Jump to:
Philosophy
Assessment in SoCIETIE is not set to test your understanding and instead is set to enable your learning journey.
A transdisciplinary problem…
- ..is unlikely to have a ‘right’ answer.
- ..is unlikely to have a single solution.
- ..requires more than one perspective.
If we hold these ideas as true, or at least a reasonable approximation, then we must question how we would assess learners working in this space. A number of questions arise: Who has the right to pass judgement on your work? What would be the purpose of this assessment? Why would assessment be a valuable thing to do? How do we set up a space where plurality of ideas are valued and a multitude of paths can be followed?
To this end, we embrace a learning environment where we emphasise these principles:
- connection: that learning is shared, two-way and valued amongst your fellow learners
- engagement: that we are learning together in a safe space where knowledge is contested, and problems are multifaceted, and all perspectives are valued
- inspiration: that learning should be intrinsic, enjoyable, and inspire you and others to create high-quality work and real-world change.
For these reasons, and many others, the course is designed to be ‘ungraded’ first. We use a broad ‘valuation’ structure rather than a ‘marking’ structure.
Class Grading Structure
We will avoid providing ‘marks’ (ie numbers) on assessment items throughout the semester. Here are the reasons:
- if we accept the principles outlined at the start of this guide as reasonable if not true, then it would be unreasonable to apply a single number grade to any piece of work; that is, the number would be a range of likely numbers (i.e. x +/– y%)
- giving numbers on assessment gives the illusion that a student’s performance is valued as the ‘sum of its parts’ (Assignment 1 + Assignment 2 = Final Grade). If there is one thing that you learn in SoCIETIE, it is that you cannot judge a transdisciplinary problem only from a single viewpoint, and we need to understand the whole to understanding the parts.
- in our experience, giving ‘marks’ or a ‘score’ in a transdisciplinary environment creates a inequitable learning contradiction, where we are asking you to take risks and explore new ways of viewing the world, but then limiting your creativity by placing it back into a traditional (not fit for purpose) frame.
Grades
The AATD version of this course is not ‘marked’ (ie, you do not get a final number out of 100), but it is ‘graded’, and successful completion will result in a grade of ‘Course Requirements Satisfied’. This is not simply pass/fail, where 50% is a pass: we expect work at a Distinction level or above in order to meet the ‘Course Requirements Satisfied’ grade. If for whatever reason you submit a task that is below the expected standard, we’ve got you - we will provide feedback, and ask you to consider and resubmit. If you submit a task above standard, well done - we’ve been able to match our respective expectations. See Course Requirements Satisfied Graded Items.
The LAWS version has some tasks that will be ‘graded’ using the conventional scheme (HD/D/CR/P/N), but you will not receive a ‘mark’ on any individual item and only as a result of the marks release process via ISIS. See Graded Items.
Course Requirements Satisfied Graded Items
Hurdle tasks and optional tasks without a mark will operate under this schema, and the following indicators will be given in gradebook against the assessment:
| 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. |
Graded Items
In the LAWS version of the course, graded items will use a common language for grading across assessment items that maps to a number, rather than being a number. The descriptions below map directly to the ANU Policy on Student Assessment (Coursework)
| 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+ | - | - |
Table: Grading Description mapped to markn (percentage)
To illustrate this process, we provide an example student calculating their example grade.
| Task/Stage | Max Wt | Quality Descriptor | Min % | Likely % | Max % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio Scoping Document | 10% | Exceptional | 8 | 8.5 | 9 |
| KNOT completion evidence | 20% | Superior | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| Portfolio Presentation | 10% | Superior-Exceptional | 7.5 | 8 | 8.5 |
| Learning Portfolio | 60% | Superior | 42 | 45 | 48 |
| Final Mark | 100% | - | 71.5 | 76.5 | 81.5 |
Table: Example calculation of mark
The Final Mark will be determined based on the evidence at hand by the relevant Fellows or Convenor. This example student would reasonably expect to achieve a final mark of 77 (76.5 rounded to the closest integer). However, for a range of reasons this may not be an accurate representation of the final grade, and could perhaps lie between the minimum and maximum value.
Where optional tasks are not submitted, or ultimately are awarded a lower quality descriptor than the final Learning Portfolio, the marks assigned to that task will be put towards the Learning Portfolio. i.e. marks assigned to the Optional tasks are redeemable.
This structure, while very similar to the ‘normal processes’ for grading are a subtle but important difference that allow for an alignment with the assessment principles.
Marking criteria
These are a common set of principles for benchmarking work across tasks. Essentially, these correspond to the concept of a rubric.
The following conventions, based on educational paradigms such as SOLO Taxonomy and Bloom’s Taxonomy, apply instead of rubrics. These categories are fuzzy, you may be performing activities across layers.
Quality of ideas and/or connections
Used to guide:
- KNOT Completion Evidence
- Learning Portfolio
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
Used to guide:
- KNOT Completion Evidence
- Learning Portfolio
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
Used to guide:
- Collaborative 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
Version Control
Author: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au Last updated: 14-Feb-2025