The knowledge-knower structures used in the assessment of graphic design practical work in a multi-campus context. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of RHODES UNIVERSITY by SUSAN LOUISE GILOI November 2015 Abstract This case study explicates the knowledge-knower structures that are valued in the assessment of Graphic Design (GD) practical work in a multi-campus Private Higher Education (PHE) context. Assessment, which provides the measure for student success and progression, plays a significant role in Higher Education (HE). It is acknowledged that, in addition to increased pressure on educators to deliver high pass and throughput rates, there is often scrutiny of their assessment practice to ensure that it is fair, reliable, valid and transparent. The aspects of reliability and validity are particularly significant in for-profit private higher education institutions, where a strong focus on efficiency may result in added scrutiny of assessment practices. Although the assessment of GD practical work exemplifies these pressures and objectives, its characteristics and practices set it apart from many of the more standard forms of assessment found in HE. Not only is GD practical work predominantly visual rather than text-based, but complex achievements and tacit knowledge are assessed. This form of assessment traditionally relies on panel or group marking by connoisseurs who consider what is commonly termed ‘person’, ‘process’ and ‘product’ when making value judgements. Therefore, in GD assessment knowledge, the design product, the graphic designer and what the graphic designer does may all be valued. GD assessment, where outcomes are not easily stated, relies on the tacit expertise of assessors and can often be perceived to be subjective and unreliable. It therefore sits uncomfortably with results-driven HE and institutional priorities. In light of this context and the complex and social nature of GD assessment, a critical realist approach provided the guiding metatheory for this case study. Critical realism considers the unseen but real mechanisms that exist and interact within a context to create a phenomenon such as an assessment practice. In this case study the knowledge-structuring theories of Basil Bernstein and Karl Maton were used to uncover these mechanisms. Bernstein and Maton propose that new knowledge, the curriculum and pedagogy, which includes assessment, communicate the valued disciplinary knowledge and who controls these communications. i For this study the institutional documents and voices of assessors provided insight into the GD assessment practice; data was generated through a lecturer survey, the study guides and assessor conversations at both the formative and summative assessment stages. Given the significance of both knowledge and expertise in GD, Specialisation, one of the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) dimensions, provided the conceptual tool whereby the generated data were analysed and categorised, and the underlying valued knowledge-knower structures, or specialisation codes, were identified. The identified specialisation codes revealed a number of code clashes, matches and shifts, which highlighted instances of mixed or conflicting communication regarding what was valued and used in GD assessment. These clashes, matches and shifts have significant implications for curriculum design, pedagogy and assessment. As a result the findings may have relevance for students, lecturers and assessors who work in practice- based fields which require the assessment of complex achievements and rely on a specialised gaze to judge standards. Informed by the findings of this study, I argue that there is a fundamental conflict between what is valued within the broader national South African Higher Education system and Private Higher Education institutional context, and the nature of GD assessment. The broader structures, guided by a techno-rationalist approach to assessment and the pressures of massification, success, compliance and institutional efficiencies, value explicitly-stated outcomes and criteria, propositional knowledge and a positivist ideal of one correct mark for any one assessment, while the GD assessment practice values the more social and tacit elements of procedural knowledge and a specialist knower as evidenced in a largely tacit GD gaze that assessors possess and students aim to develop. The uncovering of the knowledge-knower structures used in GD assessment has the potential to make the assessed gaze more explicit to lecturers, assessors and ultimately to students. My findings offer a deeper understanding of the assessment of knower code disciplines which require a specialist gaze for the judgement of student work, and the pressures experienced in this type of assessment in a HE context. ii Table of contents Abstract i Table of contents iii Acknowledgements vii List of tables and figures viii Acronyms viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1 1.2 Knowledge and assessment 4 1.3 Research question 6 1.4 Objectives 7 1.5 Significance 7 1.6 Outline of chapters 9 Chapter 2 Contextual background 12 2.1 Private higher education and policy 13 2.1.1 For-profit private higher education 19 2.1.2 The implications of a multi-campus structure on assessment practice 20 2.1.3 Assessment within an outcomes-led qualification framework 24 2.1.4 Graphic design assessment processes at PISA 28 2.2 The characteristics of design assessment 31 2.2.1 Assessing wicked competencies 32 2.2.2 Tacit knowledge in assessment 35 2.2.3 The assessment of person, process and product 39 2.2.4 Panel or group marking 47 2.3 Conclusion 52 iii Chapter 3 Conceptual framework 54 3.1 Knowledge theories 55 3.2 Critical realist metatheory 57 3.2.1 Abstraction 63 3.3 Bernstein’s knowledge theories 66 3.3.1 Classification and Framing 66 3.3.2 The pedagogic discourse 69 3.3.3 Knowledge structures 71 3.4 Knowledge-knower structures 76 3.4.1 Legitimation Code Theory 77 3.5 Conclusion 88 Chapter 4 Research design 89 4.1 The critical realist case study 90 4.1.1 The type of research question asked 90 4.1.2 Time and place 91 4.1.3 Insider research 92 4.1.4 Identifying the objects 96 4.1.5 The data 98 4.1.6 Interpretation of data 115 4.2 Ethics 126 4.3 Quality 128 4.4 Conclusion 130 Chapter 5 Graphic Design disciplinary knowledge 131 5.1 The regional mode of pedagogic discourse 132 5.1.1 Performance modes 133 5.1 The recontextualisation of knowledge and knower 137 5.2 New knowledge in Graphic Design 139 iv 5.2.1 Industry-based knowledge 140 5.2.2 Establishing new knowledge through research 144 5.3 Building Graphic Design knowledge 153 5.4 Sustainable design 157 5.4.1 Sustainable design in the field of production 158 5.5 Conclusion 160 Chapter 6 Analysis and findings of Graphic Design assessment data 162 6.1 Introduction 162 6.2 The contextual factors 163 6.3 A comparison of the specialisation codes used in GD assessment 174 6.3.1 Graphic Design Studio 1: a code clash 177 6.3.2 The strengthening of a GD gaze from first to third year 186 6.3.3 Web Design: a region in conflict 200 6.4 Sustainable design and the curriculum 208 6.4.1 Not valuing sustainable design 210 6.5 Conclusion 213 Chapter 7 Reflection on the findings and their implications 216 7.1 The development of theory 216 7.2 Addressing the research questions 217 7.2.1 Knower codes 219 7.3 Implications and possible transformation of practice 225 7.4 Limitations 230 7.5 Possibilities for further research 230 7.6 Conclusion 231 References 233 Appendix A Online survey questions 263 v Appendix B PISA marking rubric 271 Appendix C Table of all recorded data 273 Appendix D ER and SR coded themes in NVivo 274 Appendix E Example of coded theme 275 Appendix F Survey data frequencies and descriptives 278 Appendix G Consent document 279 Appendix H Example of a PISA Brief for Web Design 281 vi Acknowledgements The research journey is a long and relatively lonely one, but it was made easier by a number of people who assisted on many levels along the way. I wish to thank: My family and friends who have supported me in practical, emotional and occasionally humorous ways. Especially my niece Jenna who was always willing to listen, read, re- read and correct where needed. Without the wisdom, guidance, patience and encouragement of my two wise supervisors Prof. Lynn Quinn and Dr. Dina Belluigi I would have been lost. Their constructive feedback, encouragement and support have played a huge part in my getting to the end of this journey. The staff of the Faculty who put up with my obsession for a number of years and yet always encouraged and supported me. To those Graphic Design lecturers and assessors on many campuses who participated in this study and generously opened up their practice, voiced their opinions and offered up their time. The Gauteng critical realism research group for their food, company, stories and their willingness to listen and share as we progressed. The Research Committee of the case study institution and the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, as this study was partially funded by their contributions. vii List of tables and figures Table 1: Tacit expertise based on Eraut (2006, p. 3) 37 Table 2: Domains (Bhaskar, 2008a, p. 47) 59 Table 3: Vertical and horizontal discourse (Bernstein, 1999, p. 162) 72 Table 4: Classification and framing of epistemic relations and social relations 81 Table 5: Significant characteristics of a professional graphic designer 105 Table 6: Potential graphic design LCT(Specialisation) codes 117 Table 7: Definitions of Maton’s semantic and specialization codes as applicable to recontextualised design knowledge (Steyn, 2012, p. 44) 118 Table 8: Levels of design expertise based on Steyn (2012, pp.