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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
The Law School and the School of Indigenous Studies at the University of Western Australia (UWA) have embarked on a project to ‘Indigenise’ the UWA Juris Doctor (JD) degree. For the purposes of the project, ‘Indigenise’ is defined as the incorporation of Indigenous knowledges, cultures and experiences throughout the JD in a way that is consistent with our Principles of Indigenisation (see Part IV below). The project began in 2018, and it is expected to take five years to develop the initial curriculum across all units of the JD. This article examines key features of the project in the context of the broader complexities of Indigenisation of curriculum. These features are: (1) an equitable and ongoing partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; (2) a set of best practice principles for Indigenisation; (3) a culturally competent approach; (4) a whole-of-degree basis for curriculum change; and (5) an iterative and supported process for curriculum development and delivery. The term ‘cultural competency’ can be fraught and requires exploration (see Part V below). For now it is sufficient to note that the Indigenisation Project has adopted a definition of cultural competency that consists of three key understandings. First, cultural competency is a journey not a destination; a lifelong active learning process, not a passive state of being. Second, an understanding of Indigenous peoples and contexts, along with the ability to relate to peoples and contexts in accordance with best practice principles. This must include local peoples and contexts (that is, engagement with the Indigenous peoples on whose Country an organisation exists). Third, an ability to articulate and critically engage with one’s own cultural and professional contexts. The structure of this article is reflective of the process-oriented approach taken to the project as a whole, or to put this another way, the ‘how’ informs the ‘what’. The ‘what’ of Indigenous content within any given unit arises from, and sustained by, the processes put in place by the larger project and the partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples that underpins it. Parts III - V of this article deal with the importance of that partnership; the principles against which our content is measured; and the ways in which we are developing the cultural competence of our staff and students. These matters are placed in a broader context of their relevance to higher education and to the working environments of the 21st century (Part II). In this regard it is noted that the project is informed by a broad knowledge-base which includes decades of work on cultural competency, including in relation to curriculum development outside of law schools. The legal academy is a relative newcomer to Indigenisation, and there is much to be learned from experiences in other knowledge-disciplines as well as from work done across professional contexts. The final two sections focus more specifically on the im
{"title":"Teaching for the 21st Century: Indigenising the Law Curriculum at UWA","authors":"A. Kwaymullina","doi":"10.53300/001C.12080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.12080","url":null,"abstract":"The Law School and the School of Indigenous Studies at the University of Western Australia (UWA) have embarked on a project to ‘Indigenise’ the UWA Juris Doctor (JD) degree. For the purposes of the project, ‘Indigenise’ is defined as the incorporation of Indigenous knowledges, cultures and experiences throughout the JD in a way that is consistent with our Principles of Indigenisation (see Part IV below). \u0000\u0000The project began in 2018, and it is expected to take five years to develop the initial curriculum across all units of the JD. This article examines key features of the project in the context of the broader complexities of Indigenisation of curriculum. These features are: (1) an equitable and ongoing partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; (2) a set of best practice principles for Indigenisation; (3) a culturally competent approach; (4) a whole-of-degree basis for curriculum change; and (5) an iterative and supported process for curriculum development and delivery. \u0000\u0000The term ‘cultural competency’ can be fraught and requires exploration (see Part V below). For now it is sufficient to note that the Indigenisation Project has adopted a definition of cultural competency that consists of three key understandings. First, cultural competency is a journey not a destination; a lifelong active learning process, not a passive state of being. Second, an understanding of Indigenous peoples and contexts, along with the ability to relate to peoples and contexts in accordance with best practice principles. This must include local peoples and contexts (that is, engagement with the Indigenous peoples on whose Country an organisation exists). Third, an ability to articulate and critically engage with one’s own cultural and professional contexts.\u0000\u0000The structure of this article is reflective of the process-oriented approach taken to the project as a whole, or to put this another way, the ‘how’ informs the ‘what’. The ‘what’ of Indigenous content within any given unit arises from, and sustained by, the processes put in place by the larger project and the partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples that underpins it. Parts III - V of this article deal with the importance of that partnership; the principles against which our content is measured; and the ways in which we are developing the cultural competence of our staff and students. These matters are placed in a broader context of their relevance to higher education and to the working environments of the 21st century (Part II). In this regard it is noted that the project is informed by a broad knowledge-base which includes decades of work on cultural competency, including in relation to curriculum development outside of law schools. The legal academy is a relative newcomer to Indigenisation, and there is much to be learned from experiences in other knowledge-disciplines as well as from work done across professional contexts. \u0000\u0000The final two sections focus more specifically on the im","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43636121","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}
ABSTRACT This article examines empirical research which surveyed 69 legal ethics students, and analyses the impact of a short clinical experience on students’ confidence in their later legal studies. It connects the importance of providing meaningful experiences to law students in their degree program in order to build their sense of purpose and intrinsic motivation. While an entire clinical course would be expected to impact positively on students’ confidence and sense of purpose, it is a new finding that even a short clinical experience can have this effect. Building in experiences which reinforce students’ sense of purpose and competence has the potential to support students’ intrinsic motivation for law students studying law. This has flow on impacts for students’ mental health and ability to successfully complete their studies.
{"title":"Developing Students’ Sense of Autonomy, Competence and Purpose Through a Clinical Component in Ethics Teaching","authors":"Anna Cody","doi":"10.53300/001c.10224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.10224","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000This article examines empirical research which surveyed 69 legal ethics students, and analyses the impact of a short clinical experience on students’ confidence in their later legal studies. It connects the importance of providing meaningful experiences to law students in their degree program in order to build their sense of purpose and intrinsic motivation. While an entire clinical course would be expected to impact positively on students’ confidence and sense of purpose, it is a new finding that even a short clinical experience can have this effect. Building in experiences which reinforce students’ sense of purpose and competence has the potential to support students’ intrinsic motivation for law students studying law. This has flow on impacts for students’ mental health and ability to successfully complete their studies.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47155759","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}
Effective feedback allows teachers to review, reflect and improve their teaching practices. Students’ feedback is key to teachers’ reflection as they are an important stakeholder in the teaching and learning community. In order for students’ feedback to foster teachers’ critical self-reflection, it is crucial to establish an appropriate opportunity and method to motivate students to provide effective feedback. This article seeks to investigate whether mid-term student evaluations, which are conducted in the middle of the term when the course is taught half-way through, provide a potentially better or alternative opportunity in obtaining honest and effective student feedback so that teachers can hear student voice. This article reports on the findings of an empirical study on both the students’ and teachers’ perceptions on mid-term student evaluations implemented in a few post-graduate law courses at The University of Hong Kong. A total of 73 students and 9 teachers participated in and completed the surveys of this study during the academic years of 2017-2019. The findings suggest that the key factors in motivating the students to provide honest feedback through the mid-term student evaluations are the perceived benefit to the students themselves and their belief that their teachers care about their feedback. This article argues that mid-term student evaluations advance perceived caring of the teachers by showing that the teachers are empathetic, understand and respect students’ views, and are responsive and react to student needs when they listen to what the students say. The findings suggest, however, that the teachers did not perceive the mid-term student evaluations as positively as the students, but the teacher participants believed that they had received generally constructive feedback from their students through mid-term student evaluations. Based on the results of empirical analysis, this article proposes a ‘motivation-driven student evaluation cycle’ which provides a more comprehensive model in setting out the crucial and ideal steps in a student evaluation process to achieve enhancement in students’ learning and teachers’ teaching effectiveness. If both the students and the teachers have more motivation to participate in this evaluation cycle through mid-term student evaluations, then mid-term student evaluations will be instrumental in enhancing teaching and learning.
{"title":"How to Encourage Student Voice: Obtaining Effective Feedback from Law Students in Course Evaluation","authors":"Vicci Y.J. Lau","doi":"10.53300/001c.10225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.10225","url":null,"abstract":"Effective feedback allows teachers to review, reflect and improve their teaching practices. Students’ feedback is key to teachers’ reflection as they are an important stakeholder in the teaching and learning community. In order for students’ feedback to foster teachers’ critical self-reflection, it is crucial to establish an appropriate opportunity and method to motivate students to provide effective feedback. This article seeks to investigate whether mid-term student evaluations, which are conducted in the middle of the term when the course is taught half-way through, provide a potentially better or alternative opportunity in obtaining honest and effective student feedback so that teachers can hear student voice. This article reports on the findings of an empirical study on both the students’ and teachers’ perceptions on mid-term student evaluations implemented in a few post-graduate law courses at The University of Hong Kong. A total of 73 students and 9 teachers participated in and completed the surveys of this study during the academic years of 2017-2019. The findings suggest that the key factors in motivating the students to provide honest feedback through the mid-term student evaluations are the perceived benefit to the students themselves and their belief that their teachers care about their feedback. This article argues that mid-term student evaluations advance perceived caring of the teachers by showing that the teachers are empathetic, understand and respect students’ views, and are responsive and react to student needs when they listen to what the students say. The findings suggest, however, that the teachers did not perceive the mid-term student evaluations as positively as the students, but the teacher participants believed that they had received generally constructive feedback from their students through mid-term student evaluations. Based on the results of empirical analysis, this article proposes a ‘motivation-driven student evaluation cycle’ which provides a more comprehensive model in setting out the crucial and ideal steps in a student evaluation process to achieve enhancement in students’ learning and teachers’ teaching effectiveness. If both the students and the teachers have more motivation to participate in this evaluation cycle through mid-term student evaluations, then mid-term student evaluations will be instrumental in enhancing teaching and learning.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42491089","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}
A. Steel, L. B. Moses, J. Laurens, Charlotte Brady
{"title":"Use of E-exams in High Stakes Law School Examinations: Student and Staff Reactions","authors":"A. Steel, L. B. Moses, J. Laurens, Charlotte Brady","doi":"10.53300/001c.9461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.9461","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45862827","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}
Law teachers have debated whether teaching statutory interpretation as a distinct body of law requires that it be taught as a stand-alone subject, or whether it is best to ‘embed’ statutory interpretation within other subjects. There are benefits and problems with both approaches. In addition, there is the question of where in a degree to place a unit on statutory interpretation. In this paper we argue that statutory interpretation can be seen as a distinct and core component of public law. We argue that it is different to, but interconnected with, the other public law subjects of constitutional and administrative law. As such, we suggest that one method of teaching statutory interpretation is to teach it alongside foundational public law concepts and principles in a first-year unit. In our experience, teaching statutory interpretation in this way overcomes several of the common challenges that academics have reported in teaching statutory interpretation.
{"title":"Situating Statutory Interpretation in its Public Law Context","authors":"J. Boughey, L. Crawford","doi":"10.53300/001c.9382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.9382","url":null,"abstract":"Law teachers have debated whether teaching statutory interpretation as a distinct body of law requires that it be taught as a stand-alone subject, or whether it is best to ‘embed’ statutory interpretation within other subjects. There are benefits and problems with both approaches. In addition, there is the question of where in a degree to place a unit on statutory interpretation. In this paper we argue that statutory interpretation can be seen as a distinct and core component of public law. We argue that it is different to, but interconnected with, the other public law subjects of constitutional and administrative law. As such, we suggest that one method of teaching statutory interpretation is to teach it alongside foundational public law concepts and principles in a first-year unit. In our experience, teaching statutory interpretation in this way overcomes several of the common challenges that academics have reported in teaching statutory interpretation.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44437364","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：