[Extract] Diana Laurillard’s Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology is an important book. At a time when questions of quality are coming to the fore in higher education, this book directly addresses how technology can be used to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. As in most fields of university teaching, legal educators are making increasing use of technology not only to overcome logistical problems, but to actually teach more students better. In my own country of Australia, workshops for law teachers now invariably include a component on the use of technology, and in this year alone two national legal education conferences have been held to consider educational technology and computer assisted legal education. This experience is no doubt echoed worldwide. Since much technology is applied in a theoretical vacuum, any work which promises a coherent educational framework for the use of technology is likely to represent a valuable contribution. Rethinking University Teaching consists of three distinct but tightly integrated parts in which Laurillard first establishes the underlying elements of student learning and hence of teaching, analyses a range of media according to these elements, and then, again on the basis of these elements, presents a systematic approach to media design.
{"title":"Book Review: Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology","authors":"G. Joughin","doi":"10.53300/001C.6029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.6029","url":null,"abstract":"[Extract] Diana Laurillard’s Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology is an important book. At a time when questions of quality are coming to the fore in higher education, this book directly addresses how technology can be used to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. As in most fields of university teaching, legal educators are making increasing use of technology not only to overcome logistical problems, but to actually teach more students better. In my own country of Australia, workshops for law teachers now invariably include a component on the use of technology, and in this year alone two national legal education conferences have been held to consider educational technology and computer assisted legal education. This experience is no doubt echoed worldwide. Since much technology is applied in a theoretical vacuum, any work which promises a coherent educational framework for the use of technology is likely to represent a valuable contribution. Rethinking University Teaching consists of three distinct but tightly integrated parts in which Laurillard first establishes the underlying elements of student learning and hence of teaching, analyses a range of media according to these elements, and then, again on the basis of these elements, presents a systematic approach to media design.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71024105","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}
[Extract] The Senate Standing Committee on Employment Education and Training’s recent Report on Priorities for Reform in Higher Education commented that Universities have produced law graduates who “are usually well grounded in the knowledge and skills essential to the practice” of the legal profession, but who are not familiar in any disciplined sense with the society in which they are going to practise their chosen profession, who are not analytical, creative thinkers, whose education does not provide the basis for adequate flexibility, who are not sufficiently attuned to the need for “lifelong” learning, and who are not good communicators. In short, the Committee noted, “Australia is producing highly training technicians who are under-educated in the broader sense of the term”. A major factor highlighted by the Committee was the low quality of teaching in the education sector. It is difficult to argue against these comments made by the Senate Committee, and their application to law teaching in Australian Universities. They substantially describe my own experience as a law student, researcher and teacher in law schools since 1980. The focus of law teaching in university law schools, with a few notable exceptions is narrow, focusing primarily on exposition of legal doctrine, and rather halfheartedly, its application, with scant regard for the history, philosophy and political economy of the society within which law is practised and enforced. Despite some undoubted progress during the last few decades, law schools still have some way to go to break down the strong focus of professionalism and specialisation, where “knowledge has become cut up into innumerable separate parcels”, with a “specialist profession” as “custodian and user of each of these parcels”. A few years ago, in a perceptive article about the history of legal scholarship in Australia, Chesterman and Weisbrot pointed out that Australian legal scholarship has been “predominantly positivist” and unquestioning, eschewing any recognition of legal pluralism. A major factor encouraging the development of this approach has been the particularly close link between legal education and the legal profession.6 Until recently, university law faculties were “generally viewed as adjuncts to the legal profession, rather than truly academic institutions dedicated to liberal educational aims”. Law teaching was carried out mostly by practitioners, and there were very few fulltime academics. Little legal research was done, and the general approach in courses taught was fairly uniform. What distinguished Australian legal education from the English system was that the professional authorities did not themselves take responsibility for the “practitioners” subjects such as Evidence, Procedure and Conveyancing. Instead the law schools became “trade schools” providing almost all of the substantive law courses required for admission to practice. The professional authorities were not prepared to accord recogni
{"title":"Rethinking the Teaching of Law","authors":"R. Johnstone","doi":"10.53300/001C.6055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.6055","url":null,"abstract":"[Extract] The Senate Standing Committee on Employment Education and Training’s recent Report on Priorities for Reform in Higher Education commented that Universities have produced law graduates who “are usually well grounded in the knowledge and skills essential to the practice” of the legal profession, but who are not familiar in any disciplined sense with the society in which they are going to practise their chosen profession, who are not analytical, creative thinkers, whose education does not provide the basis for adequate flexibility, who are not sufficiently attuned to the need for “lifelong” learning, and who are not good communicators. In short, the Committee noted, “Australia is producing highly training technicians who are under-educated in the broader sense of the term”. A major factor highlighted by the Committee was the low quality of teaching in the education sector. It is difficult to argue against these comments made by the Senate Committee, and their application to law teaching in Australian Universities. They substantially describe my own experience as a law student, researcher and teacher in law schools since 1980. The focus of law teaching in university law schools, with a few notable exceptions is narrow, focusing primarily on exposition of legal doctrine, and rather halfheartedly, its application, with scant regard for the history, philosophy and political economy of the society within which law is practised and enforced. Despite some undoubted progress during the last few decades, law schools still have some way to go to break down the strong focus of professionalism and specialisation, where “knowledge has become cut up into innumerable separate parcels”, with a “specialist profession” as “custodian and user of each of these parcels”. A few years ago, in a perceptive article about the history of legal scholarship in Australia, Chesterman and Weisbrot pointed out that Australian legal scholarship has been “predominantly positivist” and unquestioning, eschewing any recognition of legal pluralism. A major factor encouraging the development of this approach has been the particularly close link between legal education and the legal profession.6 Until recently, university law faculties were “generally viewed as adjuncts to the legal profession, rather than truly academic institutions dedicated to liberal educational aims”. Law teaching was carried out mostly by practitioners, and there were very few fulltime academics. Little legal research was done, and the general approach in courses taught was fairly uniform. What distinguished Australian legal education from the English system was that the professional authorities did not themselves take responsibility for the “practitioners” subjects such as Evidence, Procedure and Conveyancing. Instead the law schools became “trade schools” providing almost all of the substantive law courses required for admission to practice. The professional authorities were not prepared to accord recogni","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71024225","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 sets out an acronym MIRAT which summarises the standard framework and cycle expected for answers in law school exams, and to a lesser extent for advice in legal practice. The letters stand for Material facts, Issues, Rules, Arguments each way, and Tentative conclusion.
{"title":"Meet MIRAT: Legal Reasoning Fragmented into Learnable Chunks","authors":"J. Wade","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2406990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2406990","url":null,"abstract":"This paper sets out an acronym MIRAT which summarises the standard framework and cycle expected for answers in law school exams, and to a lesser extent for advice in legal practice. The letters stand for Material facts, Issues, Rules, Arguments each way, and Tentative conclusion.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"2 1","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"1991-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68185543","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}
I see the role of this paper as providing some perspective and background to Gerald Frug’s much more thorough and detailed account of some teaching methods of critical legal studies (CLS).
{"title":"Critical Legal Studies as a Teaching Method, Against the Background of the Intellectual Politics of Modern Legal Education in the United States","authors":"R. Gordon","doi":"10.53300/001C.5973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5973","url":null,"abstract":"I see the role of this paper as providing some perspective and background to Gerald Frug’s much more thorough and detailed account of some teaching methods of critical legal studies (CLS).","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"5973"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71024055","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}
Many law professors consider their primary job to be teaching legal doctrine and legal skills. Students, they think, must learn how to find applicable legal rules and how to make the kind of arguments lawyers use in court. Of course, as academics, these law teachers also feel that they should offer their students something more than legal doctrine; they need to provide students with some theoretical insight into the subjects they teach. But since the primary job of law professors is to teach law, not theory, they treat any theoretical dimension that law schools offer as necessarily limited. Some theoretical questions can properly be addressed in basic courses, and others can be addressed later in law school in optional courses such as jurisprudence or legal history. But these matters are “extras”, not the core of the curriculum It is obvious, they might say, that the primary focus of teaching law has to be law.
{"title":"A Critical Theory of Law","authors":"G. Frug","doi":"10.53300/001C.5971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5971","url":null,"abstract":"Many law professors consider their primary job to be teaching legal doctrine and legal skills. Students, they think, must learn how to find applicable legal rules and how to make the kind of arguments lawyers use in court. Of course, as academics, these law teachers also feel that they should offer their students something more than legal doctrine; they need to provide students with some theoretical insight into the subjects they teach. But since the primary job of law professors is to teach law, not theory, they treat any theoretical dimension that law schools offer as necessarily limited. Some theoretical questions can properly be addressed in basic courses, and others can be addressed later in law school in optional courses such as jurisprudence or legal history. But these matters are “extras”, not the core of the curriculum It is obvious, they might say, that the primary focus of teaching law has to be law.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"5971"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71024450","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：