How We Learn

The principles behind SoCIETIE assessment

16

things we believe about learning

Why this matters

There are no single right answers

The problem

Complex, transdisciplinary problems need multiple perspectives and can be solved in different ways. So how do you assess work fairly when there is no correct solution to compare it against?

The answer we built

These principles. Each one rests on an assumption, stated plainly so it can be argued with.

Inclusive entry

We meet students where they are at

We're assuming

The right time to take the course differs per student; students arrive with very different change-making experience and disciplines.

For example

A first-year may already lead change; a final-year may never have considered it — the course accommodates both rather than assuming a fixed start.

Trust

We trust students to do their best work

We're assuming

Students with clear intrinsic motivation can be trusted to do great work without the pressure of marks.

For example

Quality comes from intrinsic motivation, not external pressure; scoring and ranking discourage exploration and learning through "failure".

Learner agency

Students design their own journey

We're assuming

Students learn best when they shape their own path toward their own goals.

For example

Rather than a fixed syllabus, students choose KNoTs and project hours to fit aspirations; plans evolve.

Communication over deadlines

We value honest communication over rigid deadlines

We're assuming

Most deadlines are negotiable when you communicate early.

For example

Telling us what's going on is a skill we teach, not a failure we punish. Communicating — that you need an extension, that something has gone wrong — is a valuable learning outcome in itself, and we privilege it over penalising missed dates.

Feedback over marks

We grow learners, we don’t judge them

We're assuming

Learning is developmental and best supported by feedback; a single number can't capture transdisciplinary work.

For example

We assess the whole, not the sum (final grade is not Assignment 1 + 2); feedback and revision develop thinking.

Real-world learning

There are no single right answers

We're assuming

Complex transdisciplinary problems have many valid solutions; assessing against one "correct" answer is invalid.

For example

Wicked problems need multiple perspectives — we assess how you think and work with ideas, not whether you matched an answer key.

Authentic projects

We learn by doing real work that matters

We're assuming

Applying skills to real-world impact deepens learning more than simulated tasks.

For example

The Project applies KNoT skills to create real campus and community impact.

Falling forward

Risk-taking and “failure” are part of learning

We're assuming

Exploration requires safety to try uncertain approaches without penalty.

For example

If we score and rank immediately, it discourages exploration — we want you to take risks.

Outward facing work

A transparent high bar

We're assuming

Students rise to a clear, high standard when supported to reach it.

For example

CRS isn't pass-at-50%; we expect Distinction and above, and help you get there via feedback, not gatekeeping.

Student growth

Reflection turns experience into learning

We're assuming

Metacognition — thinking about thinking — is where durable learning consolidates.

For example

Reflection draws a thread through the course and "ties the knot"; Kolb's cycle (think/do/feel/watch).

Connection

Learning happens together

We're assuming

Knowledge is co-constructed; ideas matter and are valued in relationship with others.

For example

Learning happens with peers, educators and the real world — not in isolation.

Working together

We celebrate collaboration, not competition

We're assuming

Sharing and celebrating work motivates and validates more than ranking.

For example

The Showcase celebrates learning — "not a competition (although healthy competition welcome)".

Across difference

We work across difference, not just alongside it

We're assuming

Difference is a resource, not an obstacle, when people take the time to understand each other.

For example

We intentionally design environments where people with different points of view, knowledge bases and expertise build genuine understanding of each other — not multidisciplinary co-location, where people are simply put in a room together and left to chance.

Our students, not my students

Our students, not my students

We're assuming

Students belong to the whole learning community, not to individual academics.

For example

Teaching is distributed — many experts each contributing their topic, sharing responsibility for the cohort. No one academic "owns" a class of their students; the tent is wide enough for many voices.

What are universities for

The whole university is a place of learning

We're assuming

Valuable learning exists everywhere across the university and partners, not just in one course's classes.

For example

Students have an "all-access pass"; KNoTs are flexible building blocks you assemble by interest.

Human scale

We operate at a human scale

We're assuming

Genuine understanding between educator and student needs small numbers; scale comes from repeating small, not enlarging the group.

For example

Classes stay small enough to hear from every student, understand their point of view and get to know them — around twenty-five, not five hundred. We scale by multiplying human-scale contexts and pathways, and by widening the tent: many experts each teaching small, rather than one class growing large.