Thirteenth International Conference on Design Principles & Practices

Abstract

Although higher education institutions make use of pre-defined learning outcomes, explicit assessment criteria and marking rubrics, disputes and confusion over the evaluation and related marks awarded for student design work still occur. Although the discrepancies can be explained away as the result of subjectivity or differing preferences on the part of assessors, this paper proposes that such discrepancies are evidence of deeper less visible differences in the valued knowledge structures. In the paper I draw from the data and findings of a case study, in which course documents and panel assessor discussions were analysed using Legitimation Code Theory (specialisation) a conceptual tool established by Karl Maton, that considers both knowledge and knower. The balance between epistemic relations (knowledge) and social relations (knower) revealed the underlying specialisation codes that define success in design assessment. The study exposed the unseen codes and how they aligned, shifted or clashed at the different stages of assessment. Legitimation Code Theory, thus, provides a useful framework with which to analyse, reveal, understand and discuss design assessment and the potential for miscommunicating what is valued at different stages of education.