Exploring Assessment Practices in Higher Education: A Legitimation Code Theory Perspective
Keywords:
: higher education, legitimation code theory, assessment reports, specialisation, semanticsAbstract
The aspect of advanced education that has received less attention is the academic discourse of examiners, particularly the assessment reports of PhD theses, leading to a lack of understanding of the evaluation process for novice researchers. This study examines the assessment practices of PhD examiners as reflected in doctoral assessment reports within the context of Pakistani higher education. 50 assessment reports were purposively collected from the English department of a Pakistani university (2022 and 2024) for qualitative discourse analysis. Drawing on Karl Maton's Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (2014), the dimensions of 'specialisation' and 'semantics' were employed to analyse these reports. The analysis revealed that the knowledge code is predominant, as examiners valued high-level theoretical engagement, methodological rigour and scholarly stance, legitimising abstract concepts and contextual understanding, which underscores disciplinary expertise. These findings offer insights into the knowledge of doctoral assessment practices in Pakistan and promote more contextually grounded and inclusive approaches to doctoral evaluation. The study demonstrates how LCT can serve as an analytical framework for examining educational discourse in higher education assessment.
References
Afful, J. B. A. (2020). The discourse of thesis assessment reports in a disciplinary community at the University of Cape Coast: An exploratory study. AFRREV LALIGENS: An International Journal of Language, Literature and Gender Studies, 9(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.4314/laligens.v9i1.11
Ashraf, A. Z., Sajida. (2019). Language Assessment in Higher Education: Challenges and Consequences. Pakistan Journal of Education, 36(3), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.30971/pje.v36i3.437
Aziz, A., Mahmood, M., Ahmad, S., & Akbar, N. (2021). A corpus-based study of genre specific discourse: M.A. TEFL thesis abstracts. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 17, 884-898. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.904084
Batool, S., Ali, A. F., & Safdar, M. (2022). What Pakistani doctoral students want? A qualitative exploration of their research experiences. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71(4/5), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-04-2021-0074
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216401735
Bilal, A., & Shehzad, W. (2019). Genre Analysis: Studying Authorial Stance in the Pakistani Research Articles of Business and Management Sciences. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(1), 455. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n1p455
Boud, D., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. Routledge.
Brooke, M., Loo, D. B., & Wong, C. (2023). Using Legitimation Code Theory to Define and Track the Practice of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 35(2),73-83. https://doi.org/10.7771/1812-9129.1006
Chetcuti, D., Cacciottolo, J., & Vella, N. (2022). What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293
Clarence, S. (2016). Exploring the nature of disciplinary teaching and learning using Legitimation Code Theory’s semantics. Teaching in higher education, 21(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1115972
Dally, K., Holbrook, A., Lovat, T., & Budd, J. (2019). Examiner feedback and Australian doctoral examination processes. The Australian Universities' review, 61(2), 31-41. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1228240.pdf
Fatima, N., Raza, A., & Ahmad, M. (2023). Linguistic Variations in the Abstracts of Pakistani Dissertations: A Multidimensional Analysis across Disciplines. University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 7, 50–80. https://doi.org/10.33195/btm19817
Forde-Leaves, N., Walton, J., & Tann, K. (2023). A framework for understanding assessment practice in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1076–1091.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2169659
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and Inconsistency in PhD Thesis Examination. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410805200103
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., Lovat, T. (2012). The focus and substance of formative comments provided by PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 983–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.750289
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333–347.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380936
Kashiha, H. (2024). Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101364
Khumalo, N. M. L., & Mbili, Z. (2023), Legitimation Code Theory as a Lens for Students' Academic Support at Mangosuthu University of Technology. In Proceedings of The Focus Conference (TFC 2022) (Vol. 732, p. 72). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-006-0_7
Kobayashi, S., & Emmeche, C. (2023). What makes a good PhD thesis? Norms of science as reflected in written assessments of PhD theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1310–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2200917
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.06.001
Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.5785/30-2-606
Maton, K., Hood, S., & Shay, S. (2016). Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672342
Maton, K., J.R. Martin and E. Mahuglio. (2016). LCT and systemic functional linguistics: Enacting complementary theories for explanatory power. In K K. Maton, S. Hood, and S. Shay (eds) Knowledge-Building: Educational Studies in Legitimation Code Theory. (pp. 93–l 13) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672342-14
McKenna, S., Quinn, L., & Vorster, J.-A. (2018). Mapping the field of Higher Education Research using PhD examination reports. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1428178
Monbec, L., Tilakaratna, N., Brooke, M., Lau, S. T., Chan, Y. S., & Wu, V. (2021). Designing a rubric for reflection in nursing: A Legitimation Code Theory and systemic functional linguistics-informed framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1855414
Muriisa, R. K. (2015). The state of doctoral education in social sciences in Uganda: Experiences and challenges of doctoral training at Mbarara University of Science and Technology, 2003–2010. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 204–213. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/21458/22166
Nausheen, M., & Zulfiqar, A. Z. Z. (2024). Assessment Practices at PhD Level: A Phenomenological Study of the PhD Scholars’ Experiences. Journal of Education and Humanities Research, 17(1), 50-62. http://jehronline.uob.edu.pk/journal/index.php/jehr/article/view/334/314
Nerad, M. (2020). Governmental Innovation Policies, Globalisation, and Change in Doctoral Education Worldwide: Are Doctoral Programmes Converging? Trends and Tensions. In S. Cardoso, O. Tavares, C. Sin, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education (pp. 43–84). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38046-5_3
Pitkethly, A. & Prosser, M. (1995) Examiners' comments on the international context of PhD theses. In C. McNaught, & K. Beattie (Eds.), Research into higher education: Dilemmas, directions and diversion (pp.129-36). Herdsa.
Pountney, R., & McPhail, G. (2017). Researching the interdisciplinary curriculum: The need for ‘translation devices.’ British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1068–1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3299
Rafi, M. S., & Moghees, A. (2023). Writing challenges, causes, and strategies to facilitate the doctoral dissertation‐writing process: A qualitative analysis. International Social Science Journal, 73(247), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12367
Rehman, A. U., Khan, M. I., & Waheed, Z. (2023). Academic Reading and Writing Challenges Faced by Doctoral Students in Peshawar, Pakistan: A Qualitative Study. UMT Education Review, 6(2), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.32350/uer.62.03
Rofess, S., & Mahmood, M. A. (2015). An Investigation of Generic Structures of Pakistani Doctoral Thesis Acknowledgements. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(28), 128–143. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081244.pdf
Solis Trujillo, B. P., Velarde-Camaqui, D., Gonzales Nuñez, C. A., Castillo Silva, E. V., & Gonzalez Said de la Oliva, M. del P. (2025). The current landscape of formative assessment and feedback in graduate studies: A systematic literature review. In Frontiers in Education, (Vol. 10, p. 1509983). Frontiers Media SA.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1509983
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., Kiley, M., & Lovat, T. (2015). Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Linguistics and Education, 31, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.06.004
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola, &A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–57). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ullah, I., Imtiaz, A., & Khan, S. (2021). Emerging Academic Identities in a Foreign Context: Pakistani International Doctoral Students’ Responses to Supervisory Feedback in New Zealand. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 1, 4428–4450.
Walter, M. (2013). The nature of social science research. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods (4th ed, pp. 3–24). Oxford University Press.
Walton, J., & Wolff, K. (2022). Extending Shay’s double truth: Toward a nuanced view of subjectivity and objectivity in assessment practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(8), 1120–1135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2121159
Wilmot, K., & McKenna, S. (2021). Putting Knowledge at the Centre: The Uptake of Legitimation Code Theory in Higher Education Studies in South Africa. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (pp. 147–160). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220210000007009
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fouzia Goreja, Prof. Dr. Wasima shehzad (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
