Philosophy
Assessment in SoCIETIE is designed to enable your learning journey - not to test you against a fixed standard.
No Right Answers…
Complex, transdisciplinary problems don’t have single “right” answers. They need multiple perspectives and can be solved in different ways. This creates a challenge: how do we assess your work fairly when there isn’t one correct solution?
Instead of traditional grading, we’ve built our learning around these principles:
- connection: Learning happens together - with peers, educators, and the real world. Your ideas matter and are valued.
- engagement: We learn best when we’re genuinely interested. We create a safe space where different perspectives are explored and knowledge is built together.
- inspiration: Learning should drive us to create meaningful work and contribute to real-world change. Quality comes from intrinsic motivation, not external pressure.
Because of this, the course uses a ‘valuation’ structure rather than a traditional ‘marking’ structure.
What You’ll See Instead of Marks
During the semester, you won’t receive numerical marks (like 7/10) on your work. Instead, you’ll get structured feedback using quality descriptions. Here’s why:
-
Complex work needs context: A single number can’t capture the nuance of transdisciplinary thinking. Your work deserves more than a score.
-
We assess the whole, not the sum: Your learning isn’t just Assignment 1 + Assignment 2 = Final Grade. We look at how your ideas develop and connect across the semester as a whole.
-
We want you to take risks: If we immediately score and rank your work against traditional standards, it discourages exploration. We need to support you trying new approaches, even if they’re uncertain at first.
How Your Final Grade Works
The approach to your final grade depends on which version of the course you’re taking.
In AATD, your final grade will be “Course Requirements Satisfied” - meaning you’ve met the course standard. This isn’t a pass/fail at 50%. We expect quality work at a Distinction level or higher. If your initial submission falls short, we’ll give you feedback and ask you to revise. Resubmit with these notes in mind, and you’ll meet the mark. We’re here to support you reaching the standard, not to gatekeep grades.
Course Requirements Satisfied: Hurdle tasks and optional tasks use the following feedback indicators. These appear in the gradebook and tell you where your work stands and what comes next.
| Indicator | Equiv Mark | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Complete without Revision | Above 70% | The work is above expectations, and no further submission is required. |
| Complete with Revision | Above 70% | An initial indicator of Revise and Resubmit was given, and the work now meets expectations. |
| Revise and Resubmit | Below 70% | The work does not meet the expectations of the task. A resubmission that acts on the feedback given is required to complete the task |
| Not Complete | Fail | If no action is taken, expectations cannot be matched, and as a last resort, a Not Complete will be awarded. A Not Complete on any Hurdle Task would result in a “Course Not Satisfied (CRN)” for the course. |
In LAWS4001, some tasks will receive grades using the conventional scheme (HD/D/CR/P/N). You won’t see a ‘mark’ on individual items - only the final grade calculated through the official marks release process in ISIS.
For LAWS students: Some tasks will use quality descriptors that map to a number grade. These descriptions align with the ANU Policy on Student Assessment (Coursework). Rather than seeing a raw mark, you’ll see a description of your work’s quality, which then maps to a final numerical grade.
| Quality Descriptor | Minimum % | Likely % | Maximum % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unacceptable | 0 | 20 | 45 |
| Unsatisfactory | 45 | 50 | 55 |
| Satisfactory | 50 | 55 | 60 |
| Satisfactory-Good | 55 | 60 | 65 |
| Good | 60 | 65 | 70 |
| Good-Superior | 65 | 70 | 75 |
| Superior | 70 | 75 | 80 |
| Superior-Exceptional | 75 | 80 | 85 |
| Exceptional | 80 | 85 | 90 |
| Exemplary | 90+ | - | - |
Here’s how this works in practice. Below is an example of how a student’s work across different tasks is assessed and converted to a final mark:
| Task/Stage | Max Wt | Quality Descriptor | Min % | Likely % | Max % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SoCIETIE Project Plan | 10% | Exceptional | 8 | 8.5 | 9 |
| KNoT completion evidence | 20% | Superior | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| Shareable Artefact Presentation | 10% | Superior-Exceptional | 7.5 | 8 | 8.5 |
| Shareable Artefact | 60% | Superior | 42 | 45 | 48 |
| Final Mark | 100% | - | 71.5 | 76.5 | 81.5 |
In this example, the student’s final mark would be around 77 (calculated from 76.5 and rounded). The final number depends on the overall evidence the teaching team sees.
Note: If you don’t submit an optional task, or if it scores lower than your main Portfolio, those marks aren’t lost - they can be redirected toward your Shareable Artefact. This is about flexibility, not penalty.
What Quality Work Looks Like
Instead of a traditional rubric with point breakdowns, we describe quality by looking at what you’re actually doing with ideas and how you’re thinking about problems.
These descriptions are based on educational frameworks like SOLO Taxonomy and Bloom’s Taxonomy. They’re not rigid boxes - your work will probably show characteristics from multiple levels at once. Use these as a guide to understand what we’re looking for at each quality level.
Quality of Ideas and/or Connections
How you’re thinking about and working with concepts and information.
Used to guide:
- KNoT Completion Evidence
- SoCIETIE Project Shareable Artefact
Satisfactory (Major Revisions)
Explain ideas or concepts, recall facts, concepts or answers
Associated verbs: Cite, Convert, Define, Demonstrate, Extend, Find, Identify, Interpret, Label, List, Locate, Name, Predict, Quote, Recall, Reproduce
Good (Minor Revisions)
Examine and break down information, use existing knowledge to solve new problem
Associated verbs: Analyse, Apply, Calculate, Categorise, Change, Choose, Classify, Complete, Deduce, Differentiate, Distinguish, Execute, Investigate, Operate, Practice, Relate, Select, Separate, Solve, Use
Superior (Meets expectations)
Generate new ideas, assemble novel ideas from multiple areas
Associated verbs: Assemble, Assess, Construct, Create, Design, Develop, Estimate, Generate, Invent, Measure, Plan, Predict, Produce, Synthesise, Test
Exceptional (Above expectations)
Integration of activities across levels
Quality of Narrative and/or Reflection
How clearly you explain your thinking and what you’ve learned.
Used to guide:
- KNoT Completion Evidence
- SoCIETIE Project Shareable Artefact
Satisfactory (Major Revisions)
Demonstrate logical argument, clear explanations
Associated verbs: Describe, Discuss, Explain, Outline, Paraphrase, Review, Summarise
Good (Minor Revisions)
Apply knowledge in new situation, translate ideas from one domain to another
Associated verbs: Articulate, Compare, Conclude, Contrast, Correlate, Illustrate, Interpret, Show, Teach
Superior (Meets expectations)
Defend opinions and decisions, justify action through judgements about information
Associated verbs: Argue, Compose, Criticise, Debate, Defend, Decide, Evaluate, Formulate, Judge, Justify, Propose, Recommend
Exceptional (Above expectations)
Integration of activities across levels
Quality of Facilitation and/or Collaborative Team Work
How you work with others and help them do their best work.
Used to guide:
- Doing KNoTs, such as projects (if relevant)
Satisfactory (Major Revisions)
Work in a functional way, convey meaning without conflict
Associated verbs: listen, notice, tolerate, comply, enjoy, follow, build, perform, execute, implement, copy, follow, replicate, repeat
Good (Minor Revisions)
Build on strengths of individuals for the benefit of the whole
Associated verbs: express, conduct, show, demonstrate, complete, perfect, control
Superior (Meets expectations) Extend strengths, enable others to produce their best work
Associated verbs: amplify, choose, consider, prefer, discriminate, depict, exemplify, construct, solve, integrate, adapt, enable, influence
Exceptional (Above expectations)
Integration of activities across levels
Submission Windows
You’ll see submission windows associated with all tasks. We encourage you to submit within the window. This is intentional:
- Submit before the window = early, usually rewarded with feedback
- Submit during the window = on time, usually accepted as complete/incomplete
- Submit after the window = late
In most cases, submissions stay open after the due date, so don’t stress if you’re a day or two behind, but do let the convenor know what’s going on - communication is more important than the deadline.
If you’re running late: Reach out to the convenor before the due date. Most of the time, an extension is fine, especially if it doesn’t affect other students. Just ask - it’s better than submitting late without talking to us first.
Version Control
Author: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au Last updated: 14-Feb-2025