Polack-Wahl. 2000. It is time to stand up and communicate [computer
science courses]. In 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on
A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE
Cat. No. 00CH37135). Vol. 1. IEEE, F1G–16.
Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American psychologist, 55, 1, 68.
Valerie J Shute. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational
research, 78, 1, 153–189.
Anne C Sinclair, Samantha A Gesel, Lauren M LeJeune, and Christopher J
Lemons. 2020. A review of the evidence for real-time performance feedback to
improve instructional practice. The Journal of Special Education, 54, 2, 90–100.
Keith J Topping. 2009. Peer assessment. Theory into practice, 48, 1, 20–27.
Kathryn R Wentzel and Allan Wigfield. 1998. Academic and social motivational
influences on students’ academic performance. Educational psychology review,
10, 155–175.