Thanks Glenn,

Not only have you made my day, but you have got me thinking about 
what is it that we actually do when we learn how to design (I am 
speaking as student, designer and teacher). I think there may be a 
need to radically re-think assessment processes in design education 
so that we can determine how to assist students find out what they 
are learning, how they learn it and what they need/want to learn 
next, on their own levels, on their own individual learning 
trajectories...which may of course, include 'winging it' - something 
I do regularly when learning, teaching, and designing! Can this be a 
legitimate assessment component?

Assessment seems to influence student self-perception of their 
aptitude in subject areas, particularly in the early stages of an 
undergrad degree, meaning if they get a good mark, they think they 
are good at something, with little reflection on whether they enjoy 
it, what they got out of it, etc. Assessment seems to be more a 
measure of how to get a high grade.

I am not necessarily suggesting that course content needs to change 
dramatically (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't), but how is design 
'thinking' really evaluated when it is being assessed? Does it have 
to be 'recognised' by the teacher in the outcome to get a good mark, 
or can it appear in student critical self-reflection alone, 
evidenced, say, in a written/sketched journal? For example, what do 
we actually assess when we award a mark for presentation - is it 
technical proficiency according to industry/institution standards, or 
a student's capacity to learn/demonstrate nuance and rhetoric in 
presentation, as they persuade us their outcome/process is worth a D? 
(I am provoking, rather than answering questions).

Funnily, I am not sure I use any 'formulaic traditions' when I design 
(at least it doesn't seem so in my head), so perhaps that is why I 
struggle when using formal assessment criteria when I assess student 
work - should I assess their outcome (as would happen in industry) or 
do I assess their capacity for progress in learning (which is 
presumably why they are there), and how does this manifest within the 
range of assessable components? I don't mean that students don't need 
to learn skills, but the institutional emphasis on courses to provide 
opportunities for learning 'generic attributes' begs the question - 
how do students assess their acquisition of these, and how is this 
accountable - they are not formal assessment requirements in their 
final grades. Hmmm.

regards, teena
-- 
Teena Clerke
PO Box 1090
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
0414 502 648