Criminal law syllabi throughout the common law world, including in Hong Kong, primarily focus on homicide, other violent offences, sexual offences, and property offences – offences typically categorised as mala in se (evil in and of themselves). They do this largely for traditional reasons – because these are the crimes which the syllabus has always focused on. Yet this is not what criminal law practice really looks like, whether in the courtroom or in advising clients. This research study utilises data on crime prevalence in Hong Kong as well as a self-reporting survey of criminal law practitioners in an effort to more closely align the LLB/JD criminal law teaching syllabus with the present and future realities of legal practice in Hong Kong, at least in terms of the specific offences covered. The empirical findings suggest that legal educators in Hong Kong ought to consider adding drugs, driving, regulatory and ‘white collar’ offences to the criminal law syllabus, while removing homicide and sexual offences entirely. These new inclusions serve as sufficiently nuanced illustrations of the general principles of criminal liability, help students to develop a critical perspective towards crime and criminalisation, while being frequently encountered in local criminal practice.
{"title":"The Criminal Law Syllabus and the Realities of Legal Practice in Hong Kong","authors":"Daniel Pascoe","doi":"10.53300/001c.23731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.23731","url":null,"abstract":"Criminal law syllabi throughout the common law world, including in Hong Kong, primarily focus on homicide, other violent offences, sexual offences, and property offences – offences typically categorised as mala in se (evil in and of themselves). They do this largely for traditional reasons – because these are the crimes which the syllabus has always focused on. Yet this is not what criminal law practice really looks like, whether in the courtroom or in advising clients. This research study utilises data on crime prevalence in Hong Kong as well as a self-reporting survey of criminal law practitioners in an effort to more closely align the LLB/JD criminal law teaching syllabus with the present and future realities of legal practice in Hong Kong, at least in terms of the specific offences covered. The empirical findings suggest that legal educators in Hong Kong ought to consider adding drugs, driving, regulatory and ‘white collar’ offences to the criminal law syllabus, while removing homicide and sexual offences entirely. These new inclusions serve as sufficiently nuanced illustrations of the general principles of criminal liability, help students to develop a critical perspective towards crime and criminalisation, while being frequently encountered in local criminal practice.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48502024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this article is to examine whether legal reasoning skills can be appropriately assessed in a law degree, using multiple-choice question assessment. The use of multiple-choice assessment in university law schools is common, although not universally accepted as an effective pedagogical tool. In this article, both quantitative and qualitative empirical research methods have been adopted to examine whether the unique skill of legal reasoning is amenable to being tested through multiple-choice assessment. The position argued is that multiple-choice assessment, when properly constructed using identified guiding principles, is an efficient and effective way to assess legal reasoning abilities.
{"title":"Can Multiple Choice Exams Be Used to Assess Legal Reasoning? An Empirical Study of Law Student Performance and Attitudes","authors":"Danielle Bozin, Felicity Deane, James Duffy","doi":"10.53300/001C.23484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.23484","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to examine whether legal reasoning skills can be appropriately assessed in a law degree, using multiple-choice question assessment. The use of multiple-choice assessment in university law schools is common, although not universally accepted as an effective pedagogical tool. In this article, both quantitative and qualitative empirical research methods have been adopted to examine whether the unique skill of legal reasoning is amenable to being tested through multiple-choice assessment. The position argued is that multiple-choice assessment, when properly constructed using identified guiding principles, is an efficient and effective way to assess legal reasoning abilities.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41539917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper adopts a participatory evaluation approach to identify successes and challenges experienced by a group of academics in redesigning and delivering the first year of the Law degree (LLB) in block mode in an Australian university. This transformation into an intensive four-week block necessitated an overhaul of curricula, assessment regimes, teaching practices and delivery processes. The evaluation of the academics staff experience focused on five themes: (1) course design and development, (2) satisfying learning outcomes and accreditation standards, (3) implementing student engagement strategies, (4) embedding block mode principles, and (5) establishing effective assessment regimes. For each theme, participants identified the successes, challenges, and lessons learned. The study highlighted the value of early design-specialist involvement and collaboration in course design including the importance of being aware of the legal accreditation body requirements. The criticality of focused active learning and the need to balance lecture-style delivery with knowledge-consolidating practical legal analysis exercises was emphasised. Also stressed was wellbeing, including sensitivity to individual student circumstances and strategies that successfully manage staff and student workloads alongside academic integrity. Unintended benefits such as professional learning through the collaboration, refining personal thinking related to pedagogy in the block were consequences of this evaluative approach.
{"title":"A Participatory Evaluation of Transforming First Year LLB Into Block Mode","authors":"Gayani Samarawickrema, Tristan Galloway, Kathleen Raponi, Gerard Everett","doi":"10.53300/001c.22297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.22297","url":null,"abstract":"This paper adopts a participatory evaluation approach to identify successes and challenges experienced by a group of academics in redesigning and delivering the first year of the Law degree (LLB) in block mode in an Australian university. This transformation into an intensive four-week block necessitated an overhaul of curricula, assessment regimes, teaching practices and delivery processes. The evaluation of the academics staff experience focused on five themes: (1) course design and development, (2) satisfying learning outcomes and accreditation standards, (3) implementing student engagement strategies, (4) embedding block mode principles, and (5) establishing effective assessment regimes. For each theme, participants identified the successes, challenges, and lessons learned. The study highlighted the value of early design-specialist involvement and collaboration in course design including the importance of being aware of the legal accreditation body requirements. The criticality of focused active learning and the need to balance lecture-style delivery with knowledge-consolidating practical legal analysis exercises was emphasised. Also stressed was wellbeing, including sensitivity to individual student circumstances and strategies that successfully manage staff and student workloads alongside academic integrity. Unintended benefits such as professional learning through the collaboration, refining personal thinking related to pedagogy in the block were consequences of this evaluative approach.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46350890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With Artificial Intelligence steadily advancing, emblematic of change broadly, many argue that soft skills will be the central determinants of a lawyer’s success. Soft skills comprise a ‘combination of competencies that contribute to how people know and manage themselves as well as their relationships with others’. However, there is real need for more scholarship on how to teach them at law school. Meanwhile, and accelerated by COVID-19, universities are changing their models in favour of online or blended learning. But again, there is very little research on what an online context can do to support soft skills learning. Indeed, online learning is associated with learner isolation, frustration, disengagement, all of which are at odds with socio-emotional skills development. This article provides a critical analysis of the meanings and importance of soft skills, and the structural factors against their prominence in legal education. It also reviews teaching practices across the tertiary sector, to provide frameworks and a set of strategies for teaching them to law students, with a focus on the digital format.
{"title":"Teaching Soft Skills Including Online: A Review and Framework","authors":"J. Rogers","doi":"10.53300/001c.19108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.19108","url":null,"abstract":"With Artificial Intelligence steadily advancing, emblematic of change broadly, many argue that soft skills will be the central determinants of a lawyer’s success. Soft skills comprise a ‘combination of competencies that contribute to how people know and manage themselves as well as their relationships with others’. However, there is real need for more scholarship on how to teach them at law school. Meanwhile, and accelerated by COVID-19, universities are changing their models in favour of online or blended learning. But again, there is very little research on what an online context can do to support soft skills learning. Indeed, online learning is associated with learner isolation, frustration, disengagement, all of which are at odds with socio-emotional skills development. This article provides a critical analysis of the meanings and importance of soft skills, and the structural factors against their prominence in legal education. It also reviews teaching practices across the tertiary sector, to provide frameworks and a set of strategies for teaching them to law students, with a focus on the digital format.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46681059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues why it is vital to inculcate law students with a pro bono ethos on their journey through law school to becoming a lawyer, and suggests ways that we might do this better during a student’s legal education and practical legal training in Australia. Based on the argument that professionalism is more than ever under threat and its survival in the law, as much as anywhere, seems increasingly fragile, it makes the case for the importance of this issue and suggests practical opportunities for students, law schools, providers of practical legal training, and regulation to better inculcate law students with the pro bono ethos, and to enhance the ethical value of lawyers providing ‘public service’. The paper examines what we might mean by the pro bono ethos, the current ways that this issue is approached in Australia and compares student pro bono, clinical legal education’ pre-admission rules, and other initiatives in the USA, Canada and the UK, as well as the Australian regulatory framework, to arrive at conclusions about opportunities for change.
{"title":"The Importance of Inculcating the ‘Pro Bono Ethos’ in Law Students, and the Opportunities to Do It Better","authors":"John R Corker","doi":"10.53300/001c.17542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.17542","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues why it is vital to inculcate law students with a pro bono ethos on their journey through law school to becoming a lawyer, and suggests ways that we might do this better during a student’s legal education and practical legal training in Australia.\u0000\u0000Based on the argument that professionalism is more than ever under threat and its survival in the law, as much as anywhere, seems increasingly fragile, it makes the case for the importance of this issue and suggests practical opportunities for students, law schools, providers of practical legal training, and regulation to better inculcate law students with the pro bono ethos, and to enhance the ethical value of lawyers providing ‘public service’. \u0000\u0000The paper examines what we might mean by the pro bono ethos, the current ways that this issue is approached in Australia and compares student pro bono, clinical legal education’ pre-admission rules, and other initiatives in the USA, Canada and the UK, as well as the Australian regulatory framework, to arrive at conclusions about opportunities for change.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"30 1","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45012196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Doctor of Philosophy (‘PhD’) students in Australia undertake at least three years of full-time equivalent independent research to generate innovative knowledge within their chosen discipline. Research indicates, however, that globally half of all enrolled PhD students fail to complete. For those who do complete, despite the increasing imposition of academic milestones and supervisory requirements, many require an extension or an approved period of interruption of their candidature. While attracting and retaining high-quality PhD students who complete their research project within the required timeframe is an institutional priority for all universities, the availability of programs to support the timely completion of PhD theses across Australian universities, is variable. Moreover, little is known specifically about the institutional support programs available for students undertaking a PhD in law, reasons for adopting chosen support programs, or how effective the programs that are available are in supporting students to successful and timely completions. The research study across select Australian universities reported on in this article sought to begin to close this knowledge gap. In doing so, it: 1) provides an overview and synthesis of the Australian and international literature on achieving timely PhD completions across disciplines; 2) presents the results from two surveys: a perceptions survey of students enrolled in PhD programs at Australian law schools; and a survey of the support programs offered at 16 Australian law schools; and 3) drawing on the conclusions from the literature and survey results, explores how best to support PhD students in law to successful and timely completions. Key conclusions emerged from this study relevant to both law PhD students and law schools. Overwhelmingly, the results indicate that the importance of a collegial and communicative supervisor cannot be overstated. Further, students who engage informally with other academics (such as PhD mentors) as well as their PhD peers are also more likely to complete. Overall, while acknowledging that, inevitably, personal characteristics and circumstances affect PhD success, we conclude that institutional level support may nonetheless contribute to timely completions in law.
{"title":"Enhancing institutional support to ensure timely PhD completions in law","authors":"Jade Lindley, Natalie Skead, M. Montalto","doi":"10.53300/001c.17448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.17448","url":null,"abstract":"Doctor of Philosophy (‘PhD’) students in Australia undertake at least three years of full-time equivalent independent research to generate innovative knowledge within their chosen discipline. Research indicates, however, that globally half of all enrolled PhD students fail to complete. For those who do complete, despite the increasing imposition of academic milestones and supervisory requirements, many require an extension or an approved period of interruption of their candidature. While attracting and retaining high-quality PhD students who complete their research project within the required timeframe is an institutional priority for all universities, the availability of programs to support the timely completion of PhD theses across Australian universities, is variable. Moreover, little is known specifically about the institutional support programs available for students undertaking a PhD in law, reasons for adopting chosen support programs, or how effective the programs that are available are in supporting students to successful and timely completions. The research study across select Australian universities reported on in this article sought to begin to close this knowledge gap. In doing so, it: 1) provides an overview and synthesis of the Australian and international literature on achieving timely PhD completions across disciplines; 2) presents the results from two surveys: a perceptions survey of students enrolled in PhD programs at Australian law schools; and a survey of the support programs offered at 16 Australian law schools; and 3) drawing on the conclusions from the literature and survey results, explores how best to support PhD students in law to successful and timely completions. Key conclusions emerged from this study relevant to both law PhD students and law schools. Overwhelmingly, the results indicate that the importance of a collegial and communicative supervisor cannot be overstated. Further, students who engage informally with other academics (such as PhD mentors) as well as their PhD peers are also more likely to complete. Overall, while acknowledging that, inevitably, personal characteristics and circumstances affect PhD success, we conclude that institutional level support may nonetheless contribute to timely completions in law.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"30 1","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45285694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Warwick G Fisher, J. Orr, John Page, Alessandro Pelizzon, H. Walsh
In this paper, we survey the recent literature of student evaluation surveys ('SETs') in the university sector, in so doing identifying a number of diverse issues that this literature reveals, and contextualising its general findings to the teaching practices of a regional Australian law school. This article argues that, contrary to their original intention, SETs are more often used as blunt instruments than nuanced pedagogical tools. Case studies drawn from Southern Cross University's School of Law and Justice corroborate the general tenor of the literature, namely that there is 'little evidence that study findings are being used to change or improve the student learning experience.' Rather, these increasingly streamlined surveys provide online opportunities to take the subjective 'pulse' of student satisfaction, momentary snapshots that often generate instant heat, but shed little light. We argue that SETs need to be seen in context, as part of a wider and more pedagogically informed measure of good teaching. While it seems unlikely that SETs in their present form will disappear overnight, their continuing validity requires current teaching evaluation to be itself evaluated, the first priority being the paring back of survey questions to only those factors capable of objective and verifiable measurement.
{"title":"Student evaluations: Pedagogical tools, or weapons of choice?","authors":"Warwick G Fisher, J. Orr, John Page, Alessandro Pelizzon, H. Walsh","doi":"10.53300/001c.14561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.14561","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we survey the recent literature of student evaluation surveys ('SETs') in the university sector, in so doing identifying a number of diverse issues that this literature reveals, and contextualising its general findings to the teaching practices of a regional Australian law school.\u0000\u0000This article argues that, contrary to their original intention, SETs are more often used as blunt instruments than nuanced pedagogical tools. Case studies drawn from Southern Cross University's School of Law and Justice corroborate the general tenor of the literature, namely that there is 'little evidence that study findings are being used to change or improve the student learning experience.' Rather, these increasingly streamlined surveys provide online opportunities to take the subjective 'pulse' of student satisfaction, momentary snapshots that often generate instant heat, but shed little light.\u0000\u0000We argue that SETs need to be seen in context, as part of a wider and more pedagogically informed measure of good teaching. While it seems unlikely that SETs in their present form will disappear overnight, their continuing validity requires current teaching evaluation to be itself evaluated, the first priority being the paring back of survey questions to only those factors capable of objective and verifiable measurement.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45647936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Academic inbreeding refers to the practice of universities hiring their own graduates. Academic inbreeding has been shown to reduce research productivity, encourage hiring and promotion practices based on social connections rather than transparent, objective and merit-based criteria, and to inhibit innovation by entrenching existing academic culture. Despite the negative effects of inbreeding, there is little empirical research on the problem. This paper investigates the extent and profile of different types of inbreeding among 700 legal academics in 17 Australian law schools. It examines the extent, characteristics and effects of different types of inbred academics, including ‘highly immobile’ academics who have spent their entire careers in the one institution and ‘silver-corded’ academics who return to their alma mater after working elsewhere. We also examine whether inbreeding relates to the status of the university and law school in which an academic is employed, gender, level of appointment, and research productivity. We find that over 40% of Australian legal academics are inbred at some level, and that high levels of inbreeding are more likely to occur in elite law schools and among female and early career academics, although inbreeding does not relate to research productivity.
{"title":"Inbreeding and the Reproduction of Elitism: An Empirical Examination of Inbreeding Within Australian Legal Academia","authors":"A. Melville, A. Barrow, Patrick Morgan","doi":"10.53300/001c.13183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.13183","url":null,"abstract":"Academic inbreeding refers to the practice of universities hiring their own graduates. Academic inbreeding has been shown to reduce research productivity, encourage hiring and promotion practices based on social connections rather than transparent, objective and merit-based criteria, and to inhibit innovation by entrenching existing academic culture. Despite the negative effects of inbreeding, there is little empirical research on the problem. This paper investigates the extent and profile of different types of inbreeding among 700 legal academics in 17 Australian law schools. It examines the extent, characteristics and effects of different types of inbred academics, including ‘highly immobile’ academics who have spent their entire careers in the one institution and ‘silver-corded’ academics who return to their alma mater after working elsewhere. We also examine whether inbreeding relates to the status of the university and law school in which an academic is employed, gender, level of appointment, and research productivity. We find that over 40% of Australian legal academics are inbred at some level, and that high levels of inbreeding are more likely to occur in elite law schools and among female and early career academics, although inbreeding does not relate to research productivity.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"30 1","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43532716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Teaching any law subject is inevitably a struggle to reconcile theory with practice, but administrative law offers its own particular challenges in this regard. Despite its potentially rich subject matter and its ability to intersect with other areas of law, a lack of perceptible cohesion and a ‘disconnect’ with the ‘real world’ continues to vex students and teachers of administrative law alike. Understanding how merits review, judicial review and other accountability mechanisms ‘fit together’, and how they interact with the various judicial and quasi-judicial institutions as well as primary and delegated legislation and government policy, can be a herculean task. Students often find connecting the theory and principles of administrative law with ‘real life’ legal and social situations confounding, which is exacerbated by the fact that administrative law does not deal with one cohesive subject matter or legislative scheme but crosses a variety of subject matters, the only unifying factor being government regulation. Further, principles of judicial review and the framework for merits and judicial review can prove conceptually challenging and students can find the material dry and uninteresting. Whilst this affliction is by no means unique to administrative law, when combined with issues of cohesion and disconnect, administrative law presents distinct pedagogical challenges for its teachers. The challenges that administrative law poses for its teachers and learners have not been overlooked in legal education scholarship. Common to this research is recognition of the need to ‘contextualise’ administrative law, or place it in the ‘real world’. Methods suggested include the use of topical issues that can help place administrative law in a historical, political and socio-economic context, express incorporation of indigenous content, investigation of the work of citizen advocate services and the utilisation of clients through clinical legal education. Might mooting, a rite of passage for all law students, help students contextualise administrative law through an understanding of how a matter proceeds through the levels of review? Could mooting help create the elusive connection between theory and practice? This paper reports upon on a three-year pilot of an assessable moot that was introduced into the subject Administrative Law at the University of Wollongong in 2016. Structured student feedback provides an insight into the pedagogical and administrative challenges and successes of assessable moots in promoting a skills-based, student-centred learning experience that encourages the development of advocacy skills and substantive knowledge that may be transferred to professional practice.
{"title":"Assessable Moots in Administrative Law: The Role of Student Feedback in Creating Cohesion","authors":"Niamh Kinchin","doi":"10.53300/001c.12914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.12914","url":null,"abstract":"Teaching any law subject is inevitably a struggle to reconcile theory with practice, but administrative law offers its own particular challenges in this regard. Despite its potentially rich subject matter and its ability to intersect with other areas of law, a lack of perceptible cohesion and a ‘disconnect’ with the ‘real world’ continues to vex students and teachers of administrative law alike. Understanding how merits review, judicial review and other accountability mechanisms ‘fit together’, and how they interact with the various judicial and quasi-judicial institutions as well as primary and delegated legislation and government policy, can be a herculean task. Students often find connecting the theory and principles of administrative law with ‘real life’ legal and social situations confounding, which is exacerbated by the fact that administrative law does not deal with one cohesive subject matter or legislative scheme but crosses a variety of subject matters, the only unifying factor being government regulation. Further, principles of judicial review and the framework for merits and judicial review can prove conceptually challenging and students can find the material dry and uninteresting. Whilst this affliction is by no means unique to administrative law, when combined with issues of cohesion and disconnect, administrative law presents distinct pedagogical challenges for its teachers. \u0000\u0000The challenges that administrative law poses for its teachers and learners have not been overlooked in legal education scholarship. Common to this research is recognition of the need to ‘contextualise’ administrative law, or place it in the ‘real world’. Methods suggested include the use of topical issues that can help place administrative law in a historical, political and socio-economic context, express incorporation of indigenous content, investigation of the work of citizen advocate services and the utilisation of clients through clinical legal education. Might mooting, a rite of passage for all law students, help students contextualise administrative law through an understanding of how a matter proceeds through the levels of review? Could mooting help create the elusive connection between theory and practice? This paper reports upon on a three-year pilot of an assessable moot that was introduced into the subject Administrative Law at the University of Wollongong in 2016. Structured student feedback provides an insight into the pedagogical and administrative challenges and successes of assessable moots in promoting a skills-based, student-centred learning experience that encourages the development of advocacy skills and substantive knowledge that may be transferred to professional practice.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46974168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Before they enter practice, law students need to be able to work effectively in groups. This reality has been acknowledged by the universities and legal professional bodies. The Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for the Australian Law degree stipulate, for instance, that law students must acquire and be able to demonstrate skills in collaboration and communication. Meanwhile, a growing body of research is establishing the positive links between group work and a range of benefits, including achievement, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, creativity, wellbeing and satisfaction. Not only does group work enhance a student’s experience and individual performance, it also equips them with critical practice skills. Despite this, law students typically dislike and resist group work, which means they may not be achieving important professional competencies. Nevertheless, to force students into group learning would seem counterproductive. As we examine in this paper, students’ aversion to group work likely signals low intrinsic motivation – where intrinsic motivation means doing something because it is in itself enjoyable or optimally challenging; and where extrinsic motivation, by contrast, means doing something because it leads to or avoids a separate outcome. Making group work assessable as the primary way to induce student collaboration, or otherwise simply mandating it, means participation rests on external rewards and punishments. Extrinsic teaching approaches usually result in less effective learning. We argue in this paper that when designing group work, it is essential to consider and apply theories of learning motivation. This article asks the following: How can we increase the likelihood that law students positively engage in collaborative learning? To address this, the article draws on a theory of motivation, Self-Determination Theory (‘SDT’), to propose a framework and set of strategies for effective group-based learning in legal education. Pintrick and Schunk describe SDT as ‘one of the most comprehensive and empirically supported theories of motivation available today.’ It has been used in other legal educational areas, including curriculum design and assessment, and ethics and wellbeing. However, we consider it especially useful for group-based learning. The article adds to the small but growing legal education scholarship on teamwork, and makes distinct contributions in its motivational theory dimension, setting up an SDT framework designed to promote collaborative learning.
{"title":"Motivated to Collaborate: A Self-determination Framework to Improve Group-Based Learning","authors":"J. Rogers, M. Nehme","doi":"10.53300/001c.12559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.12559","url":null,"abstract":"Before they enter practice, law students need to be able to work effectively in groups. This reality has been acknowledged by the universities and legal professional bodies. The Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for the Australian Law degree stipulate, for instance, that law students must acquire and be able to demonstrate skills in collaboration and communication. Meanwhile, a growing body of research is establishing the positive links between group work and a range of benefits, including achievement, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, creativity, wellbeing and satisfaction. Not only does group work enhance a student’s experience and individual performance, it also equips them with critical practice skills. Despite this, law students typically dislike and resist group work, which means they may not be achieving important professional competencies. \u0000\u0000Nevertheless, to force students into group learning would seem counterproductive. As we examine in this paper, students’ aversion to group work likely signals low intrinsic motivation – where intrinsic motivation means doing something because it is in itself enjoyable or optimally challenging; and where extrinsic motivation, by contrast, means doing something because it leads to or avoids a separate outcome. Making group work assessable as the primary way to induce student collaboration, or otherwise simply mandating it, means participation rests on external rewards and punishments. Extrinsic teaching approaches usually result in less effective learning. We argue in this paper that when designing group work, it is essential to consider and apply theories of learning motivation. This article asks the following: How can we increase the likelihood that law students positively engage in collaborative learning? \u0000\u0000To address this, the article draws on a theory of motivation, Self-Determination Theory (‘SDT’), to propose a framework and set of strategies for effective group-based learning in legal education. Pintrick and Schunk describe SDT as ‘one of the most comprehensive and empirically supported theories of motivation available today.’ It has been used in other legal educational areas, including curriculum design and assessment, and ethics and wellbeing. However, we consider it especially useful for group-based learning. The article adds to the small but growing legal education scholarship on teamwork, and makes distinct contributions in its motivational theory dimension, setting up an SDT framework designed to promote collaborative learning.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41800982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：