UoM SCHOOL OF LAW UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING REVIEW INNOVATION/PEDAGOGY SUB-GROUP FINAL REPORT A CONTEXTUALISED VIEW OF TEACHING PRACTICE IN THE SCHOOL OF LAW October 2009

2

Members of the sub-group: Rilka Dragneva-Lewers Kate Little Imogen Jones John Murphy Jon Shute (Chair) Andrew Sanders Acknowledgements: Compiling this report has involved repeated contacts with all academic and research colleagues currently employed in the School at a time (summer 2009) when many were working on research, planning for the new academic year, or on various types of well-earned leave. Huge thanks then, must be extended to everyone who has taken part in the empirical side of the study, particularly those who gave generous and thoughtful comments on a range of very relevant issues. Particular thanks go to case study participants for their additional reflections on teaching, which were modestly-put but often extremely thought-provoking, if not inspirational.

3

CONTENTS: FOREWORD AND GENERAL INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART ONE: Classic and contemporary themes in teaching and learning: A selective literature review

A. Introduction & general notes 17 B. Basic principles of effective learning 19 C. Enquiry-based learning and associated approaches 23 D. Summary and conclusions 30

References 32

PART TWO: Approaches to teaching in the School of Law

E. Survey of school teaching practice 36 F. Case studies of practice 54 G. Miscellaneous views on teaching & research 72

PART THREE: Overall summary and recommendations 77 APPENDICES:

I. Additional literature review documents 84 II. Copy of teaching practice survey 100

4

FOREWORD AND GENERAL INTRODUCTION Assigned and developed remit of the group: At the first meeting of the full UG Review Group in May 2009, Sub-group B was initially assigned the role of investigating ‘Alternative approaches to teaching and learning’. In subsequent sub-group meetings, this brief was amended and refined as follows:

“To test the null hypothesis that there is no meaningful pedagogical difference (in terms of approach, efficiency or effectiveness) between what is currently offered in the School and what centres for innovation and an attendant evidence base suggest could be offered”

Two sets of activities were carried out to informally test this hypothesis: 1. a selective literature review in order to identify classical and contemporary themes

in effective teaching and learning; and an attendant empirical evidence base. 2. in light of this review, a study of current teaching practice in the School of Law.

This consisted of a survey of teaching practice, and detailed case studies of effective teaching.

Structure and purpose of the report: This report describes both sets of activities in considerable detail and devotes a substantive section to each. Summaries at the end of each section will aid rapid assimilation of findings along with the Executive Summary that follows this introduction. The interested reader is strongly encouraged to ‘dip’ in and out of the report according to interest (and of course, to read it in its totality), however, we hope that it will be viewed, at the very least, as a source of rich original descriptive data relating to current teaching practice in the School, and a source of inspiration for those interested in developing their teaching.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report aims:

'To test the null hypothesis that there is no meaningful pedagogical difference (in terms of approach, efficiency or effectiveness) between what is currently offered in the School and what centres for innovation and an attendant evidence base suggest could be offered' Two sets of activities were carried out: 1. a selective literature review in order to identify classical and contemporary themes

in effective teaching and learning; and an attendant empirical evidence base. 2. a study of current teaching practice in the School of Law. This consisted of a

survey of teaching practice, and detailed case studies of effective teaching. PART ONE: A REVIEW OF CLASSICAL AND CONTEMPORARY TH EMES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING This review had a number of objectives, specifically to:

• set a theoretical and empirical context for the review of practice • de-mystify relevant educational jargon • provide a sense of how key concepts are translated into teaching practice.

Given severe resource limitations, the review concentrated on describing some basic principles of effective human learning, and both outlined and evaluated the most popular paradigmatic challenge to ‘traditional’ directive, didactic, ‘chalk and talk’ methods: enquiry-based learning (EBL) and associated approaches. Principles of effective teaching. A large body of foundational educational theory, together with supporting evidence gathered across age ranges and educational contexts, suggests that effective teaching is:

1. active: promotes engagement, choice, interactivity, exploration, discovery, self-direction, and research-like activity

2. social: is efficiently delivered, organised and assessed in small collaborative working groups in the context of larger classes facilitated by skilled and enthused experts; promotes transferable and marketable social, team and presentation skills, in addition to cognitive skills

3. reflective: teachers benefit from recurrent reflection on the success of teaching approaches; and students benefit by developing the metacognitive awareness of their own habits and preferences that aids further learning

4. varied: teaching style reflects the teacher’s own cognitive and learning style; learning styles, learning strategies and preferences are varied; teaching approaches must also be varied in order to cater for the diversity in any given class

6

5. motivating: via encouragement, timely and appropriate feedback, and the setting of concrete and achievable goals

6. sustained by quality relationships: among students and between teacher-facilitators and students; the latter is a key driver for student satisfaction

These qualities are, to a great extent, discoverable via intuition and experience, and can also be learned via instruction and by sharing practice with colleagues. Alternative approaches to teaching. Various cognate approaches – problem-based learning, collaborative/co-operative learning, and enquiry-based learning – have become both popular alternatives to the traditional didactic teaching model, or, as ‘hybrid’ approaches, a supplement to them. These methods attempt to enact all of the above principles of effective teaching:

• active: involve choice of topics, assignments and resources; are based on real-world scenarios, practical tasks, exercises and projects

• social: are conducted primarily in small(er) collaborative groups • reflective: often uses peer and self-assessment, and learning diaries • varied: use a wide-variety of tasks and media, including e-learning resources • motivating: students take greater responsibility for their learning, pursue

interests and gain regular formative feedback • sustained by quality relationships: that form between students in groups and

with teacher facilitators who have regular personal contact EBL-like methods are most associated with medical education but are being increasingly applied across the full range of academic disciplines including law. Manchester University is a leader in the application of the approach. Engagement with the evaluation literature is frustrating as there are no easily available systematic reviews of EBL-related effectiveness in law (though there are many favourable descriptive studies) and reliance has to be made on very disparate studies of medical education. Here, there is only some moderate evidence that the general approach improves student achievement; and slightly more consistent evidence that it improves outcomes related to student satisfaction and skills. Some negative evidence was found, for example, marginally poorer performance in professional exams. The adoption of new methods of teaching is not cost-free and careful consideration should be given to the extent and pace of change, re-training and course development requirements. Consideration too, must be given to the number of students on modules, as the approach may be easier to implement, at least initially, in smaller classes. Short of a ‘pure’ EBL/PBL approach, ‘hybrid’ approaches are possible that mix traditional lectures with a stronger focus on assessed groupwork in seminars. Both piloting and expert support (from, for example, the Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning) are advised. These ‘front-end’ costs could be seen as an investment that are likely to be offset by the longer-term advantages of enacting principles of effective learning.

7

PART TWO: SURVEY OF SCHOOL TEACHING PRACTICE • The survey aimed to provide a Law School practice context to the findings of the

literature review described above. • Key research objectives were: (i) to describe the prevalence of ‘(inter)active’

teaching practices; (ii) relate these practices to teaching and job satisfaction; student satisfaction; and student grades

• Between August and mid-September 2009, 74 returns were posted, representing

62.7% of all Law School non-administrative staff and 89.6% of ‘academic’ staff. Thirty-three 2008-9 UG Course Directors responded.

• Prevalence of (inter)active teaching practices in the School. Many staff within the

School have current or historic experience of employing teaching practices that are associated with effective (active) learning. Most staff who lecture have experience of using in-class exercises, Q&A sessions and/or discussion. Active group learning and interactive e-learning facilities are also employed by a significant minority of staff. Some staff use many (inter)active methods consistently across their teaching while others adopt either a piecemeal or an ‘abstinent’ approach. Finally, many staff who do not currently employ (inter)active teaching practices are interested in doing so.

• Together, these findings suggest that there is much effective and evidence-based

practice already evident in the School and a receptiveness to alternative ways of teaching. Thus we have a good ‘foundation’ on which to build if we choose to employ these and other practices more systematically. On the other hand, a significant minority of staff remain uninterested in individual teaching approaches relating to e-learning and groupwork, and some effort may be required to convince those colleagues of their relevance and worth.

• Teaching practice and teaching satisfaction. Subjective levels of teaching

satisfaction were extremely high across staff, though respondents were less confident that their teaching was efficient (number of contact hours appropriate). Across all respondents, the mean perceived percentage of time currently spent on teaching, administration and research suggested a rough 45-20-35 split. The ‘ideal’ split was 35-10-55. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of academic staff spent less than 40% of their time on research. Some weak evidence emerged that greater employment of (inter)active teaching practices predicted greater level of teaching satisfaction; and these relationships were stronger for more senior and experienced staff.

• Teaching practice and student satisfaction. Using 2008-9 UG course unit

evaluation data, the relationship between Course Directors’ (CDs) teaching practices and student satisfaction data was explored. This dataset was comprised of a subset of 31 staff directing 48 UG modules. Some modest but consistent evidence emerged of a positive relationship between employment of (inter)active teaching practices and student satisfaction. Stronger relationships existed for smaller classes and for more experienced teachers.

8

• Teaching practice and student achievement. For the same 31 UGCD staff subset, a

dataset was prepared that expressed the mean mark and proportion of firsts for each of the 48 featured courses. Findings are not easy to interpret because student achievement will depend to a great extent on non-teaching variables such as pre-existing academic skills, levels of motivation, hours worked, learning and revision strategy, etc. A weak positive association was found overall between employment of (inter)active teaching practices and the proportion of firsts; but this association only really held for medium-sized classes. No association was found overall between teaching practice and the mean class mark.

• Findings are limited by a number of factors inherent in all small-scale survey

research, and further limited by the particular methodology employed in the analyses at points 6 and 7 above. More extensive, detailed and longitudinal data is required to improve understanding of these tentative and generally weak associations. There is some weak-to-moderate evidence in the data to suggest that greater use of (inter)active teaching practices may improve teaching satisfaction and student satisfaction, but that other variables such as teaching experience, satisfaction with job balance, and class size moderate these relationships. More systematic and thoroughly-evaluated employment of selected practices may produce more robust associations.

CASE STUDIES OF PRACTICE IN THE SCHOOL This section aimed to showcase the variety of approaches currently practiced in the school in colleagues’ own words. It was organised into two sections:

• a collation of free text responses given in the teaching practice survey from a total of 20 respondents

• more detailed case studies of 11 colleagues who were invited to describe their approach for the following reasons:

- they scored highly in the UG course unit evaluation surveys (n=4) - they scored highly on the ‘teaching (inter)activity’ scale (n=2) - they have been awarded teaching excellence awards (n=2) - they have experimented with smaller group collaborative learning (n=2) - they have extensive experience of using a Virtual Learning Environment

(Blackboard) to deliver courses (n=2)

Free-text teaching survey comments. A wide variety of practices were identified, many of them employing the kinds of active and social learning practices identified in the earlier literature review. These included • e-learning: podcasts; audio synchronised PowerPoint presentations; blogs; sample

student essays; e-posters; discussion boards (assessed and non-assessed) • groupwork: case study simulations; group presentations; series of debates carried

out in larger (14-student) seminars groups • miscellaneous: assessed re-marked essays; distance learning; role-play; PBL-like

activities; self-directed research; reflective learning journals; audio-visual

9

material; portfolio assessment; replication exercises; field trips; collaborative and shared learning.

Some views expressed doubts as to the utility or potential of e-learning, and drew attention to the amount of support required to encourage and maintain student engagement. Case studies of effective practice. Examples included:

• self-directed groupwork and debate • cumulative discussion • guided lectures • the use of paradox • Socratic questioning approach • plays and quizzes • weekly non-assessed compulsory homework • close-supported statistics workshops • mid-semester exams • workshop debates • use of applied research • historical analogies • weekly seminars with 14 students, split into 2 debating groups • simultaneous self-, peer- and tutor feedback on group presentations • on-line, moderated discussion groups

Several case study participants did not see their work as innovative but common good practice, or good sense. Many participants also seemed to value the development of independent, self-directed and critical thinking skills, often with peer input and in small groups. Finally participants stressed the importance of good course organisation and, perhaps above all, possessing and communicating passion and enthusiasm for the subject. MISCELLANEOUS VIEWS ON TEACHING AND RESEARCH This section was are intended to add depth and context to the report, and to encourage debate. Comments were submitted as part of the teaching practice survey from a total of 11 colleagues. A range of views were aired on the following subjects: G5.1 Teaching and research. • the sense that teaching loads in the School are comparatively high, prejudicial to

research activity (perhaps, particularly for more junior staff) and the teaching role undervalued.

• the problem of simultaneously being urged by the University to improve research and teaching, and the urgent need for co-ordination between teaching and research strategies.

• the benefits/necessity of integrating research into teaching in order to bring subjects alive, transmit enthusiasm, and demonstrate the practical applications of knowledge.

10

G5.2 ‘Innovation’ and effective teaching. wariness of the term ‘innovation’ and associated implications of prescription of method; the position that there are core principles of effective teaching (passion, imagination, dedication, functional relationships based on contact). G5.3 Legal Skills provision.: basic legal study skills need to be more effectively taught, perhaps in a dedicated course that also corrects students’ initial misunderstandings of what legal study involves. G5.4 Miscellaneous • the view that developing innovation in teaching practice is not only hard work in

terms of designing and compiling materials, but must also overcome resistance from a number of sources, including having the work recognised in teaching allocation, and in promotion. There is a need for greater support in order to encourage experimentation in delivery.

• the need for knowledge transfer and community engagement to be recognised in School life (as it is in promotion procedures) in addition to teaching, administration and research roles.

• the need to shape student attitudes and expectations, as well as respond to them via student satisfaction questionnaires.

• the need for periodic and regular reflection in the School, on teaching practice and sharing ideas for innovation.

PART THREE: OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Conclusions are constrained by limitations of resource, evidence and language. 2. Interpretation of core findings. The literature review in Part One concluded that: • there is consensus on the principles of effective teaching, which, in sum, are:

active; social; reflective; varied; motivating; and sustained by quality relationships. Any approach (regardless of - or absent - a label) that enacts these principles should, ipso facto, effectively impart knowledge and skills.

• approaches that attempt to systematically enact some or all of these principles, for example, enquiry-based and related approaches, and that tend to be focussed on self-directed small groupwork, show some advantages in terms of promotion of social and (meta)cognitive skills, and student satisfaction. Though there are problems interpreting the evidence-base, it can be claimed they are at least as effective regarding educational achievement, and, arguably, more efficient in their frequent use of group assessment.

If these findings are valid, the analysis of School teaching practice covered in Part Two can be summarised in terms of ‘good news’ and ‘less good news’.

11

The Good News: There is much to be proud of, viz. • a great variety of practices, carried out by reflective, dedicated, passionate,

imaginative, and educationally-informed practitioners, who experiment when appropriate, and in doing so, make full use of their experience, knowledge of new approaches, and new technology. There are examples of both so-called ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ approaches that attain consistently excellent results in terms of student feedback and grades.

• many approaches, however categorised, already enact some, many, or all of the principles of effective teaching. There is awareness of, and qualified consensus on these principles.

• in the practice survey, ‘teaching (inter)activity’ – a measure indexing interest in, and use of practices relating to effectiveness principles – was positively associated with teaching satisfaction, student perceptions, and the proportion of firsts awarded. These findings constitute original School-level evidence to corroborate aspects of the literature review, and point to the benefits that even an eclectic and non-systematic application of effectiveness principles can have.

• many colleagues who had not tried particular approaches signalled that they were interested in doing so.

The Less Good News: There is much that could be done, viz. • recognising, with some notable exceptions, that implementation of effective

practice often appears piecemeal or quasi-accidental, that is, researched on a ‘need to know’ basis when specific problems arise, or ‘discovered’ over a long period of time. That there is presently, little opportunity to share practice and ideas, or an expressed desire for further training/professional development.

• recognising that the survey of teaching practice suggested a third of staff employed 0-2 ‘interactive’ practices in their current teaching.

• recognising that teaching is currently perceived to take up a disproportionate amount of staff time; that a nominal 40-20-40% split between teaching, administration, and research is actually experienced by all staff as a 45-20-35 split; and for staff on teaching and research contracts as a 48-23-29 split; and where three-quarters of this sub-group spend less than the nominal 40% of their time in research activity.

• overcoming a perceived lack of incentives to experiment with teaching, including: the sense that the teaching is generally undervalued; that experimentation cannot be done in the context of currently high teaching loads that erode research time; and a perceived lack of support producing a sense of ‘struggle’ to effect real innovation.

• overcoming mistrust of new approaches that are seen merely as ‘old wine in new bottles’.

3. Revisiting the ‘research hypothesis’. Which was –

‘To test the null hypothesis that there is no meaningful pedagogical difference (in terms of approach, efficiency or effectiveness) between what is currently offered in the School and what centres for innovation and an attendant evidence base suggest could be offered’

12

At face value, the null hypothesis is partially supported, partially rejected: supported in that there is some good awareness, some prior training, and some enactment of the active/effective learning principles described in the literature review; rejected in that that much active/effective practice is non-systematic, pedagogically tacit, and conducted without overt reference to evidence beyond the experiential variety. Questions of efficiency have been less a feature of the literature than expected, however, to the extent that assessed group learning (where groups are marked, not individuals) and larger seminar groups (the UK Centre for Legal Education small group resource assumes 12-20+ students) are not highly prevalent at Manchester, the null hypothesis is rejected: greater efficiencies could be made without loss of pedagogic value. 4. Recommendations: Alternative approaches to teaching. These are made in light of core findings and the partial null-hypothesis rejection above, and are intended to be a stimulus for further debate. There are two broad sets of recommendations: those that can be made without reference to the wider institutional context, and those that cannot. General recommendations made without reference to the wider institutional context:

We aspire often to a ‘research culture’ in the School, and to address some of the ‘less good news’ above, there is an equivalent need to foster a ‘teaching culture’ where:

• teaching, which is expected to take up 40% of the time of staff on teaching and

research contracts, is consistently valued, not only as ‘core business’, but as an activity that attracts status and recognition, and where success is rewarded, for example, by: regular ‘mentions in dispatches’ at Board, Boards of Study and Teaching & Learning Committee meetings; advertising positive external examiners’ comments; greater emphasis on teaching prowess in UG prospectuses; putting staff forward for teaching awards; creating internal teaching awards, etc. At the moment, there are few non-intrinsic incentives to excel at teaching.

• teaching actually takes up 40% of staff time, and not 45% or 49%, as the teaching practice survey suggests. This involves real attempts to tackle comparatively high teaching loads, together with chronic understaffing.

• the pedagogy of successful teaching practice is made explicit: shared, explained, reflected upon, and celebrated. A regularly-meeting forum should be created to encourage this, and to help develop and disseminate practice. Monies could be made available to fund attendance at external events and findings reported back to the forum. Staff should be encouraged – even expected – to attend and participate in other University teaching and learning for a (e.g., Faculty Teaching and Learning Forum, CEEBL events, etc.) as part of their continuing professional development.

• teaching staff are invited to periodically review their own teaching in so far as it meets effective teaching principles. This self-assessment should ideally be assisted by peer assessment and made part of the peer review process. There should be an expectation that course are delivered effectively.

13

• there is a climate supportive of change and experimentation, which is open to new techniques, applications, and non-standard assessment formats or exam timing; where innovation is recognised in teaching allocation; and facilitated in other ways, for example, by a teaching equivalent of the ‘research support fund’.

• innovation in practice is simply yet routinely evaluated, either through small-scale unfunded evaluations (for example, before-and-after designs using routine student satisfaction or marking data) or larger-scale funded experimentation of approaches. This does not need to be time-consuming and can help demonstrate impact. Learning styles of students could also be routinely assessed and teaching methods adapted appropriately.

Recommendations made with reference to the wider institutional context:

As indicated by comments made in section G, there are strong cross-University pressures to simultaneously improve teaching (together with the quality of student experience) and research; and senior University management have addressed the School specifically over the last year in relation to the results of both National Student Survey, and Research Assessment Exercise. It has also become clear that the School has the highest staff: student ratio in the University, made evident by the existence of some very large classes, a comparatively high teaching load, and section E findings that suggest that staff time is imbalanced towards teaching. In this context, a powerful rational argument can be made for recruiting more teaching staff. The following recommendations consider ways in which core findings can be applied in order to make teaching more efficient without loss of pedagogic value, and with the real prospect of significant gains for students in terms of transferable, marketable skills. The reviewed literatures in general, together with individual case studies and isolated examples of practice already evident in the School, should give teaching staff the confidence to challenge key assumption about teaching, viz.

• that effective teaching must follow a directive, ‘executive’ model of knowledge transmission. Students can learn from each other and can be trusted to direct their own learning with the support and guidance of subject experts. This does not mean ‘hands-off’ or ‘teacher-free’ learning, but does mean a reduced emphasis on lecturing where opportunities for interaction are limited, and a greater emphasis on collaborative group work that is facilitated, not directed by experts. Some excellent examples are given in sections F and G.

• relatedly, that only subject experts can be teacher figures. Already, in seminars, much reliance is made on postgraduate students, who are, in a sense, relative, as opposed to absolute subject specialists. However, this idea could be extended to peer teaching, where relatively experienced (e.g., 2nd year, 3rd year and PG) students impart study skills (for example, essay or exam technique; marking criteria; or even non-assessed ‘marking’ of essay plans) in either dedicated sessions or as part of the existing student mentor scheme. Given proper training and organisation, peer teachers are likely to improve their own study skills in addition to the students they ‘teach’.

• that end-of-semester exams and essays are the only pedagogically justified and/or resource-efficient methods of effective assessment. Assessment methods give strong cues as to when work is expected from students and thought should be given to methods that, if not continuously assessed, promote semester-long

14

engagement instead of strategic ‘cramming’; these include: series of debates and moots; weekly homework; mid-semester exams; group projects and presentations, supported by individual learning diaries, and incorporating self- and peer-assessment. This is, again, not a ‘teacher-free’ process, nor does it preclude the use of essays or exams, but greater emphasis should be made on encouraging and assessing consistent engagement. Some excellent examples are given in sections F and G.

• that seminar size is more important than the organisation and activities that occur within it. Across a huge variety of examples, there is consensus that the optimum size for collaborative group work is 2-5 members, however this is the basic unit of groupwork and there can be several or many such groups working in the same room at the same time. With properly constructed tasks, properly facilitated by skilled subject experts, such groups can be encouraged to work effectively and, when sessions incorporate reporting or presenting back to the whole group, benefit from the variety of opinion and approach that multiple smaller-groups offer. The UKCLE ‘small group’ (collaborative) teaching resource expects law schools to be offering seminar groups of 12-20+ in size, which is not uncommon in other high-performing schools in the UK. Staff and students should have confidence that, with slight modifications in approach, class sizes of this magnitude can be justified on pedagogic as well as efficiency grounds and have been shown to work extremely effectively. This is in contrast to the current situation where group size is not pedagogically justified, does not often contain smaller-group collaborative work and does not have demonstrable effectivness.

The School collectively should begin a process of reviewing its practices against the principles of effective teaching and, where lacking, attempt to enact them in a consistent manner that is commensurate with available (stretched) resources. ‘One size fits all’ technical fixes do not exist and this report cannot give tailored solutions to every perceived teaching issue in every module, however, a number of suggestions can be made as starting points: • large, compulsory first year classes: EBL-type approaches have been applied to

large classes successfully at Manchester (see CEEBL for details), and colleagues are urged to explore this perspective, however, if this is unpalatable in part or in whole, ‘hybrid’ approaches may be productive in the shorter term. This would involve a shift of attentional emphasis away from lectures (together with a harmonisation of the number of lectures across law and criminology programmes) and toward larger facilitated seminars (of e.g., 16-20) split into 4-5 collaborative groups who work on semester-long problems and projects that incorporate individual work but are assessed at the group-level. The number of sessions and balance of contact hours devoted to lectures and seminars could be reviewed. Done well, with training and piloting, students and teachers should reap all of the benefits of collaborative learning while simultaneously being more resource-efficient in terms of teaching and marking.

• medium-sized and smaller sized classes: consider implementing an identical ‘hybrid’ approach to above, or, where sensible, dispense with lectures altogether in favour of a workshop model where sessions contain some formal instruction, combined with the collaborative group approach.

15

• dissertation options: continue with the individual-level EBL-type approach to the extent that it already exists in this work format; consider group dissertations in either the long- or short-formats where there both individual and group outcomes are assessed.

• experiment with the range of ‘purer’ EBL-type approaches according to preference, and with the support of CEEBL and related staff.

5. Treating students as Partners in Education. Students (and the parents who fund their study) are under huge pressure from a range of sources, including the financial burdens of fees, and increased expectations of educational and vocational success despite greater competition for a shrinking pool of jobs. They, therefore, are understandably more demanding of teaching and sensitive to ill-explained or partially-justified changes that they perceive to be ‘teaching on the cheap’ or reduced ‘value for the money’. However, their attitudes towards teaching, teachers and learning, like all attitudes, will inevitably be based on imperfect information and understanding of those processes and roles. It is strongly recommended therefore, that our duties as educators and shapers-of-attitudes do not stop at our subject specialisms: all major changes to teaching practice should be explained fully , (i) with reference to pedagogical arguments and evidence, (ii) with reference to the need for staff to balance teaching and research roles in order to keep or raise the institutional reputation that is key to the long-term value of their degree, (iii) in relation to what they stand to gain from the changes. Colleagues should reflect that without this, prospective changes, for example, increases in seminar sizes, can look like simple exercises in corner-cutting. However, with this level of explanation, which treats students as rational adults and partners in the educational process, larger seminars and a greater emphasis on active groupwork can be explained from the point of view of encouraging transferable, and very marketable skills: team-working, oral and written presentation, independent and collaborative research, creative thought and developed analytic and metacognitive skills.

6. Overall, there are up-front developmental costs involved in change, and some of that change will inevitably be unsuccessful, but there are also definite costs of not adapting to the new educational context of information-rich, globalised, marketised, mass higher education. This report shows that the quality of staff and teaching in this School mean that it is exceedingly well placed to adapt - with imagination, good-will and planning - to this challenging context.

16

PART ONE CLASSIC & CONTEMPORARY THEMES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A SELECTIVE LITERATURE REVIEW

17

A. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL NOTES A1. Broad aims. This review aims to describe some important contemporary themes in a sprawling literature relating to educational effectiveness in teaching practice. It has a number of objectives, specifically to:

• set a theoretical and empirical context for the review of practice in part two of this report

• de-mystify some relevant educational jargon • provide a sense of how key concepts are translated into teaching practice.

Given the severe resource limitations outlined below, the review concentrates on describing some basic principles of effective human learning, and both outlines and evaluates the most popular paradigmatic challenge to ‘traditional’ directive, didactic, ‘chalk and talk’ methods: enquiry-based learning (EBL) and associated approaches. A2. Limitations. There are a number of limitations and associated caveats with the review, namely: • resources: literature reviews are time-consuming and ideally involve a lengthy

process of formulating research questions, thoroughly searching available resources, and reading and condensing materials over a period of months. By dividing labour amongst members of the sub-group, we have covered much relevant ground, but, given tight time-scales and generally meagre resources, the review is, by necessity, far from exhaustive.

• selectivity: this is a narrative review where papers, reports, book chapters and internet resources were sourced using: brief keyword searches of bibliographic databases; internet searches; identification and exploration of research centre websites; and conversations with colleagues at other institutions. It is neither a systematic review (where resources are selected using tightly defined and explicit criteria) nor a meta-analytic review (a quantitative summary of quantitative empirical studies on a theme), though papers of this type are referred to on occasion. Like all reviews, then, this review is selective and, while we have tried to maintain objectivity in our coverage, different ‘researchers’ would most likely have identified (some) different resources, though we believe they would have arrived at similar conclusions.

• nature of the material: there are two points worth noting here; first, that not all of the educational psychology materials featured relate to higher education per se as the field attempts to identify basic human processes that are common to children and adult learners alike. Second, much of the educational literature on effectiveness (what aspects of the learning experience predict student outcomes like grades and satisfaction) relates to primary and secondary education and is too sprawling to effectively summarise. We have tried to focus on higher education but note that authoritative reviews are relatively scarce in this growing area; and the paradigmatic resource relates to the implementation of a small-scale ‘in-house’ teaching initiative, often developed to fit the context of a particular institution. As these initiatives are modestly funded in real-world settings, they are often evaluated using weak research designs that cannot unambiguously attribute change in student outcomes to that initiative.

18

In sum, then, the review has been a challenge to organise and, occasionally, to interpret; and while we are confident that we have produced a fair reflection of key themes in readily-available materials, the interested reader is invited to explore these and other resources to supplement reported findings. A3. Key resources. A reference section appears at the end of this part of the report, and efforts will be made to place key resources on the staff intranet. In addition, the following resources are recommended: • general: review documents by members of the sub-group (Dragneva-Lewers,

Jones, Murphy) covering EBL & collaborative learning, and the educational effectiveness of lectures and alternatives; included as Appendix I of this report.

• contemporary educational psychology: Jarvis, M (2005) The Psychology of

Effective Teaching and Learning. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

• enquiry-based learning and similar: The Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning (CEEBL): http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/. Manchester University’s own and one of 74 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) awarded by HEFCE to promote excellence in teaching and learning in higher education. The site contains many detailed resources on definitions, case study examples, academic papers, etc, that explain and recommend the approach.

• legal education: UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE) at the School of Law,

University of Warwick: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/index.html . Established in 2000 with the aim of promoting the development of learning and teaching in legal education at both the academic and vocational stages. It contains many useful academic resources, toolkits and the like.

• higher education academic journals: There are many in this burgeoning filed, most

of which are available as e-journals via the University library. Two useful journals with a British focus are:

o Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Taylor Francis o Teaching in Higher Education. Taylor Francis

There are many others, as indicated in the following resource pages:

o general: http://resources.glos.ac.uk/tli/prsi/support/hejournals.cfm o US-focused: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~abeach/HEjournals.htm

• effective assessment: Bloxham & Boyd (2007) Developing Effective Assessment

in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. A pdf. of early chapters, including material on the evidence base for effective assessment is available at: https://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335221073.pdf

19

B. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE LEARNING: Key ideas in theory and practice from educational and cognitive psychology B1: Introduction. Educational psychology is a well-established sub-discipline of Psychology with numerous dedicated academic and professional journals, and thousands of new publications each year. As an applied discipline, there is much focus on understanding the process of (and measuring progress in) academic learning, often so that developmental delay and/or other learning disabilities can be identified and tailored remedial programmes offered. More generally, there is an effort to build theory that describes the basic principles of human learning, and to design and evaluate practices that employs these principles, the better to build core skills and maximise achievement. It is this literature that section B focusses on, and this summary draws heavily on the accessible work by Jarvis (2005) above. Key concepts are kept at a very general level and little substantive research evidence is cited. This is deliberate, and the section aims to describe: • some foundational principles of learning that are implicit in all of the approaches

cited in later sections of this report • important dimensions of variation at the level of both teacher and learner that

should be taken into account when reflecting on teaching effectiveness B2 Active learning: Modern educational theory and practice is heavily influenced by the voluminous work of the Swiss polymath Jean Piaget (1896-1990) and Soviet developmentalist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). For our purposes, a key similarity in their work is the conception of the child (and, by extension, any learner at any age) as an active learner, that is, a creative and directive agent whose learning expresses a basic innate urge to understand and master its environment. At the time of its original publication, this insight stood in marked contrast to orthodox constructions of the child as a passive receptacle (cf. Locke’s tabula rasa); a construction that animated many rote-learning based educational systems of the day. To focus on Piaget, the learner is conceived, from birth, to explore the world and produce iterative and increasingly sophisticated mental representations of it known as schema. Schema are ideational frameworks relating to general categories such as people, objects, actions and more abstract concepts; and have the function of organising experiential knowledge, and of predicting and (partially) controlling further experiences. New information is assimilated into the schema, and if it cannot be explained by it, the schema changes to accommodate it. A mismatch between new experiential contexts and existing schema produces the uncomfortable sense of disequilibrium, which the individual is motivated to overcome by further learning (accommodation). This conception of the active learner whose learning has adaptive value has, along with many other facets of Piaget’s work, been hugely influential on educational theory, research and practice, particularly in primary education, but also well beyond. For the purposes of this review, it is sufficient to note that the principles of ‘learner-centred’ teaching and ‘discovery learning’, which appear in many guises in the higher educational literature, are derived from the active learning perspective. Both terms emphasise the importance of having students actively engaged in exploring a subject

20

via guided tasks, exercises and projects; with the role of the teacher being that of a facilitator who provokes disequilibrium and a consequent motivation to learn. B3 Social learning: Many of Vygotsky’s views are compatible with a Piagetian understanding of learning, however, Vygotsky tended to place a greater emphasis on the importance of the social learning context. Humans possess innate cognitive tools (perception, focussed attention), together with a drive to explore the environment, but this is achieved more rapidly and to a more advanced level via guided social interaction with a relatively more knowledgeable teacher-figure, who can be a peer or adult. Effective learning occurs when the gap (the zone of proximal development) between current (unaided) and potential (assisted) knowledge is bridged. The role of the more teacher figure is to provide scaffolding: successively less directed support as knowledge develops. Social learning also has different but related connotations as one of three broad mechanisms of behavioural modification (along with Pavlovian ‘reflex’ conditioning and Skinnerian ‘operant’ conditioning), and is most closely associated with the psychologist Albert Bandura (1925-). Bandura’s work is again voluminous, varied and highly influential but he is perhaps best known for his early work on aggression; behaviour that he showed experimentally was learned by observation (‘vicariously’), according to whether the aggressor (‘model’) was praised or punished for his/her actions. The principle that that novel behaviour can be acquired indirectly by observing and imitating social others has important applications in mixed group teaching, where the study-behaviour of relatively advanced peers is modelled and transmitted. Returning to Vygotsky, his legacy can be seen in a range of teaching approaches seen frequently within the higher education literature (Jarvis 2005), for example:

• whole-class interactive teaching (‘triadic’ dialogue). The teacher-figure maximises interaction by posing an in-class question/problem; groups within the class work on the problem and feedback to the teacher; the teacher provides feedback on the feedback.

• co-operative group work (‘reciprocal teaching’) where a small group take turns to be the teacher-figure by, for example, reading and summarising a common resource, asking a question which is answered by the rest of the group and then passing the responsibility on to the next member.

• peer tutoring, where an older/more knowledgeable peer takes on the role of teacher/mentor with regard to a specific learning task or tasks.

B4 Thinking skills and metacognition. The normative argument that education should focus on the development of thinking skills and not simply the transmission of knowledge, is an ancient one, but is also a recurring theme in the contemporary psychological literature (Jarvis 2005). Teaching people to think more effectively involves developing higher-order mental processes that have been classified in ascending order of sophistication (Bloom 1956). These thinking skills are summarised in table B4.1, along with common pedagogic textual cues:

21

Table B4.1: Thinking skill levels and cues (adapted from Fisher 1995, cited in Jarvis 2005) Level Thinking Skill Pedagogic cues 1 Knowledge describe, outline, recall, repeat, define, identify 2 Understanding summarise, rephrase, explain, compare, conclude, relate 3 Application demonstrate, apply, use to solve, use to explain 4 Analysis identify the causes, reasons, problems, solutions, consequences 5 Synthesis develop, improve, design, create, put together, 6 Evaluation judge, criticise, effectiveness, practical value, coherence, validity In addition to developing critical and creative skills (levels 5 & 6 above), learners are encouraged to develop ‘metacognition’, that is, knowledge and awareness of their own characteristic thinking skills, habits and personal learning preferences; and an awareness of the need to identify the requirements of particular types of academic task, and to adapt their learning approach to them. Metacogntive ability increases with age but can also be fostered by supportive teaching and varied tasks (Larkin 2002). In sum, effective learning is dependent on level of thinking skills; and educational gains are made when these are consciously developed by teachers, and reflected upon and applied by learners. The importance of reflection is captured in the increasing use of ‘reflective learning diaries’ as instruments of learning and assessment. B5 Dimensions of variation in teaching and learning. In addition to describing basic human commonalities such as preferences for active, social learning, psychologists study human variation and the complex network of factors that predict educational outcomes. This section briefly outlines some relevant dimensions. B5.1 Perceived working model of teaching. Fenstermacher and Soltis (1992) have characterised teaching as a dynamic mixture of executive, therapist and liberationist roles. The executive model focusses on educational attainment and the efficient delivery of information. The therapist model is pastorally focussed and emphasises the psychological well-being of students. The liberationist model emphasises the acquisition of transferable critical thinking skills in order to promote independent thinking. The particular balance of these models within an individual teacher is conceived to vary and to have consequences for teaching strategy, for example, active social learning may be more commonly used by liberationist teachers; and standard didactic approaches favoured where the executive model predominates. B5.2 Cognitive and learning styles. Cognitive style is conceived to be a partially heritable and relatively permanent set of preferences regarding information processing and thought. Borrowing from perceptual (‘Gestalt’) psychology, one influential characterisation of cognitive style concerns ‘field dependence’ (Witkin, 1964). Field-dependent thinkers pay attention greater attention to context and are more likely to think holistically, whereas field-independent thinkers tend to have superior deconstruction and problem-solving skills. Field-dependent teachers express greater satisfaction in dealing with students and have more socially-oriented teaching styles; they are also preferred by field-dependent learners (Saracho 1991, cited in Jarvis 2005). An important point here is that the dominant cognitive style of teacher and learner can be mis-aligned and the teacher is advised to reflect upon their own style,

22

assess that of the class at hand, and adapt teaching approach to fit the observed mix of learner styles. A related concept is learning style, and a number of classificatory systems have been devised to measure and characterise learners’ preferences for tasks and teaching approach. One example is Felder & Silverman’s (1988) four-dimensional psychometric model whereby all learners can be classified according to the extent to which they are:

• active (favouring ‘hands-on’ manipulation of new information via, e.g., practical classes, group work, field trips) as opposed to reflective (preferring internal manipulation and lecture settings)

• sensory (empirically oriented) vs. intuitive (preferring hunch, speculation, use of imagination)

• visual (thinking in diagrammatic terms, strongly preferring film, images and multi-media) vs. verbal

• sequential (learns in an incremental, predictable fashion) vs. global (creative and capable of leaps of understanding)

Again, the point is that not all learners are the same and that teaching approaches must be sufficiently versatile and varied to cater for a range of styles and preferences in order to maximise teaching effectiveness. Finally, a somewhat older but heuristically useful and related concept is depth of learning. This originates in Craik & Lockhart’s (1972) ‘levels of cognitive processing’ work which drew attention to the amount of cognitive resources devoted to particular information processing activities and the consequent likelihood of retention in memory. Applied to education, Entwistle et al (1989) suggested that approaches to learning could be categorised as either ‘deep’ (highly motivated, using and linking multiple source of information, critically mastering a subject) or ‘shallow’ (instrumentally motivated, using superficial single sources of information, preferring rote-learning). Effective teaching encourages deep learning and ‘designs out’ the shallow approach by, amongst other things, continuous assessment. B5.3 Attributional style, self-efficacy, and relationships. People differ predictably in the way they explain (make causal inferences about) success and failure; this is know as attributional style. Via a cognitive process known as the self-serving bias (Miller & Ross 1980), most people explain personal success by emphasising personal effort and ability, and personal failure by emphasising external extenuating factors. The opposite is true for explaining others’ successes and failures (the ‘fundamental attribution error’). Errors in ‘normal’ attribution, for example discounting the effort involved in a good mark or discounting the effect of adverse circumstances on exam performance, can be extremely demotivating for learners, and effective teachers can support students by identifying and correcting these errors in seminars and pastoral sessions on feedback. Motivation is also a key aspect of academic self-efficacy (Bandura 1986), the belief that one can achieve specific academic goals. Self-efficacy is conceived (Schunk 1991, cited in Jarvis 2005) to be a dynamic product of: previous experience of relevant success and failure; direct persuasion (the encouragement of teachers);

23

observational learning (vicarious learning of attitudes and practices of peers); and physiological cues (presence/absence of anxiety in anticipation of, or during the task). From a teacher’s perspective self-efficacy can be built via frequent praise, setting concrete, realistic, attainable goals, and exposing students to peer success via mixed ability teaching. Self-efficacy is worth fostering as it predicts ambition, high expectations of success, persistence at a task, and achievement (Snowman & Biehler 2000). Finally, the quality of the teacher-learner relationship can be important. In a study (Reid & Johnson 1999) of perceptions of effective teaching among university-level staff and students, both groups agreed that interest, clarity and organisation were important teacher-level variables, however, approachability and quality of interaction were rated much more highly by students. As Jarvis (2005, p148) puts it ‘a clear message emerges from research into learner perceptions; the most important factor identified by learners across a wide range of ages and learning contexts is the teacher’s capacity for successful relationships with learners’. B5 Section summary: The basic principles of effective learning, while continually rediscovered and re-named in the educational literature, are venerable, with the best part of a century’s worth of empirical support accumulated across a range of ages and settings. There are too, many teacher- and learner- level psychological variables that predict educational effectiveness. Overall, it is clear that effective teaching:

• promotes agency, exploration and active, ‘self-directed’ learning via student-centred, interactive tasks, exercises and projects

• is particularly effective in groups where social skills and motivation can be built, teacher-learner relationships fostered, and peer-to-peer learning take place

• is reflective and has sufficient variation in approach to cater to the diversity of cognitive and learning styles inevitably present in the class

The reader is encouraged to reflect on the extent to which these basic points are repeated in the following sections. C. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO TEACHING: ENQUIRY-BASE D LEARNING AND ASSOCIATED APPROACHES C1 Outlining and evaluating EBL & PBL . This section describes key features of a broad set of educational approaches that are termed ‘enquiry-based learning’ (EBL). Together with the longer established but narrower ‘problem-based learning’ (PBL) approach, these methods constitute the biggest recent challenge to the traditional didactic paradigm of allegedly passive lectures-plus-tutorials. PBL was pioneered around 40 years ago in the medical faculty of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Barrows & Tamblyn 1980) and since then, has become common practice in many such faculties world-wide. EBL and PBL have also been used across the full range of academic subjects, including law (for example UEA and York in the UK). Some universities (e.g., Maastricht) have the approach embedded across faculties and curricula.

24

What follows is a suitably brief thumbnail sketch of the approach in principle and practice. Interested readers are invited to consult a range of complementary resources: • ‘Evidence of the Educational Effectiveness of Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL) for

Law and Criminology’ (2009). A CEEBL-authored review (by Norman Powell) including further details of practice examples and evaluation papers. Available at: http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/casestudies/

• The ‘resources’ section of UoM’s CEEBL website (located at the previous URL minus the ‘/casestudies’ part) which includes:

o guides for designing and implementing EBL o case studies of practice at Manchester and beyond o academic papers o ideas for assessment and evaluation o dissemination outlets o technical guides for online learning o primary resources (images, video, audio, etc) for use in teaching

• Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-based Learning (Barrett et al 2005). An excellent resource, downloadable in its entirety from NUI Galway http://www.nuigalway.ie/celt/pblbook/contents.htm, and containing a huge amount of information on the approach, together with many practice examples.

C1.1 Rationale and pedagogic assumptions. EBL can be described as: “… a broad umbrella term to describe approaches to learning that are driven by a process of enquiry. The tutor establishes the task and supports or facilitates the process, but the students pursue their own lines of enquiry, draw on their existing knowledge and identify the consequent learning needs. They seek evidence to support their ideas and take responsibility for analysing and presenting this appropriately, either as part of a group or as an individual supported by others. They are thus engaged as partners in the learning process. EBL stimulates students to follow up interesting lines of enquiry and supports them in concentrating their efforts where they need to undertake further work. EBL is usually organised around collaborative work in small groups or with structured support from others, thus promoting the social interaction and cohesion that can be difficult to achieve in a mass system. - Kahn & O’Rourke 2005; 1-2 The approach is very similar to PBL (“The learning that results from the process of working towards the understanding of a resolution of a problem”, Barrows 1980; p1), however, the tasks that are the objects of enquiry go beyond ‘problem’ scenarios to encompass small scale investigations and projects (see figure C1.1 below). EBL thus incorporates PBL.

25

Figure C1.1: Activities associated with EBL (taken from CEEBL website).

A number of rather involved statements of the ‘philosophical’ (i.e., epistemological) bases for the EBL/PBL approach exist (see Hutchings 2007; Barrett 2005, respectively), and while there are few explicit references to educational psychology in more general EBL writing, the indebtedness to the active, social, reflective traditions identified in section B is clear: students actively explore subjects via self-directed, group-oriented tasks and reflect on their learning as a key part of the exercise. EBL/PBL subverts the traditional ‘teacher-led’ (executive) model of a subject specialist who directs learning at a passive audience, and is instead ‘learner-led’; placing greater responsibility on students to work collaboratively, choose topics, identify key resources and summarise their learning. It is, however, not a teacher-free approach; and subject specialists (Vygotsky’s teacher figure) are heavily involved in designing the initial ‘trigger’ (problem, scenario, set of topics), providing clarificatory or introductory didactic input, monitoring progress, giving advice and guidance where sought, moderating peer assessment, and marking academic outputs C1.2 Elements of practice and assessment. From this thumbnail sketch, it follows that a ‘pure’ EBL/PBL approach does not necessarily incorporate conventional lectures, though compilation of reading packs, literature guides, and explanatory mini-lectures can easily be incorporated. Instead, regular supervised smaller group sessions are common, where substantive work, guidance, monitoring, and ultimately assessment takes place. Group projects often make use of and can be conducted in VLE environments such as Blackboard. As is appropriate in higher education, most learning takes place outside formal teacher contact, and groups are encouraged to meet independently between sessions. A sample UoM (English literature) PBL course structure is shown below: week activity 1 Introduction to PBL process. Formation of groups. Begin group work on introductory

problem (oral outcome; non-assessed). Note that the introductory problem is un-assessed, and so material may be used in later assessed parts of the course.

2 Group work on introductory problem. 3 Oral reports on introductory problem. Each group has 20-30 minutes to present outcomes. 4 Begin group work on first assessed problem (oral outcome; assessed [20%]). Choice of

problems 1-4

26

5 Group work on first assessed problem 6 Reading week: no formal sessions 7 Groups’ oral presentations 8 Begin group work on second assessed problem (written outcome; assessed [40%]). Choice

of selected problems 9 Group work on second assessed problem 10 Group work on second assessed problem 11 Submission of written outcomes on second assessed problem. Each group provides an

informal, non-assessed oral presentation on outcomes. 12 Exam preparation + celebration.

from ‘Designing an Enquiry-Based Learning Course’ Resource Pack (Hutchings, 2006) An example of the process of PBL is given in Barrett (2005; 15) 1. Students are presented with a problem 2. Student discuss the problem in a small group PBL tutorial. They clarify the facts of the case. They

define what the problem is. They brainstorm ideas based on the prior knowledge. They identify what they need to learn to work on the problem, what they do not know (learning issues). They reason through the problem. They specify an action plan for working on the problem

3. Students engage in independent study on their learning issues outside the tutorial. This can include: library, databases, the web, resource people and observations

4. They come back to the PBL tutorial(s) sharing information, peer teaching and working together on the problem

5. They present their solution to the problem 6. They review what they have learned from working on the problem. All who participated in the

process engage in self, peer and tutor review of the PBL process and reflections on each person’s contribution to that process.

Regarding EBL examples in Law, an example of a rapid assessed group project is cited in Kahn & O’Rourke (2005; 5). A range of additional examples are cited in Powell’s (2009) review cited at C1 above. Making a bail application (adapted from Feld and Brogan, 2004) Feld and Brogan introduced EBL into a final-year course unit in criminal procedure and evidence on the LLB programme at the University of Western Sydney Law School. Their initial intention was to address the concern that theoretical issues had been marginalised in the existing curriculum. The enquiry that formed the basis for an element of the course unit was a bail application. The intended learning outcomes related to the students' ability to understand relevant legislation, case law, theoretical principles and procedural rules, and (more explicitly addressing a link between theory and practice) to be able to apply this understanding in a specific situation. In order to achieve these outcomes, they modified the 8-step PBL (ParaBLe) model developed at the University of Manchester. Modifications were necessary partly because only a limited amount of time was available for the whole investigation, only a single day in fact. In addition, they presented students with a package of reading materials, rather than expecting students to locate their own information. This package of materials included a range of practical and theoretical material, which was largely, but not entirely, relevant to the bail application. The day concluded with a written examination lasting one hour, drafting a formal bail application. The modified 8-step process they followed may be outlined as follows: 1. Initial discussion (reading the problem in groups of no larger than four for 30 minutes, with

clarification of any unknown terms) 2. Definition of problem (15 minutes) 3. Brainstorming and discussion of solutions (15 minutes each) 4. Generating list of questions and resources to consult (15 minutes) 5. Lecture, followed by private study (lasting 2 hours) 6. Pooling discussion (lasting 30 minutes)

27

It should be noted that a ‘hybrid’ EBL/PBL approach (Barrett 2005) is also relatively common, where standard lectures run alongside seminars/tutorials adapted to the PBL methods and assessment. On assessment, traditional essays and exams can be used, however, the group nature of many EBL/PBL activities is better suited to group presentations (PowerPoint, posters), group reports and reflective learning diaries. Other forms of assessment include: ‘patchwork texts’ and portfolios (students draw together formative assignments into a synoptic report for summative assessment) and peer assessment (of group members, of other groups). Finally, while EBL/PBL is best suited to group work, similar principles can be applied to individual projects, for example final year dissertations, where self-directed but supported learning may already be the default teaching approach. C1.3 Advantages claimed and demonstrated. Much of the literature available on EBL is written by those already convinced a priori of the pedagogical merits of the method; and the active, social, reflective focus of much of the work is conceived to respond to a number of contemporary issues facing HE students (see figure C1.3).

Figure C1.3 Match between some current issues in higher education and EBL (from Kahn & O’Rourke 2005; p3)

Contemporary issues in higher education Advantages of EBL Employability and the development of skills and personal qualities.

Allows the development of a wide range of abilities: knowledge-creation; team- working; presentation; information-literacy; ICT skills; problem-solving; creativity; project management

Gaps in students’ knowledge, given variation in prior experiences.

Incorporates a method by which students can identify and fill gaps in their knowledge base

Disparity between theory and practice

Allows theory to be explored within realistic contexts

Issues around goals and student learning

Fragmented learning on modular programmes

Enquiries involve integration of knowledge

Traditional passive transmission approaches foster surface learning

Typically involves a deep approach to learning; students maker their own connections between ideas

Divergence between research and teaching

Draws on staff research interests and skills, and on the research infrastructure

Mass higher education can lead to a sense of anonymity and social isolation

Enquiries conducted in small groups supported by a facilitator, foster relationships and relationships with staff.

Poor student motivation Scope for students to choose the topic and lines of enquiry. Open nature of an enquiry ensures there is scope for more realistic and relevant learning; peer interactions foster engagement.

Diversity of learner needs Students able to work at their own pace, and in their own way, on issues of interest

Awareness of the need for sensitivity in teaching methods to the subject and institutional context

Scope to adapt the broad approach to a range of scales and using a variety of resources.

Issues around the learning process

Competitive approaches to learning seen as less appropriate in professional contexts

Enquiries allow for both individual work on sub-tasks and common work on an overall task.

28

These claims are likely to have validity (many of them are inherent in the activities that compose EBL) and have been evidenced in small scale evaluative case studies (see Kahn & O’Rourke, above). As mentioned previously, the paradigmatic EBL/PBL report/academic paper is a description of a new course/curriculum introduced in a specific context for specific reasons and, while the majority offer positive results, systematic reviews are rare, and non-existent for law-based subjects. As indicated in Powell’s (2009) review for this sub-group, however, there are many examples of new EBL/PBL courses promoting greater student satisfaction, greater confidence/academic self-efficacy, and some evidence of improvements in cognitive skills (Flagg 2002; Hans 2001; Liddle 2000; Nuy & Moust 1990; Pletinckx & Segers 2001; Sylvester, Hall & Hall 2004) Unsurprisingly, given the level of adoption of the approach globally, the most sophisticated analyses are to be found in the field of medicine. There are problems in uncritically generalising from a medical evidence base, however, commonalities in method and basic learning processes suggest the exercise has some validity. Of seven disparate systematic and/or meta-analytic reviews (collectively covering hundreds of studies) cited in Powell (2009), two found evidence of greater satisfaction or enjoyment among students (Albanese & Mitchell 1993; Smits, Verbeek and de Buisonje 2002) and three found some evidence of improvement in skills and/or knowledge (Albanese & Mitchell ibid; Dochy et al 2003; Gijbels et al 2005). It should be noted that these findings represent summary (overall) effects across a large range of studies; and some individual studies may offer either very positive or very negative results. The remaining reviews (for example, Berkson 1993) found either no comparative advantage in educational outcomes, or in one case poorer performance on professional exams (Vernon & Blake 1993) In conclusion, while there are many individual studies indicating benefit, there is relatively little high quality evaluation evidence to suggest that EBL/PBL is consistently more effective than traditional didactic methods, however, this may be due, in part, to measuring academic ‘success’ using traditional didactic markers (e.g., final exam performance). EBL/PBL seems rather more consistently successful at improving student satisfaction, metacogntive awareness, and marketable lifelong learning skills of the kind described in table C1.3. C1.4 Caveats. Implementing EBL/PBL where it does not exist, like any major curricular change, is not cost-free and this is clearly admitted by the approaches strongest adherents: “… it should be mentioned that students and staff need to be supported when making transitions in adopting or adapting to new approaches to teaching, learning and assessment, especially with the more open-ended approaches involved in EBL.” (Kahn & O’Rourke 2005; p2). Careful thought, then, needs to be given to the pace and extent of change, and associated ‘up-front’ costs relating to development of materials, training of facilitators and monitoring of success. One insight into the costs and benefits involved in implementing EBL/PBL in a modern British law school has been gained through conversations with colleagues offering the LLB at York (Murphy, personal communication). While we are lacking information as to the precise nature and extent of PBL across the program, some general observations were made:

29

• that there were substantial up-front costs in developing the PBL approach,

including training and co-ordinating facilitators on modules. The approach was felt to work better with smaller classes.

• that staff felt that there were undoubted gains in terms of transferable and marketable independent learning skills. At the same time, the approach was felt not to be good preparation for professional exams which retain a traditional didactic focus

• that the wholesale transition to PBL could be resisted by some students (for example, year 3 students who had not previously experienced the approach) and by staff required to re-design long-running courses.

Set against this, much of the CEEBL literature contains advice as to how to make the transition, or short of this, experiment with/pilot elements of the approach. The availability of a dedicated EBL centre in Manchester is also undoubtedly advantageous. C2 Cognate approaches and resources C2.1 Collaborative/co-operative learning. In the course of enquiries with CEEBL on behalf of this review, the sub-group were made aware of an extensive literature relating to ‘co-operative’ learning, not least a review (Johnson et al 2007) of over 300 studies of this method conducted over four decades in the US and elsewhere. The approach is, at base, a psychology-infused justification of democratic participation in learning by co-motivated groups of students, and as such, it has links to Bandura (1997) and his concept of collective academic self-efficacy: the shared belief of a group that they can achieve academic goals. Few details of review procedures, individual studies, or subject area are given, however, the approach claims to increase a wide-range of student outcomes, including ‘effort to achieve’ (motivation), positive relationships, psychological well-being and self-esteem, positive attitudes to learning, and developed civic values. A useful summary of the broad approach, together with examples of practice (virtually identical to the EBL/PBL approaches above) is given by MacGregor & Smith (1992). C2.2 Small group teaching in legal education. The UK Centre for Legal Education at Warwick has recently published an on-line teaching resource describing the benefits and process of small group teaching in law, available at: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/trns/groups/index.html. In both tone and content, it mirrors many of the principles discussed so far: • teaching takes place in small groups of 12-20+ (conceived to be the usual range

for seminar sizes) but where each group is organised into mini-groups of 2-5 for the purpose of co-operative/collaborative tasks

• recommended activities include: moots, mock trials, simulated casework, field or project work, case studies, in-tray exercises, drafting case notes or legal documents, writing newspaper articles, brainstorming, and ‘buzz groups’.

• when effectively designed, assessed and facilitated, the benefits to students are stated to be: cognitive skills and metacognitive awareness; increased confidence;

30

a supportive, creative learning environment; peer (observational) learning; and flexibility for varying learning styles.

• Benefits to teachers/facilitators are: greater involvement in and enjoyment of teaching; the development of valued relationships; better student feedback; and reduced marking loads due to group, as opposed to individual assessment.

D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS D1 Principles of effective teaching. A large body of foundational theory and supporting evidence gathered across age ranges and educational contexts, suggests that effective teaching is: • active: promotes engagement, choice, interactivity, exploration, discovery, self-

direction, and research-like activity • social: is efficiently delivered, organised and assessed in small collaborative

working groups in the context of larger classes facilitated by experts; promotes transferable and marketable social, team and presentation skills, in addition to cognitive skills

• reflective: teachers benefit from recurrent reflection on the success of teaching

approaches; and students benefit by developing the metacognitive awareness of their own habits and preferences that aids further learning

• varied: teaching style reflects the teacher’s own cognitive and learning style;

learning styles, learning strategies and preferences are varied; teaching approaches must also be varied in order to cater for the diversity in any given class

• motivating: by encouragement, timely and appropriate feedback, and the setting

of concrete and achievable goals • sustained by quality relationships: among students and between teacher-

facilitators and students; the latter is a key driver for student satisfaction These qualities are, to a great extent, discoverable via intuition and experience, and they are likely to be found in effective teachers regardless of whether they are conscious of the broader educational literature or versant in its jargon. The weight of academic opinion and evidence would suggest that they are key dimensions along which all teaching should be assessed. D2 Alternative approaches to teaching. Various cognate approaches – PBL, collaborative/co-operative learning, and EBL – have become both popular alternatives to the traditional didactic teaching model, or, in ‘hybrid’ approaches, a supplement to them. It is clear from the range of ‘how to’ resources available, that these methods attempt to enact all of the above principles of effective teaching:

• active: involve choice of topics, assignments and resources; are based on real-world scenarios, practical tasks, exercises and projects

• social: is conducted primarily in small collaborative groups

31

• reflective: often uses peer and self-assessment, and learning diaries • varied: uses a wide-variety of tasks and media, including e-learning resources • motivated: by students taking greater responsibility for their learning, pursuing

interests and gaining regular formative feedback • sustained by quality relationships: that form in groups and with teacher

facilitators who have regular personal contact PBL methods are most associated with medical education but are being increasingly applied (particularly in EBL form) across the full range of academic disciplines including law. Manchester University is a leader in the application of the wider and more flexible EBL approach across curricula. Engagement with the evaluation literature is frustrating as there are no easily available systematic reviews of EBL/PBL effectiveness in law (though many favourable descriptive studies) and reliance has to be made on very disparate studies of medical education. Here, there is only some moderate evidence that the general approach improves student achievement and slightly more consistent evidence that it improves outcomes related to student satisfaction and skills. Some negative evidence was found, for example, marginally poorer performance in professional exams. Any institution looking to implement the approach in whole or in part, would be advised to carefully evaluate their own implementation. The adoption of new methods of teaching is not cost-free and careful consideration should be given to the extent and pace of change, re-training and course development requirements. Consideration too, must be given to the number of students on modules, as the approach may be easier to implement, at least initially, in smaller classes. Short of a ‘pure’ EBL/PBL approach, ‘hybrid’ approaches are possible that mix traditional lectures with a stronger focus on assessed groupwork in seminars. Both piloting and expert support (from, for example, CEEBL) is advised. These ‘front-end’ costs may be seen as an investment to be offset by the longer-term advantages of enacting principles of effective learning.

32

REFERENCES: Albanese, M. A. and Mitchell, S. (1993) 'Problem-Based Learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues ' Academic Medicine, 68(1): 52-81 Bandura, A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall - (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman Barrett, T (2005) ‘Understanding Problem-Based Learning’ in Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-based Learning: Irish Case Studies and International Perspectives (eds. T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn & I. Fallon) Galway: AISHE and CELT, NUI Galway Barrows, H. and Tamblyn, R. (1980) Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer. Berkson, L. (1993) 'Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met?' Academic Medicine, 68(10): S79. Bloom, BS (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domains. New York: McKay Craik, FIM & Lockhart, RS (1972) Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11, 671-684 Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. (2003) 'Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis.' Learning and Instruction, 13: 533-568. Entwhistle NJ, Hanley M & Hounsell, M (1979) Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education 8, 365-380 Feld, F. and Brogan, M. (2004) “Enquiry-based Learning and the Marginalisation of Theoretical Issues in Legal Education,” in Learning Based on the Process of Enquiry, Conference Proceedings, September 2003, Curriculum Innovation. Manchester: University of Manchester. Felder, RM & Silverman, LK (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education 78, 674-681 Fenstermacher, GD & Soltis, JF (1992) Approaches to Teaching. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Fisher, R (1995) Teaching Children to Think. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Flagg, B. J. (2002) 'Experimenting with Problem-Based Learning in Constitutional Law.' Washington University journal of law and policy, 10: 101.

33

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P. and Segers, M. (2005) 'Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment.' Review of Educational Research, 75(1): 27-61. Hans, V. P. (2001) 'Integrating Active Learning and the Use of Technology in Legal Studies Courses.' The Power of Problem-Based Learning: A Practical "How To" for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh and D. E. Allen. Sterling, Virginia, Stylus Publishing: 141-148 Hutchings, W (2006) Designing an Enquiry-Based Learning Course. CEEBL, University of Manchester. Hutchings, W (2007) The Philosophical Basis of Enquiry-Based Learning. CEEBL, University of Manchester. Jarvis, M (2005) The Psychology of Effective Teaching and Learning. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Johnson DW, Johnson RT & Smith K (2007) The State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings. Educational Psychology Review 19, 15-29 Larkin, M (2002) Using scaffolding instruction to optimise learning. ERIC Digest. Liddle, M. (1999) 'Problem-based learning in law: Student attitudes.' Implementing Problem Based Learning Project: Proceedings of the First Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning. Hong Kong, The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, Teaching Development Project on Enhancing Health Science Education through Problem Based Learning. Kahn, P & O’Rourke, K (2005) ‘Understanding Enquiry-Based Learning’ in Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-based Learning: Irish Case Studies and International Perspectives (eds. T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn & I. Fallon) Galway: AISHE and CELT, NUI Galway Smith BL & MacGregor JT (1992) What Is Collaborative Learning? in Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, (eds. A Goodsell, M Maher, V Tinto, BL Smith and J MacGregor). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment: Pennsylvania State University. Miller. DT & Ross, M (1975) Self-serving bias in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin 82, 213-225 Nuy, H. J. P. and Moust, J. H. C. (1990) 'Students and problem-based learning: how well do they fit in.' Journal of Professional Legal Education, 8: 97-114. Pletinckx, J. and Segers, M. (2001) 'Programme Evaluation as an Instrument for Quality Assurance in a Student-Oriented Educational System.' Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(4): 355-72.

34

Reid, DJ & Johnson, M (1999) Improving teaching in higher education: student and teacher perspectives. Educational Studies 25, 269-281 Saracho, ON (1991) Student’s preference for field-dependence-independence teacher characteristics. Educational Psychology 11, 323-332 Schunk, DH (1991) Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist 26, 207-232 Snowman, J & Biehler, R (2000) Psychology Applied to Teaching. Boston: Hougton-Mifflin Sylvester, C., Hall, J. and Hall, E. (2004) 'Problem-Based Learning and Clinical Legal Education: What Can Clinical Educators Learn from PBL.' International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, 6: 39. Vernon, D. T. A. and Blake, R. L. (1993) 'Does Problem-Based Learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research.' Academic Medicine, 68(7): 550-563. Witkin, HA (1964). Origins of Cognitive Style. In Cognition: Theory, Research, Promise (ed. C. Scheerer). New York: Harper & Row.

35

PART TWO APPROACHES TO TEACHING IN THE SCHOOL OF LAW

36

E. SURVEY OF TEACHING PRACTICE IN THE SCHOOL E1 BACKGROUND TO THE SURVEY E1.1 Context, aims & objectives. This survey aimed to describe teaching practices in the School in order to provide a practice context to the findings reviewed in Part One of this report. Key research objectives were to:

• describe the prevalence of practices that the literature suggests promote active and/or interactive learning (hereafter ‘(inter)active’ learning)

• relate adoption of these practices to substantive outcomes such as: teaching

and job satisfaction; student satisfaction; and student grades E1.2 Key measures. E1.2.1 Teaching practices. The content of the survey (reproduced in Appendix II) was designed in July 2009 to reflect emerging findings from a literature review of educational effectiveness that covered various overlapping fields including educational psychology, legal education and enquiry-based learning. One point of agreement between these literatures is that effective learning – where information is taken in rapidly yet thoroughly, integrated into one’s understanding and retained long-term - is an active process whereby:

• students reflectively engage with topics by completing sets of tasks • the tasks are social in nature (for example discussion in pairs or groupwork)

and facilitated by a more experienced/knowledgeable teacher-figure • where both individual and group tasks can be facilitated by multi-media in

addition to orthodox ‘chalk and talk’ approaches Accordingly, the survey asked for the prevalence of three sets of context-related teaching practices:

1. lectures: use of audio-visual materials; student exercises; Q&A 2. e-learning: discussion boards; MCQs; audio-visual materials; websites 3. groupwork: workshop model; assessed and non-assessed group activities; peer

assessment; student-defined areas of study The response format to each item was designed to capture current and historic use, together with levels of interest for non-users. Each item was scored as follows: ‘do this in a course I direct’ (4); ‘do this in a course I don’t direct’ (3); ‘don’t do now but have done’ (2); ‘don’t do this but am interested’ (1); ‘don’t do this and am not interested’ (0), and summary scales (the mean of constituent items) constructed for each question group and in total, where a higher score reflected greater employment of and interest in (inter)active teaching practices. E1.2.2 Teaching satisfaction. Conceived as a key outcome of teaching practice (though see section 1.4 below), this was measured using an ad-hoc scale that combined various dimensions of interest to the review. Five items were included relating to overall satisfaction, understanding of personal pedagogy, and opinions of

37

teaching efficiency, teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction. The response format for each item was a 5-point Likert scale expressing strength of (dis)agreement, scored 0-4, and a summary scale representing the mean response across all items produced, where a higher score reflected greater satisfaction with one’s teaching approach. E1.2.3 Satisfaction with job balance. A further item/outcome of interest measured the subjective balance of teaching, administrative and research responsibilities, both currently and ideally. From this, a single summary measure was created that expressed whether the respondent was satisfied with their current balance of duties or would prefer them shifted in a particular direction (more teaching, more research, less admin, etc). E1.2.4 Teaching experience. As a possible co-variant, an item was included to capture years teaching in Manchester Law School and in total. E1.2.5 Non-survey measures. For the subset of teaching staff who were undergraduate course directors in academic year 2008-9, the UG Office provided the following data on each taught module:

• student satisfaction data: 8 sub-items and an overall (mean) rating from the University’s 2008-9 course evaluation questionnaire results

• student achievement: the mean final grade for the class, and proportion of firsts awarded.

Further details of this dataset are given in a later section (E2.5). Finally, further variables relating to e.g., gender, disciplinary grouping, level of seniority, were constructed from available data on staff webpages. E1.3 Method. Surveys were initially administered with accompanying explanatory information in August 2009, both as an e-mail attachment and via staff pigeonholes. All 118 teaching and research staff (including Honorary staff, GTAs and TAs) listed on the School website were invited to respond regardless of whether they taught at the Undergraduate level or not. Returns are described in detail in section E2.1. E1.4 Analytic limitations. The survey was designed and analysed with very limited resources but by an experienced survey researcher employing a defensible theory-impregnated approach. It is argued, then, that the data has some validity and utility for the purposes of the review, however, there are a number of limitations1:

• measurement error & bias: all surveys imperfectly capture their objects, both mismeasuring and omitting key variables; in addition, responses vary according to subjective interpretation; and are completed or not depending, inter-alia, on attitudes and levels of motivation.

• temporal order & causal inference: causes logically precede effects, but as the survey data is cross-sectional (gathered at one time point), it is not possible to

1 there are further limitations to later analyses that relate solely to 2008-9 UG Course Directors; these are described in section E2.5

38

attribute causal status to any given variable. Thus an association, if found, between teaching practices and teaching satisfaction may mean: a) the former drives the latter (teaching in this way is inherently satisfying), b) the opposite (happier teachers try different approaches), c) both (the relationship is bi-directional) or d) there is no causal relationship, and both variables are the product of other unmeasured variables (e.g., personality, passion for teaching, job security, etc). Note too that course module data were collected prior to survey data yet is taken to be an outcome of those variables; one might argue, again, that the latter are a product of the former.

• size of dataset: in general, it is harder to find statistically significant (i.e., meaningful, non-random) differences and associations in small datasets that are further sub-divided for analysis into smaller groups.

The above problems are common to all survey research but mean in the context of this exercise that all findings should be taken as indicative/impressionistic as opposed to offering a definitive picture of teaching dynamics in the School; these in any case will be the product of a very complex combination of student, staff, and institutional variables, well beyond this (or perhaps any) survey study. E2. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY E2.1 Survey returns. Are described in table E2.1 by gender and staff category. Table E2.1: Survey returns by gender and staff category

a b c d

whole School

achieved sample

sample as % School (column b/a)

sub-group as % whole sample (column b/74)

male 65 47 72.3 63.5 female 53 27 50.9 36.5

Gender

academic 67 60 89.6 81.1 honorary/emeritus 11 1 9.1 1.4 research 9 5 55.6 6.8 GTA/AL 14 4 28.6 5.4 TA 17 3 17.6 4.1

Staff category Total 118 74 62.7 100.0

In total, 74 returns were posted, representing 62.7% of all staff and 89.6% of ‘academic’ staff. In practice, the total number of returns is likely to represent a higher proportion (than 62.7%) of all teaching staff as some non-responders were likely to be ineligible by virtue of being Emeritus or having no teaching duties. The sample represents virtually all staff who deliver lectures and direct courses. 33 2008-9 UG Course Directors responded (see section 2.5). E2.2 Teaching experience (all respondents). Ranged from 9 months to 41 years, with a median value of 10 years. In order to aid later analysis, the sample was split

39

in-lecture student exercises

2

95 4

15

1

3

1

8

3

5

3 7

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do this butam interested

don't do this butI have done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

into approximately equal thirds: low experience (less than 6 years); medium (6-12 years); high (>12 years). E2.3 Teaching practice (all respondents). The prevalence of practices is described by section and then summarised. For clarity and in order to contextualise later analyses (section E2.5), figures in sections E2.3.1 to E2.3.3 are disaggregated according to whether the member of staff was a) an UG Course Director in 2008-9; b) only a PG Course Director that year; or c) not a Course Director. In all cases, each group is represented according the to the following colour key: E2.3.1 In-lecture practice. As indicated by figures E2.3.1a to c below, a high proportion of respondents had either current or historic experience of these practices; and many who did not expressed an interest in acquiring experience. The most frequently employed practice was in-lecture discussion and/or question-and-answer sessions. Figures E2.3.1a to c: Prevalence of three in-lecture teaching practices

in-lecture audio-video

3

10 11 112

23

2

4

2

8 5

3

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do this butam interested

don't do this butI have done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

40

discussion boards or chat facilities

714

3 1

103

466

9

1 3

6

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

in-lecture discussions or Q&A

2 2 3 2

26

2

11

3 6 6

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

multiple choice questions or test banks

1117

3 1 3

73

2 1

9 9

22

3

0

10

20

30

40

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

Other practices identified in the free-response section of this part of the survey included the use of legal case studies. E2.3.2 E-learning practice. In contrast to the preceding section, a much higher proportion of respondent expressed no interest in employing the featured practices. A modest proportion of respondents had some current or historic experience thereof.

Figures E2.3.2a to d: Prevalence of four e-learning teaching practices

41

on-line audio-visual materials

716

2 19

2

3

2 1

55

11

22

5

0

10

20

30

40

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

external website

1713

2 3

5

2

15

8

8

21

6

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

Other practices identified in the free-response section of this part of the survey included:

• PowerPoint presentations synchronised with audio commentary • podcasts • on-line submission, marking and feedback of coursework • blogs • assessed compulsory Blackboard discussion exercises • ePoster group projects (like posters but in PowerPoint; viewed like a website

and incorporating varying software tools and media) E2.3.3 Groupwork.. The practices described in this section are most likely to occur in a seminar or smaller whole-class (‘workshop’) setting. A relatively high proportion of staff had some experience of workshops. Respondents were more likely to employ groupwork for non-assessed as opposed to assessed projects. Many staff without experience of a given approach expressed an interest in finding our more, however the idea of ‘students defining the own areas of study’ proved unpopular with around a third of respondents.

42

non-assessed groupwork

4

12

4 3

123

1

3

6

3

3

8

8

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

assessed groupwork

5

15

25

8

6

4

3

5

9

6 42

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

Figures E2.3.3a to e: Prevalence of four e-learning teaching practices

workshop model

1

14

4

16

2

4

5

2

2

8

6

5

5

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse I direct

num

ber o

f sta

ff

43

peer assessment or feedback

611

74

71

7

3

113

9

10

22

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse Idirect

num

ber o

f sta

ff

students defining own areas of study

10 11

3 1

10

47

1

1

7

9

5

3

2

0

10

20

30

don't do thisand am notinterested

don't do thisbut am

interested

don't do thisbut I have

done

do this in acourse I don't

direct

do this in acourse Idirect

num

ber o

f sta

ff

Other practices identified in the free-response section of this part of the survey included:

• ‘Large case study simulations of events, firms etc. Normally involves students working in groups, the group jointly presenting their work for assessment, and the individuals within the group producing individual pieces of work for assessment (can remove individual assessment to reduce workload)’

• ‘Seminars of 14 students separated into 2 subgroups. In 1st half of seminar each sub group develops an argument to present to the other sub group in the 2nd half. Each student leads discussion/presents argument to other side at least once’.

E2.3.4 Summary of practice prevalence. Figures E2.3.4 a & b, describes, respectively, the proportion of staff currently employing each of the twelve featured teaching practices; and the proportion with current or historic experience thereof. The difference between these two sets of figures is most probably due to a range of factors including the fact that some respondents were not currently teaching due to leave or administrative roles (and could not therefore currently employ methods), did not

44

% staff with currrent or historic experience of (inter)active teaching

23.6 26.4

35.6 38.9 41.1 41.749.3

57.561.4

65.8 67.1

87.1

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

on-lin

e MCQs/t

est b

anks

exte

rnal

websit

e

defin

ing ow

n stud

y are

a

on-lin

e aud

io-visu

al

asses

sed

grou

pwor

k

onlin

e disc

ussio

n boa

rds/c

hat

peer a

sses

sment

works

hops

in-lec

ture

audio

n or

vide

o

non-a

sses

sed

groupw

ork

in-lec

ture

stude

nt ex

ercise

s

in-lectu

re d

iscuss

ion/Q&A

%

% staff currently employing (inter)active teaching

13.920.8 23.3 23.3 26.0

31.935.7 36.1 38.4

45.2

55.7

74.3

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

on-lin

e MCQs/t

est b

anks

extern

al web

site

peer

ass

essm

ent

studen

ts defi

ning st

udy a

reas

asses

sed

groupw

ork

on-lin

e aud

io-visu

al

in-lectu

re a

udion

or vi

deo

onlin

e disc

ussio

n boa

rds/c

hat

works

hops

non-a

sses

sed

group

work

in-lectu

re st

udent

exerci

ses

in-lectu

re d

iscuss

ion/Q&A

%

consider a particular approach appropriate for their current teaching, or had tried and rejected that approach. In-lecture interactivity was the most commonly used set of teaching approaches, with non-assessed groupwork also being fairly prevalent. Aspects of groupwork (formally assessed activities, students defining their own areas of study) and e-learning (MCQs and external web-resources) were the least prevalent, and while nearly half (49%) of staff had experience of peer assessment, only one quarter (23%) were currently employing it.

Figures E2.3.4a & b: Prevalence of featured teaching practices: current and historic Figure E2.3.4c shows the number of staff employing different numbers of teaching practices. Thus, an illustration, four respondents employed no such practices and three employed ten in their current teaching. The median number of practices employed by

45

10

20

num

ber o

f sta

ff

10.009.008.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.00.00

Fre

qu

ency

15

10

5

0

staff was four. Around one third (n=25, 33.8%) of staff employed 0-2 practices; a ‘middle’ third (n=27, 36.5%) employed 3-5 practices; with the remainder (n=22, 29.7%) employing a high number (6 or more) practices.

Figure E2.3.4c: Number of staff employing varying teaching practices

number of (inter)active teaching practices employed E2.3.4 Total (inter)activity score by gender and years teaching. Table E2.3.4 displays the mean score by gender for the four summary scales. Female staff were significantly more likely to practice/favour groupwork and scored non-significantly higher on all other measures. Table E2.3.4(Inter)activity sub- and total scores by gender

Gender N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error Mean

lecture interactivity mean (3 items) female 26 2.79 1.09 .21 male 45 2.55 .98 .15 e-interactivity mean (4 items) female 27 1.67 1.13 .22 male 46 1.40 .94 .14 groupwork interactivity mean (5 items) female 27 2.10 .81 .16 male 47 1.70 .81 .12 total interactivity mean1(12 items) female 26 2.13 .72 .14 male 45 1.83 .71 .11

Figure E2.3.4 below shows that support for and use of (inter)active teaching practices was highest among staff of medium teaching experience, lower for those of low experience and lowest among the most experienced staff. This pattern was repeated for all subscales asides from groupwork, where less experienced staff scored highest.

46

yrs teaching (hi, med, lo)high (>12yrs)mid (6-12yrs)low (<6yrs)

Mea

n o

f to

tal i

nte

ract

ivit

y m

ean

1 (m

ean

of

12 it

ems)

2.05

2.00

1.95

1.90

1.85

1.80

Figure E2.3.4 Total (inter)activity mean by years teaching

E2.4 Teaching satisfaction (all respondents) E2.4.1 Five-item measure. Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about their own teaching as evidenced by the proportion of ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ responses for each item:

• ‘overall I’m happy with my teaching approach’ 83.5% • ‘I understand the pedagogy of my approach’ 75.7% • ‘my teaching is efficient’ (contact hours appropriate) 62.1% • ‘my teaching is effective’ (promotes learning) 83.8% • ‘my teaching is well-received (promotes student satisfaction)’ 89.2%

There was, however, variation in a summary measure expressing the average response across the five items, where a higher score indicated greater satisfaction. Mean scores for males and females were identical. Comparison across levels of teaching experience indicated that there were no significant differences between groups; but that staff in the ‘medium’ category (6-12 years experience) had relatively low (though still absolutely high) levels of satisfaction, with staff with the least experience (<6years) having the highest levels. In analyses not shown, GTAs had the highest relative levels of satisfaction with their teaching. E2.4.2 Balance of duties item. Across all respondents (n=74), the mean perceived percentage of time currently spent on teaching, administration and research suggested a rough 45-20-35 split. The ‘ideal’ split was 35-10-55. For the subset of 53 ‘academic’ staff with greater teaching responsibilities and who felt able to answer the question, the current perceived split was 48-23-29; the ideal split was 36.5-12-51.5.

47

17.6

51.4

13.5 12.2

1.4 1.4 2.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

can't say less teaching,more research

same teaching,mor research

happy withcurrent balance

more teaching,same research

more teaching,less research

more teaching,more research

%

37/50 (74%) of ‘academic’ staff who answered the item stated that they spent less than 40% of their time on research. Finally, the gap (if any) between current and ideal balance was examined and respondents sorted into the categories summarised in figure E2.4.2. Fig E2.4.2. Percentage of respondents falling into each current-ideal work category

Thirty-eight (51.4%) of all respondents wanted to devote less time to teaching and more to their research. Nine members (12.2%) of staff were happy with their current balance, with the remainder, either not able to say, favouring more teaching or wanting less administration and more research time. E2.4.3 Relationship of teaching satisfaction to teaching practice. A weak positive association (r = .19) was found between mean teaching satisfaction score and mean (inter)active teaching practice score. This finding is underlined in figure E2.4.3 which describes the mean teaching satisfaction score across low, medium and high levels of interactive teaching practice. The strength of this positive association varied considerably across staff sub-groups; and was stronger for those with higher teaching experience (r=.35) and for staff at the Senior Lecturer/Reader/Senior Research Fellow level (r=.50). Regarding perceived and ideal job balance, analysis was limited by a large number of categories containing few respondents; a comparison of staff desiring ‘less teaching, more research (n=38) with all other responses combined (n=36) revealed non-significantly higher teaching (inter)activity and teaching satisfaction for the former group.

48

recoded total interactivity score1 (high, medium, low)highmediumlow

Mea

n o

f te

ach

ing

sat

isfa

ctio

n m

ean

(5

item

s)3.10

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.70

Figure E2.4.3 Mean teaching satisfaction score across levels of teaching (inter)activity

E2.5 Student satisfaction (2008-9 Course Directors only) E2.5.1 Initial note on the analyses performed in sections E2.5 and E2.6. So far, we have described the prevalence and inter-relations of variables measured in the same survey for all respondents; and this has allowed us to consider the relationship between teaching interactivity and teaching satisfaction. Sections E2.5 and E2.6 attempt to link teaching interactivity to two sets of student outcomes (satisfaction and achievement) by combining data for UG Course Directors (UGCDs) with routinely collected data on the courses for which they are responsible. While this exercise has value – it is the only retrospective way in which individual teaching practices and student outcomes can be linked – there is one obvious limitation: the correspondence between teaching practices and course outcomes is likely to be stronger where the CD has a strong and consistent course ‘presence’, that is, they design it, deliver most or all of the lectures and set the tasks for and general approach to seminars. Courses that do not fulfil these criteria (e.g., that are team taught or where the CD is covering for a colleague on research leave) will tend to dilute/distort this simple CD-course relationship. One possible and partial approach to overcoming this problem would be to weight course outcomes by the degree of CD presence, however, this would entail a complicated and time-consuming methodology (incorporating level and type of input from all those who teach on every course) that was beyond available resources. In addition, the analytic requirement of having a 1:1 data relationship for CD and course entailed a further set of compromises and omissions detailed in the next section.

49

E2.5.1 Constructing the student satisfaction dataset. The University compels each Course Director to collect course unit evaluation data from students, and the results, by academic year and semester, are posted on Manlaw staff intranet ‘teaching’ pages. Eight items are asked of students:

• The teaching I received was excellent • The material I studied was intellectually stimulating • The material available on-line significantly enhanced my learning • The skills I developed will be valuable • The feedback I received on my work was helpful • The teaching staff and supports staff were readily approachable • The facilities I needed for my work were available • The information I was given about my studies was reliable

A summary dataset was created from 2008-9 data in the following way:

• CDs established for 68 courses with codes • courses where the CD had not responded to the teaching practice survey by

virtue of leaving the University OMITTED (n=3, leaving 65 courses) • courses where the CD was still teaching in the School but had not responded

to the teaching practice survey OMITTED (n=4, leaving 61 courses) • dissertation options with no formal teaching OMITTED (n=6, leaving 55

courses) • jointly directed modules OMITTED (n=3, leaving 52 courses) • courses with no course evaluation data returned, or that did not eventually run,

or which had course codes but contained only 1-2 students of ‘special’ status (e.g., one semester exchange students) OMITTED (n=4, leaving 48 courses)

• 13 of the remaining 31 CDs directed more than one module and for each of these cases, the mean student satisfaction rating across modules was calculated.

This process resulted in a 31 row file where each row represented one CD who had also replied to the teaching practice survey (89% eligible UGCDs), and which summarised student satisfaction data for 48 UG courses. This file was then merged using statistical analysis software with the main teaching practice survey dataset used in preceding sections, so that UGCD teaching practices could now be related directly to student satisfaction data. This subset of staff was comprised of 9 women and 22 men (29% and 71% respectively of 31 UGCDs); and the percentage of staff with low, medium and high teaching experiences was as follows: 22.6/35.5/41.9. E2.5.2 Relationship of student satisfaction to teaching practice. As indicated by figure E2.5.2 and the final cell of column A in table E2.5.2, a weak positive association (r=.23) was observed between the summary measure of student satisfaction and use of/preference for (inter)active teaching practices.

50

recoded total interactivity score1 (high, medium, low)highmediumlow

Mea

n o

f O

VE

RA

LL

ME

AN

RA

TIN

G

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

Figure E2.5.2 Mean overall student satisfaction by level of (inter)active teaching

The summary measure of student satisfaction was, however, also negatively associated with class size (larger classes tended to get poorer ratings) and positively associated with years teaching experience. This raised the possibility that the association between teaching practice and student satisfaction might be moderated by (depend on varying levels of) class size and teaching experience. This was indeed the case, and Columns B & C in table E2.5.2 show that the relationship between teaching practice and student satisfaction was strongest for UGCDs teaching smaller classes and for those with medium levels of teaching experience.

Table E2.5.2 Strength of association (Pearson’s R) between interactive teaching practices and student satisfaction: all, and for two subsets of UGCDs

A B C

Course evaluation item

featured UGCDs n=31

UGCDs with smaller classes (<50) n=10

UGCDs with medium teaching experience (6-12 yrs) n=11

The teaching I received was excellent 0.054 0.430 0.510

The material I studied was intellectually stimulating 0.086 0.185 0.357

The material available on-line significantly enhanced my learning 0.497 0.321 0.377

The skills I developed will be valuable 0.097 0.543 0.578

The feedback I received on my work was helpful 0.170 0.252 0.271

The teaching staff and supports staff were readily approachable 0.237 0.410 0.252

The facilities I needed for my work were available 0.273 0.266 0.423

The information I was given about my studies was reliable 0.106 0.490 0.524

Overall mean of eight items 0.225 0.355 0.439

51

recoded total interactivity score1 (high, medium, low)highmediumlow

Mea

n o

f %

FIR

ST

S

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

E2.6 Student achievement (2008-9 Course Directors only) E2.6.1 Constructing the dataset. Final marking spreadsheets for all students taking all featured UG courses was provided by the UG Office, and for each, the mean overall mark was calculated along with the proportion of firsts awarded. This smaller dataset was then merged with the main teaching practice survey dataset as described above. E2.6.1 Relationship of student satisfaction to teaching practice. Overall, there was no statistical association between UGCD teaching practice and, as illustrated in figure E2.6.1, only a weak positive correlation (.15) to the proportion of firsts. Fig.E2.6.1 Proportion of firsts by level of teaching (inter)activity

As in the preceding section, both measures of student achievement were negatively associated with class size (student performed less well in large classes), and, in further analyses, the relationship between both measures and CD interactivity was positive only for medium-sized classed (between 50 and 106) and negative for both small and large classes.

52

E3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS All educational outcomes are the product of a complex and dynamic set of factors interacting at the level of the student, teacher, class and institution. Observation and modelling of educational systems requires well-resourced studies with sophisticated research designs. This survey, while well-designed and executed with the available (minimal) resources has only permitted the most cursory and simplistic analyses of a handful of variables, and it is worth repeating the general caveat that findings should be taken to be informative but impressionistic, as opposed to a definitive description of teaching in the School. This said, several useful points can be made and what follows is a brief description of key findings, together with some speculative interpretation. 1. Prevalence of (inter)active teaching practices in the School. Many staff within the

School have some current or historic experience of employing teaching practices that are associated with effective (active) learning. Most staff who lecture have experience of using in-class exercises, Q&A sessions and/or discussion. Active group learning and interactive e-learning facilities are also employed by a significant minority of staff. Some staff use many (inter)active methods consistently across their teaching while others adopt either a more piecemeal or ‘abstinent’ approach. Finally, many staff who do not currently employ (inter)active teaching practices are interested in doing so. Together, these findings suggest that there is much effective and evidence-based practice already evident in the School and a receptiveness to alternative ways of teaching. Thus we have a good ‘foundation’ on which to build if we choose to employ these and other practices more systematically. On the other hand, a significant minority of staff remain uninterested in individual teaching approaches relating to e-learning and groupwork and some effort may be required to convince those colleagues of their relevance and worth.

2. Teaching practice and teaching satisfaction. Subjective levels of teaching satisfaction were extremely high across staff, though respondents were less confident that their teaching was efficient (number of contact hours appropriate). This was supported by the fact that a majority of respondents expressed a preference for rebalancing their job away from teaching and towards research. Some weak evidence emerged that greater employment of (inter)active teaching practices predicted greater level of teaching satisfaction, though, giving a hint of the underlying complexities in the data, these relationships were stronger for more senior and experienced staff. Thus, (inter)active teachers may, on the whole, be more positive about their teaching, but both variables may reflect teaching experience; older teachers having more opportunity to experiment with and become happy with their teaching approach. In order to produce (slightly) better evidence of a causal relationship between teaching practice and teaching satisfaction, the latter would need to be measured for the same staff member both before and after changes in teaching practice.

3. Teaching practice and student satisfaction. There are even more limitations to theses analyses than above, however, some modest but consistent evidence emerged of a positive relationship between these two variables. Stronger relationships existed for smaller classes and, again, for more experienced (though not the most experienced) teachers. (Inter)active teaching may be appreciated by

53

students, therefore, but is appreciated more in modules directed by experienced staff and with classes of less than 50. Thus, as UG teaching currently stands in the School, this may mean third-year Law options and smaller non-Law (BA Criminology, BA Law with Criminology) courses at all levels. Additionally, it may be harder to build (inter)activity into very large classes, or staff may be disinclined to do so due to the perceived effort or disutility involved; or larger classes may be experienced as alienating by students.

4. Teaching practice and student achievement. Findings here are perhaps the least easy to interpret, largely because student achievement will depend to a great extent on non-teaching variables such as pre-existing academic skills, levels of motivation, hours worked, attention to marking criteria, learning and revision strategy, etc. A weak positive association was found overall between employment of (inter)active teaching practices and the proportion of firsts, but this was only the really the case for medium-sized classes. For classes that are not intimidatingly large, therefore, (inter)active teaching may help more gifted students excel but are otherwise associated with lower marks.

More extensive, detailed and longitudinal data is required improve understanding of these tentative and generally weak associations. All that can be concluded is that there is some weak-to-moderate evidence in the data to suggest that greater use of (inter)active teaching practices may improve teaching satisfaction and student satisfaction, but that other variables such as teaching experience, satisfaction with job balance, and class size moderate these relationships. This is not to say that more systematic and thoroughly-evaluated employment of selected practices would not produce more robust associations.

54

F. CASE STUDIES OF TEACHING PRACTICE IN THE SCHOOL

This section aims to showcase the variety of approaches currently practiced in the school in colleagues’ own words. It is organised into two sections:

• a collation of free text responses given in the teaching practice survey from a total of 20 respondents, which either elaborate on approaches covered in the survey or illustrate further examples of practice. Many opinions are also expressed.

• more detailed case studies of 11 colleagues who were invited to describe their approach for a variety of reasons:

- they scored highly in UG course unit evaluation surveys (n=4) - they scored highly on the ‘teaching (inter)activity’ scale (n=2) - they have been awarded teaching excellence awards (n=2) - they have experimented with smaller group collaborative learning (n=2) - they have extensive experience of using VLE (Blackboard) to deliver courses

(n=2)

By naming colleagues (with permission), we hope to give credit for interesting approaches, provide ideas for sharing practice, and encourage reflection on the extent to which the ‘effective learning’ principles are enacted within the School. We have respected the wishes of colleagues who have elected not to be named, and have not included comments where the author has not signalled their position one way or the other.

It should be noted that, in the interests of authenticity, no editing of textual responses has been made, and the section is therefore very long. A brief summary of responses is made in section F3.

F1 Free text responses from the teaching practice survey. All responses are direct quotations.

F1.1 Additional information on lecturing. No responses were made here. F1.2 Additional information on e-learning approaches • My “audio” takes the form of PowerPoint presentations which the students run,

hearing my commentary as the presentation progresses.(BELL) • We make podcasts available of the audio of videos added to the video library. I

have also used online assessments that are not multiple choice – the student accesses the assignment online via BB, submits via BB and the marker marks and returns feedback on BB. (BENNETT)

• I have directed students to blogs run by key thinkers in my field, but mostly as a useful resource (DRAGNEVA-LEWERS)

• Student seminar essays on blackboard where other students have access and can read them, so that we can discuss them in the seminars. (GIGLIO)

• As both a student and a teacher, I find that these are rather artificial and gimmicky, and sometimes seem to be done mostly for the sake of “doing

55

something electronic.” Consistently it seems to me that many students need to be strongly encouraged to take part, and even then many choose not to do so. (GOODHERAM)

• MLP for which I also tutor, uses a lot of interesting methods, including assessed and compulsory Blackboard discussions, ePoster group projects (like posters but done with PowerPoint, meant to be viewed like a website and utilise available software tools and different media), and peer assessment that actually affects the final mark. (HALLENBERG)

• I make extensive use of Blackboard, making primary materials available to students, so that they have easy access to it. This, I think, is the principal purpose of BB or, previously, Manlaw. Students often complain of not being able to access materials easily. Placing such materials on BB clearly obviates this ostensible problem. I do not agree with suggestions that academics set up “chat rooms” for students or engage with them via other websites familiar to them such Facebook as these are social rather than academic networking sites

F1.3 Additional information on groupwork • Large case study simulations of events, firms etc. Normally involves students

working in groups, the group jointly presenting their work for assessment, and the individuals within the group producing individual pieces of work for assessment (can remove individual assessment to reduce workload). (WILLIAMSON)

• I have experienced workshops as a student and find them uncomfortable. (GOODERHAM)

• Counter-terrorism. Weekly seminars of 14 students separated into 2 subgroups. In 1st half of seminar each sub group develops an argument to present to the other sub group in the 2nd half. Each student leads discussion/presents argument to other side at least once. (SMITH)

• The workshop model is all great and fine but it is impossible to use when you are course director of a course with nearly 400 students. Other activities – e.g. non-assessed group activities – are not just possible given the number of students we have. Many of the above suggestions clearly presuppose extensive time with each seminar group which to undertake such activities, something which is often not possible. Furthermore, student attendance at and preparation for seminars can be so variable, especially toward the end of the course.

F1.4 Additional information on ‘other innovation’ • Feedback on essays that are re-marked based on feedback; individual face-to-

face teaching (Data Analysis) facilitated by online teaching resources (ALDRIDGE)

• Assigning counsel/company director/banker roles to students and ask them to find solutions or defend am case/argument (AVGOULEAS)

• Over the past 10 years I have designed and implemented a Postgraduate Diploma and MA in Health Care Ethics that is completely delivered by distance learning. These programme involve online learning and learning via carefully designed interactive learning text that guide the students through the areas of study and develop the skills of philosophical and legal analysis in the context of health care. These programmes were the first of their kind and I am not aware of other courses

56

that do this in such an interactive way. I am now developing online short CPD courses for health care professionals that are provided totally online without any need for staff interaction with students. This is very different from the distance learning MA etc as these are training level courses. The distance learning courses involve a huge amount of staff support and interaction with students in order to work properly. (BENNETT)

• In a seminar setting, I have assigned cases and asked students to do their own research and answer questions given in advance. I encourage group work in doing that. (DRAGNEVA-LEWERS)

• I combine student-presentation seminars with supervision – seems to motivate students. [HAYRY]

• Role-play (LEMES) • a) Incorporation of active online links to electronic sources (revision questions,

further references etc) which many publishers now offer as a supplement to texts via their websites. This offers greater flexibility and makes education technology an active form of learning. b) The use of relevant documentary movies as a means to broaden teaching techniques and encourage participatory rather than didactic processes which are generally passive. c) Problem based assessment as a tool for deeper learning through an analysis of existing real life scenarios and incorporation into research papers and sit in exams. The incorporation is by means of a hypothetical modelled along the substantive content of a contemporary news item. (MAOGOTO)

• I use a learning journal as part of the assessment process (Sentencing and Penal Policy). I used to organise prison visits but the numbers got too big. (QUIRK)

• I mix lecture and discussion to a great extent, provide my students with extremely detailed lecture notes, use video and radio and other popular media as well as more traditional books and articles, and provide them with a separate lecture on writing. (REIFF)

• I use a portfolio method of assessment and this is embedded in the workshop approach to my teaching, consequently the assignment is also a core element of the teaching delivery. (SPENCER)

• Replication exercise – making students reproduce an existing piece of research. Have done this in the past but not now. (STIRTON)

• Guest lectures to demonstrate the theory taught and its application in practice 2- Field Trips , if possible, to see the law applied in real life (TARAWNEH)

• The use of joint teaching (via lead and support lecturer in the same class as the same time) to stimulate ideas, provoke differences of view, and to present a more rounded picture etc. Although expensive in staff time (it is not shown on my timetable) it does enhance both the teaching and learning experience, and can provide the stimulus for collaborative research. (WILLIAMSON)

• shared learning: students given distinct tasks to research – they feedback to the rest of the group (via Blackboard) and all benefit from the knowledge. (KEYWOOD)

57

F2. Case studies of effective practice. Responses here are made in a variety of formats, either following a set of 6 question prompts, a more simple set of 3 prompts, free response, or in two instances, notes written up by the interviewer. HIGH SCORER ON THE TEACHING INTERACTIVITY SURVEY SC ALE #1: Nuno-Ferreira I don't think any of my teaching & learning techniques/methods are in anyway innovative, at least not within the broad spectrum of developments in the field of pedagogics during the last couple of decades. All of these are extremely common in training and non-formal education settings. They're simply slight unusual within the context of most law schools, where teaching has the tendency to be rather conservative, lecture-focused and text-based. Why did you choose this approach? What pedagogical argument would you make for it? I chose these techniques for several reasons, among which: • to help students engage with the topic, develop a better understanding of it, and

acquire a genuine interest in it; • to foster a clear perception of the relevance of the topic for 'real' life and

usefulness and practical consequences of its study. Pedagogically, besides helping students to learn more effectively, the use of such techniques also has the (related) advantages of catering for different learning styles and keeping levels of interest and concentration high. As a secondary, but still relevant, effect students may also acquire presentation skills (in the case of oral presentations), assessment and feed-back skills (in case of peer assessment and feed-back) and IT skills (in the case of use of VLE and media). Finally, I must also admit a selfish interest: the use of diverse techniques also keeps my interest high, helps me convey more efficiently the contents I want to convey, and allows me to create a set of materials that can be easily used from year to year. Teaching preparation and delivery becomes less time-consuming and dull. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the approach? The benefits have been mentioned above. The drawbacks: • preparation can be rather time-consuming at the initial stage, but I believe it is

worth it on a long run; • one may need certain (basic) IT skills, but IT support is overall very good, so

that shouldn't prevent anyone from adventuring into the use of new techniques; • things can go wrong, as machines aren't always reliable and when trying things for

the first time the outcome and students' reactions may not be what one had in mind, but again, I believe the risk is worth it and usually the risk pays off with the results achieved.

To what extent do you think it is successful? How did you assess this? I think it is reasonably successful. By this I mean that it's an on-going process, always in need of being improved. Also the mindset of some students is not prepared for some of these

58

experiences (namely oral presentations), so one can feel some resistance initially, but the overall reaction is usually very positive. Besides my observation of students' reactions and comments during the delivery of the course, I've assessed the level of success in the use of these techniques by administering individual teaching assessment forms over three years and through the standard course unit questionnaires. It's usually the case that the course units where I use a greater diversity of teaching techniques obtain better results than when I simply deliver traditional lectures. It is, however, impossible to tell the exact proportion in which those results are due to the use of diverse teaching techniques rather than other elements, such as size of the group and level of knowledge on the topic. Indeed, the smaller the groups are and the more I know about the topic, the better the questionnaire results are, so these seem to be crucial elements to consider as well. Would you say this approach is suitable for other subjects in the School? I think there are two elements that may somehow limit the possibility to use diverse teaching techniques: the topic and the size of the group. However, that shouldn't be used as an excuse not to make any effort, as these are only relative, not absolute obstacles. It only takes some creativity and time to think about ways of using a variety of techniques in any module. Other elements that may also contribute not to use these techniques concern: • for how long courses will run (if a course may only run for 2 or 3 years and then

be cancelled, there may not be much incentive to invest in the preparation and search of materials, blackboard website, etc); and,

• 'ownership' of the course (if the other people involved in delivering the course resist the introduction of new teaching techniques, then it may be harder to do it, as some of these techniques are linked to the method of assessment and the course as a whole, not simply its individuals lectures/seminars).

How do you plan to develop your teaching in the future, if at all? I hope to expand on the use of the techniques I already use, by finding new relevant materials (videos, etc) and improving the way I use these techniques presently. I also plan to explore the possibility of using other techniques, such as assessed group project (beyond a simple presentation), and introducing greater flexibility /personalisation in the students' individual learning (e.g. by allowing them the choice of a topic for the purposes of coursework, etc). Future plans depend on courses I'll effectively be involved in teaching (see issues highlighted above in relation to for how long courses run and 'ownership' of courses).

HIGH SCORER ON THE TEACHING INTERACTIVITY SCALE#2: Dave Williamson

Dave has very generously passed on a note describing some approaches he has used at Manchester and in his previous post at Staffordshire in his work with John Ramsay, whose website http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/business/ramsay/teaching/ includes further innovative examples.

59

A. Cumulative discussions (snowballing) The intention of this activity is to have a discussion between increasingly large groups of students, with a view to pooling ideas and sharing knowledge and insights. Give students a copy of an article or other relevant material at least one week before the class and ask them to read it with a specific question in mind:

‘Ethical investment is everywhere and always a good thing’

Upon commencement of the class you split them into pairs and ask them to spend fifteen minutes discussing a similar but not identical question:

‘Positive screening by ethical investment funds has led to an avalanche of investment in environmentally damaging firms’ (Anon, 2009)

Critically assess the validity of this statement.

After fifteen minutes you get each pair to form a group of four and spend five minutes pooling their answers to the question. You also ask them to select one of their number to go and take their shared ideas to another forum. After the five minutes are up you issue each group of four with some kind of presentation materials and send them off, as a group, to another room with a task such as:

You have 15 minutes to prepare a brief (not more than three or four minutes long) presentation to the rest of the class in response to this final task:

(a) Describe the advantages and disadvantages for the public interest of ethical investment funds.

(b) State whether or not you believe that the advantages tend to outweigh the disadvantages (or vice versa) and provide some evidence to support your conclusion.

When they come back you have them deliver the brief presentation and then have a general discussion with the class in which you try to resolve any remaining misunderstandings and questions.

B. Guided Lectures. This activity is intended to help students to understand lecture material and develop their note-taking skills. Students should be provided with an outline of the lecture contents and objectives, and perhaps some suggested reading material in advance of the session. Advise the students that you are going to do 20-30 minutes of delivery during which they should pay attention but NOT make any notes.

At the end of the session, the students are given 5 minutes to record everything he or she can recall. At the end of this period, the students are asked to form dyads or triads, reconstruct and discuss the lecture, and in the process complete their notes. During this time the lecturer is available to clarify any issue or question which might arise within the groups.

This can be finished with a short plenary session in which the various groups are asked if they have nay unresolved issues or questions that they need answering.

60

C The use of paradox Paradoxes are an extremely useful tool for helping students to test their own understanding of the material you are delivering. In any subject it is possible to find examples of phenomena that appear to defy the theories, descriptions and explanations offered in the recommended texts or your lecture material. These paradoxes can be offered to the students as problems that need solving.

For example, in a module dealing with the explanation of economic development, it is not difficult to find examples of countries whose development follows none of the ‘conventional’ routes to successful development, or whose governments have chosen eccentric or unusual policy combinations, but who still managed to achieve economic ‘success’. Students can be given data concerning such exceptions to the general rule, and asked to explain how economic success was possible. The subsequent problem-solving activity might be done using small group discussions, or individually between classes supported with some relevant handouts, and so on.

The particular value of using paradoxes in this way is that it challenges student complacency and the common reflex habit of passively recording knowledge and techniques handed down from ‘expert’ staff. It also encourages some students to critically examine the nature of the handed-down knowledge/information that they have already accepted. Almost any activity that actively promotes in students a critical, analytical approach to the subject matter we teach is to be welcomed.

In the discussions surrounding attempts to solve problems based on paradoxes you will frequently expose student misunderstandings about the material you have been delivering that can then be corrected. The quality of the understanding some students achieve after such paradox-based problem-solving activities can be satisfyingly high. With some students however, care is needed to prevent them becoming over-anxious about the fact that the knowledge, ideas and techniques that staff are offering them may not be, as they had previously assumed, totally reliable, but may actually be partially defective or open to challenge

TEACHING AWARD WINNER #1: Margaret Halliwell To put the teaching at City in perspective I taught three programmes. CPE (200 students) One year programme. This consisted of 80 + % of Oxbridge categories many with a first class degree. This cohort was taught via a one year 40 lecture ten hour seminar method as were the other two programmes but with 14 students in each tutorial group. I taught the tutorials via the Socratic method always asking questions of all members individually. PGLL.B (50 students) A two year programme. International students with excellent first degrees. As above but with tutorial groups of eight. LL.B (80 students) Three year programme. 80 + % of British Asian origin. Low ‘A’ level point entry. Tutorial groups of eight.

61

It was for this group that I won the Innovation Award. The failure rate for Equity and Trusts and Land Law was running at 30%. After I changed the Equity course the rate dropped to 1% which was quite a dramatic result. Again in a largely Socratic method but very much by contextualising the content of the course and emphasising its relevance in modern society. To this effect: 1. The historical background was sent out as an introductory induction before the

course started. (Oddly enough, in the sense that I didn’t expect it, this was rated very highly in the student evaluations). The first lecture was a key concepts lecture and the students had to fill in the definitions (I simply white spaced them) in a subsequent session.

2. Compulsory Socrates lecture on a very controversial estoppel case. Proprietary estoppel was taught conventionally on the Land Law course but there was co-ordination with the land lawyers throughout.

3. Introduction of an Equity and Trust News notice board. Good fun for the students e.g. a cutting of the age of a parrot and a woman pregnant in her sixties to illustrate perpetuity rules. Students and I supplied cuttings from the newspapers.

4. One topic illustrated by a play written by Lord Hoffman. Students converted lecture theatre into set and performed play. Staff came along.

5. Christmas and Easter quiz with prize. (Inherited from Martin Davy) 6. Student presentations (Not a universal success) In terms of pedagogy applying for membership of the Higher Education Academy is a very good exercise in critical evaluation of one’s teaching. Taking seminars in Manchester in a Socratic style means that the students have to work hard but my follow up rate e.g. Contact (Sem 1) to Public Law II (Sem 2) is at least 90%. TEACHING AWARD WINNER #2 AND HIGH SCORER FROM STUDE NT FEEDBACK #1: Judith Aldridge The following text is compiled from a telephone conversation that probed for assessment methods and an account of the high performance in the course unit evaluation survey. Further details of the two featured (BA Crim) courses – Data Analysis and Foundations of Academic Scholarship – are available from Judith. Data analysis. This module aims to develop students’ quantitative skills and provide them with an introduction to some of the statistical techniques involved in analysing quantitative data. It is assessed by • A three hour exam around a month before the standard exam period (45%) • 10 weekly homework exercises, where submission gains 1% (10%) • A 1500-2000 word report based on interrogation of a dataset for which the students

have to design & implement their own research questions.

62

Judith describes enjoying the challenge of teaching subjects that students initially think they don’t want to know. The course has required a lot of iterations to attain its current form but has regularly been praised by externals. Originally, the course was assessed by a summative project but the quality was not all that high; Judith attributes this to students learning things superficially only when they had to, i.e., before the submission of the report. To encourage working over the whole of the semester, weekly homework exercises were introduced (they are not marked but non-submission means losing 1% per homework from the overall grade) and a mid-semester exam. This was difficult to get passed administratively, however, it ensures work from the start of the course. Judith has felt that both of these measures have dramatically increased the quality of project reports. Judith also felt that the close support in practical classes was appreciated by students. Foundations of academic scholarship. This is an introductory (semester 1, level 1) course aimed at imparting key study skills to BA Criminology students. Several sessions are devoted to writing skills and referencing and the course assessed, initially via a non-assessed essay on a set topic and with a limited range of provided resources. Students submit this mid-course and are given very detailed feedback that makes use of a library of common errors/marker’s comments built up from previous years essays. Students are provided with a list of all common errors and those that apply to their essay are coded and written onto the essay. Students then discuss and digest the comments and resubmit the essay for 100% of formal assessment. They also take part in non-assessed groupwork that culminates in a presentation to the rest of the class. Peer assessment is used. HIGH SCORER FROM STUDENT FEEDBACK #2: Imogen Jones Methods used to deliver the unit, including any use of technology Both courses were delivered in the traditional format last year - 30 lectures and 5 seminars. In lectures basic legal information etc was communicated but in a socio-legal context, asking questions about the appropriateness and implications of the law. In evidence some lectures were interactive. Seminars were very interactive and were focussed on active learning, critical analysis etc - students would engage in discussions which would be based on further research and reading rather than going over the lectures. Basic handouts given - ppt was used as a visual aid - to provide a visual stimuli associated with the topic, to put quotes up etc. Blackboard discussions etc were used. Assessment methods 1/3 coursework, 2/3 exam. I'd like it to be more coursework, but the marking is a killer. Why you think the unit scored well in the student survey It's very difficult to know - from the comments on the law school questionnaires I can get a bit of an idea.

63

Key factors identified by the students were enthusiasm, liking going away thinking and questioning, clear communication. I am also (although I'm biased) lucky enough to teach subjects which involve interesting issues about which students have (often polarised) viewpoints. This makes it much easier to engage them. There is undoubtedly a difference between criminal Law (for Crim) and Criminal Evidence, whereby the lectures for the former were delivered in conjunction with those for criminal law (and therefore to a cohort of 350+). This enabled me to be much more interactive with the evidence students during lectures. I would be surprised if a large element of the success of the courses is not related to the fact that they are both, broadly, research led courses. By this I mean that even where they do not specifically overlap with current research, they fall within that area (e.g. criminal law/criminal evidence) and this makes it far easier for me to be passionate about the subject matter. I can convinced that this enthusiasm is clear to the students and significantly improves their learning experience. I also think that the elements of approachability and active learning make the students more satisfied - where practicable, lectures included active elements, with questions and discussions being encouraged but seminars were always based around active learning principles, as such engaging the students as much as possible. HIGH SCORER FROM STUDENT FEEDBACK #3: Angela Melvil le Methods used to deliver the unit I used workshops to deliver each of my courses. For child law, I want students to appreciate the context in which child law is located, including how changes in law reflect changes in the social construction of childhood; important policy debates; and the way in which children experience the law. I want students to be able to think critically and independently, and to do more than repeat the relevant statute and case law. The workshop model gives me greater flexibility , and allows me to draw on a wider range of materials and to have the students work through different activities. For instance, one week they must find their own article on the impact of divorce and separation on children - and we use these articles to develop discussion of the topic. This allows me to test their independent research skills, and encourages them to think critically about the material that they read. Another week, I give them cases which went to appeal and they work in groups to come up with their own appeal judgement and reasonings. To me, this encourages active learning more so then giving them the actual case to read (which I give them at the end). They debate the pros and cons of law reform in relation to unmarried fathers - an important area of policy debate. They must prepare their debate beforehand - I give them a suggested reading, but they must do some additional work. We also looked at a media article on Baby P. We look at how changes to child protection legislation and child abuse inquiries tends to be quite reactionary and

64

focuses on popular scapegoats, and Baby P has been no exception. I used Blackboard to make the article accessible before class, linked it to reading on child abuse inquiries, and gave students ample warning of the topic. I then made sure that the exercise didn't focus specifically on the injuries to Baby P - I work on the assumption that one of my students may have been abused, and so I needed to be careful. I talked this out with HoS before doing it. I do lecture (for an hour usually), but this model allows me to make the topics seem more relevant and interesting, and I hope that the students will do the additional work voluntarily. My lecture notes are available before hand on Blackboard - which has never caused a problem with attendance. It is less easy to do interactive activities with sociology of law, which is deeply theoretical. But I give them a reading each week - and usually something awful, like a piece of Parsons or Durkheim. We go over the reading in a number of different ways each week. Also, I get them to walk through Manchester looking at CCTV (the week we do Foucault), and to look at the way in which the law school constructs student identities (Bourdieu). Assessment methods Most of my students hand something in for non-assessed coursework, which is optional. I give them a choice of a question from last year's exam paper. The assessment is a mix of coursework and exam. The coursework asks very broad questions, which seems to cause them stress. I give very specific advice that what I want is for them to choose an aspect of the topic and then stay focused. It makes them quite worried, but I have had some excellent essays, and the external has always given good comments. The exam for child law is a mix of case law questions and essay topics from each week. Students could pass child law by taking a legal perspective, but equally, they could also pass by adopting a socio-legal approach. The exam for sociology of law is in 2 parts. The first is a choice of 3 broad questions, and the second a choice of 5 questions specifically about individual theorists. Why you think the unit scored well in the student survey. The thing that I seem to score highest on is for being intellectually stimulating and interesting. I try to make the courses coherent as a whole, to be organised, give detailed course guides and let them know exactly what we are doing, why and what I expect. If you do the work, you should go well. I think that's fair. I try to be approachable and I encourage independent and critical thinking. I don't think that I am particularly interesting or charismatic as a teaching, and I am certainly not a push-over. Externals have consistently commented on the complexity of the material that the courses cover. HIGH SCORER FROM STUDENT FEEDBACK #4 (Rodney Brazier) Methods used to deliver the unit. In Public Law I, and in Constitutional Reform, 30 lectures / 5 seminars for each. No technology in either, except for a radio mike in

65

lectures (which allows me to stand in the middle of the class and use a music stand to support notes). Blackboard is used to post lecture and seminar materials, and to send occasional/more frequent emails to the lecture class with reminders/updates etc.; and of course the lecture handouts are linked through Talis. Assessment methods. Public Law I has a closed, three-hour exam. Constitutional Reform (155 customers last session; threatened with 208 this – swollen by fewer available options, etc.) has an assessed essay of up to 2,500 words (for 33%), and a closed exam (for 66%). Why you think the unit scored well in the student survey. Why are the student questionnaire results as good as they are? My best judgements on myself are as follow. (a) Passion for the subjects. This I communicate, and it engages students. (Of

course, being passionate about some colleagues’ subjects must be very hard – at least, it would be for me. I name no subjects, but you know what I mean.)

(b) Feeding into the lectures (and seminars) research done, advice to Ministers/departments/parliamentary committees. This results in shameless name-dropping and self-advertisement, of course, but students can see the practical applications of what could be seen as remote and perhaps theoretical concepts.

(c) Historical analogies, occasionally, which usually seem to engage most students (especially if speaking of major historical events – the 2WW, Iraq, Afghanistan): this again underlines enduring truths, I believe.

(d) Lectures that are carefully constructed, liberally using obvious aids such as a Dewey-decimal style numbering system, so ensuring that students can follow a line of argument, exposition, etc.

(e) Some degree of interaction, through regularly seeking any questions, posing questions, encouraging (within time constraints) mini-debates.

(f) Humour – not of the “here is a joke” variety, but a mixture of (carefully-prepared) ad libs, together with quips, spontaneity - partly because this relaxes people, partly because it breaks up the monotony, and also because it may help with retention of information.

(g) Good organisation. The teachers normally meet before the semester begins to discuss the menu, clear any problems, etc.

(h) The lecture and seminar handouts for the whole semester are published at the start of the semester: students know what they face from the very beginning.

GROUPWORK EXAMPLE #1: Graham Smith The following text represents a summary of an informal recorded interview with Graham, discussing his 3rd year Counterterrorism option. Graham was approached because of his innovative approach to offering groupwork in seminars though he himself did not see the approach as innovative, but something he had always done. There are 10 (weekly) seminars of 1 hour with an ‘ideal’ seminar

66

size of 14-16. Groups are assigned reading before each seminar (no course texts, but many journal articles), and are split into two groups of seven. In the first half of the seminar, each mini-group prepares an argument (from either a pro-liberty or pro-security standpoint), and one person from each group leads on an informal debate. Students also choose their own topics. The first seminar introduces the method, the second does not have debate leaders and in the next 7-8 seminars, members of each group take turns to lead the debate. Hence, everyone gets a turn at leading. Graham facilitates, and encourages input from those who have not spoken in the session but he feels confident in letting students commit (factual, conceptual) mistakes, as it is the method (self-directed group learning) that is more important than the acquisition of specific knowledge. Lectures are essentially guides to the literature. The advantages of the approach is that it promotes transferable learning skills (focussing on developing arguments not memorising information), and Graham has received informal reports that students have applied the method other modules and got into the habit of reading more journal articles. It also is relatively easy to facilitate once set up. Graham notes an improvement in debating skills over the course of the module and is satisfied with some very high quality exam scripts. He feels the model could be expanded easily to 18 (9 debates with 2 leads per debate) or 32 (8 debates with 2 sets of 2 leads per debate). GROUPWORK EXAMPLE #2: Jon Shute Until relatively recently, my teaching approach in Psychology, Crime and Criminal Justice II was fairly traditional, but I became dissatisfied with the ‘standard’ model of individually prepared set questions discussed in seminars. Instead, I decided to split each seminar group into two mini-groups of four, and asked each to prepare group presentations of around 15 minutes arguing ‘for’ or ‘against’ a contentious topic running alongside lectures (effects of video games on violence; parental responsibility for anti-social behaviour, etc). Different members of each group were self-assigned different roles (introduction, substantive argument, conclusion, etc) and roles rotated each week. Seminar 1 introduced the method, and the remaining four seminars were devoted to different topics with ‘for’ and ‘against’ positions switched. After each presentation, I (a) asked the group to rate their own performance and give themselves a mark

with reference to the School marking criteria for that level (self-assessment) (b) asked the opposing group to do the same (peer assessment) (c) I then gave my opinions and a mark, explaining my rationale (formative and

summative assessment) Students initially feel nervous about speaking but this is overcome quickly via encouragement, and maintaining an informal, supportive atmosphere. The quality of presentations and arguments improved over the semester and attendance was excellent, partially due to the importance of each member to the presentation. Most impressively, the percentage of students either ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’ with the course unit evaluation item ‘the feedback I received on my work was helpful’ rose from around 48% in 2007-8 to 87% in 2008-9, mirroring comments

67

made by students in seminars. I think it helped to develop group-working and presentation skills but also allowed for more thorough understanding of the marking criteria and what was expected of students when making an argument. The approach also cedes control the learner and gives them responsibility for their own learning. From a personal perspective, the seminars were also more enjoyable, more raucous and informed, and although there were four sets of detailed oral feedbacks given per group over the semester, this was done in the seminar and at the level of the group, not the individual, hence less marking.

EXPLOITING ICT #1: Gillian Ulph

How would you describe your typical approach to teaching on this course? I’ve picked my use of Blackboard as an example of my experience. I have encouraged much greater use of it by students on modules that I’ve been teaching, and I’ve tried to use it to enhance my teaching practice and the student learning experience.

For the most part my experience has involved encouraging wide use of discussion boards. So for example, with my Equity and Trusts seminars last year, I set up individual discussion areas for each of my individual seminar groups and tried to encourage them to post questions and answers weekly in their group area. For the Land Law course I set up discussion groups for each seminar topic and made them available to all the students on the course. All materials were placed on Blackboard and any announcements were posted there, as well as being sent by email.

I’m also Programme Director for the English Law with French Law programme and the Certificate in Legal Studies. I started trying to set up a Blackboard space for these two cohorts of students last year, partly as a means to provide them with information (which would previously have been made available on a specific webpage I’d created for them), and partly to encourage discussion and peer support across the year groups, something that is particularly relevant to this relatively small group of students. I’ve since set up a simpler version which is primarily geared towards the Year Abroad students. I’ve uploaded all the relevant information from this university, as well as links to websites and documents for their host university and other organisations that offer support and advice. I’ve encouraged them to use Blackboard to get this information and to ask questions that either I or other students can answer. This year I’m introducing them to the idea of reflective learning logs.

Why did you choose this approach? What pedagogical argument would you make for it? For the most part I use Blackboard as a solution once I’ve identified a way in which I think student learning can be enhanced. For example, with the Equity and Trusts discussion groups I felt that we were spending a lot of time in seminars dealing with some of the more basic questions, and I wanted to see whether students could work together outside of the seminars to resolve these points, freeing up the seminar time to discuss the more interesting and complex questions. I felt they would be intimidated if they had to post detailed answers to questions that the whole cohort of students would be able to see, so I set up individual boards for each seminar group and asked two students each week to post their answers to some of the questions from

68

the seminar. I then asked the seminar group to arrange to meet up before the seminar to talk through the answers that students had provided and discuss any points of confusion or uncertainty. They were also encouraged to use their discussion group during the week to ask each other questions that arose when they were doing the seminar preparation.

Blackboard in this case was simply a facilitator for a group work approach to learning, and my aim was to build on the approach currently taken through the use of seminars as a method of teaching. Encouraging students to reflect on topics prior to the seminar was intended to promote greater active and reflective learning – active in the sense that they were discussing the questions rather than waiting to be given the answer in seminars, and reflective in that they would be better able to assess their depth and scope of understanding of the topic. Encouraging them to identify topics of concern or for consideration at the start of the seminar was meant to foster a sense that they were involved in directing their learning.

In other cases I’ve used Blackboard primarily to enhance efficiency. By ensuring all materials are available online and answering questions in an online discussion forum I was trying to reduce the number of times I would be asked the same question (whether administrative or substantive), with the additional advantage that I could easily ensure that the answers would be visible to all students (and in the case of ELFL and CLS students, there would be a repository of information available from the start). However the discussion boards also generated a sense of community for students studying that module, and encouraged student participation since it was possible for students to answer questions posed by another student, identify points that they thought had been misunderstood or provide positive feedback where an answer was well explained

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the approach? The benefits have probably been covered in the section above. The drawbacks are primarily the time that this takes to set up and then run during the semester. Hopefully the need to keep reminding and encouraging students to use Blackboard will become less of a problem as students become more used to using it during their course. Obviously much of what I have done can be reused in following years so again the time it takes should be less of a problem. Nevertheless it does still require me to check the discussions regularly, particularly closer to exam times as I found last year that if I didn’t respond within a day or so then students would just email me the same question. Also although students started to try to answer questions amongst themselves, I had to be quite quick to respond if the answers were wrong in case other students were then relying on that information.

To what extent do you think it is successful? How did you assess this? In general my use of discussion boards has had success in terms of student participation and developing their understanding of the material. I was impressed at the quality of many of the questions and answers that were posted, particularly towards the end of the course when they had really got to grips with the subject matter. I was able to refer individual students to further reading where I felt that they could cope with the subject matter on a particular topic, and I got a feel for the issues that were proving difficult. I could also see from using the tracking function how many students were using it and at what times, and in particular whether there were students coming to

69

read the discussions without necessarily commenting. Students posting subsequent questions and the fact that threads were developing on certain topics suggested that students were finding the tool useful. I asked students to specifically comment on the discussion groups when completing their seminar feedback sheets and the feedback was generally good.

The smaller discussion groups were less successful, partly in terms of the extent of student participation, but also because students reported that within that small group they all tended to be confused about the same points and I got the sense that at that point they would simply wait for the seminar to resolve the issue rather than working on finding out the answer in the meantime. On the other hand it at least allowed me to get a feel for what the students had and had not understood, and so pitch the seminar questions at the right level.

I’m planning to take quite a relaxed approach to the reflective learning logs for the ELFL students this year because when I discussed it with the students prior to their departure they were on the whole not particularly enthusiastic about the idea. Whilst I am convinced of the pedagogic arguments for this approach, I wanted to see whether they could be convinced of this through practice, although I suspect that the solution is probably to make use of the learning logs compulsory during the year abroad!

Would you say this approach is suitable for other subjects in the School? Absolutely. I’ve introduced it for courses with 350+ students, and whilst it is undoubtedly useful for large cohorts, I think there would probably be greater success and fewer problems with smaller groups.

How do you plan to develop your teaching in the future, if at all? Specifically in relation to the use of Blackboard, I plan to continue with discussion boards, although not necessarily with the smaller discussion groups that I used for Equity and Trusts. I’d like to start using many of the additional tools that are available (for example including question banks to allow students to test their understanding as the course progresses, and requiring students to submit (and possibly grade) non-assessed coursework through Blackboard) but this depends partly on whether I have time to investigate and develop these tools, and also on how widespread take-up is across the student body and within other modules in the Law School.

EXPLOITING ICT #2: Rebecca Bennett When I began to use the virtual learning environment including discussion boards very few others were doing so. I run a distance learning MA with students throughout the world. While the course is of a very high standard and the course materials engaging and interactive I felt that the students did still miss out on the interaction others had with other students and with staff. It is possible to let them see ethical debate in action via the materials and the use of videos and to get them to engage with such discussions via carefully designed exercises in the course materials, however, actually engaging with others about up to date issues would not have been possible without the discussion boards. The discussion boards on that we

70

have used for the last 7 years have allowed students to do this first using a separate bulletin board, then within WebCT and now in Blackboard. In order to really engage students with these discussions takes quite a bit of work. Staff must be active on the discussion boards, posting interesting cases, questions, references to papers etc. Staff must also make sure that they seem approachable so that students are encouraged to participate in these discussions (students are often nervous that they are being judged or assessed in these discussions so its good to reassure them that this is not the case). For our students they are mid-career professionals (usually lawyers and medics) and are typically very busy people with full time jobs. As a result the participation on the discussion boards was, at times, not huge. However, it seems from feedback that these discussion boards were read by most students even if all did not participate. I had considered facilitating real time tutorials via these discussion boards and other media however, with my particular students I felt that the time that it would have taken to organise these and run them was not the best use of my time especially given the different time zones involved and that fact that the students were not that excited by the idea. So in summary, the discussion boards were useful to get information across to students and to stimulate debate and develop the students skills in ethico-legal analysis. The student feedback on this was that they found the discussion boards a useful resource, enjoyed engaging with them (albeit not in huge numbers) and it allowed students to ‘get to know’ their tutors – which in turn helps these distance learning students feel able to contact staff when they need support and guidance. I have used a many innovative ways of teaching using technology and will continue to do so. For instance, I have used online assessment of different kinds (multi choice as well as tutor marked assessments online). I use a large library of video taped lectures and seminars (students can also access these through a pod cast), all my course materials are available online as are student guides on things such as essay writing, plagiarism, referencing, finding reading, etc. I also use online tutorials to help students understand the issues of plagiarism etc. I do think that much of what I have done would be suitable for others subjects in the School. My advice is to look at a Blackboard site like ours that does a lot and pick out the things that you think will enhance your students experience or be a more efficient way of communicating with your students. The trick is to use technology when it helps but not to feel obliged to use it for the sake of it. For example, while I provide all course materials electronically we also send these out in the form of a booklet for a number of reasons – students prefer this as they don’t like reading off the screen and want something they can scribble on and keep, read in the bath etc, they also often have problems with getting online with teenagers in the house, or slow or erratic connections in some parts of the world etc. Thus, I include the cost of creating the booklets in the course fee and provide them online with plenty of other online resources and everyone is happy. I am currently using all of these technologies to create online CPD courses in ethics and law. If anyone wants to see what I have done with Blackboard they are very welcome to get in touch and I will show them.

71

F3 Summary F3.1 Free-text teaching survey comments. A wide variety of practices were identified, many of them employing the kinds of active and social learning practices identified in the earlier literature review. These included • e-learning: podcasts; audio synchronised PowerPoint presentations; blogs; sample

student essays; e-posters; discussion boards (assessed and non-assessed) • groupwork: case study simulations; group presentations; series of debates carried

out larger (14-student) seminars. • miscellaneous: assessed re-marked essays; distance learning; role-play; PBL-like

activities; self-directed research; reflective learning journals; audio-visual material; portfolio assessment; replication exercises; field trips; collaborative and shared learning.

Some views expressed doubts as to the utility or potential of e-learning, and drew attention to the amount of support required to encourage and maintain student engagement. F3.2 Case studies of effective practice. Case studies were selected on the basis of high performance in course unit evaluation questionnaires; high ‘teaching interactivity’ score in the teaching practice survey; being the recipient of teaching awards; or known use of innovation in groupwork and ICT. Examples included:

• self-directed groupwork and debate • cumulative discussion • guided lectures • the use of paradox • Socratic questioning approach • plays and quizzes • weekly non-assessed compulsory homework • close-supported statistics workshops • mid-semester exams • workshop debates • use of applied research • historical analogies • weekly seminars (14 students, split into smaller debating groups) • simultaneous self-, peer- and tutor feedback on group presentations • on-line, moderated discussion groups

Several case study participants did not see their work as innovative but common good practice, or good sense. Many participants also seemed to value the development of independent, self-directed and critical thinking skills, often with peer input and in small groups. Finally participants stressed the importance of good course organisation and, perhaps above all, possessing and communicating passion and enthusiasm for the subject.

72

G. MISCELLANEOUS VIEWS ON TEACHING & RESEARCH This section is included to highlight a range of miscellaneous views on teaching in the School. They are intended to add depth and context to the preceding sections and to encourage debate. Comments were submitted as part of the teaching practice survey and have been used again, with permission. G1 On teaching and research • I feel that there isn’t enough communication between colleagues involved in the

development of the School’s research policy and agenda, and those considering UG/PG teaching issues. We are being constantly pulled in different directions, both by the School and the University’s 2015 goals – to deliver excellent teaching that makes use, where appropriate, of innovative teaching techniques and to produce excellent research. I don’t know what the solution is, but at the very least we should be considering the impact of teaching innovation on research and vice versa. (ABBOT)

• Although I very much enjoy teaching and feel that students respond well to attempts to carry this out in a variety of different ways, I feel that in terms of how it is rewarded (prestige, promotion etc) it is undervalued. That is why I would currently like to devote half as much time to it as research. If it was equally well regarded as research, I would be happy to devote equal amounts to both aspects. I find it difficult to depart from traditional lecture formats for large groups. Where I teach post-graduates in smaller groups I use a wider range of teaching techniques such as journal club which invites students to set the parameters of a topic they will research and present on and which is then discussed and evaluated by peers; in class non-assessed exercises; role plays; negotiations etc. I would be very interested to receive suggestions from my colleagues about how this can be extrapolated to larger groups if possible. (DEVANEY)

• I did approximately 160 hrs teaching at this law school in 2008-09 - more than people at other comparable law schools, where the average teaching load can range from 100-130 hours. I don’t know how much this works out as in terms of percentages but, in any event, this figure does not adequately reflect all the other hours devoted to teaching related activities, such as my office hours, answering students’ emails, writing exam papers and issues to consider, marking non-assessed essays, providing students with feedback, dealing with their queries about the writing of essays, deadlines etc. I think that there is a strong case for some reasonable re-adjustment of staff time toward research.

• While at Manchester, it has been difficult to concentrate for any sustained period of time on research. Research leave (1 semester) was a good, productive time and I am grateful to the School for allowing this, but otherwise teaching and administrative responsibilities have made it hard for me to sustain a level of commitment and output to my research that I would regard as satisfactory. This applies also to vacation time, now that I am PG Exams officer - a role that can be interesting but is so time-consuming that has made me question whether the career development possibilities that it may bring are worth the time and effort demanded. I enjoy teaching and contributing to the administration of the School, but I do feel that my research has suffered as a result of Manchester’s comparatively high teaching load as compared to other leading law schools. The only solution I can see is for us to take on fewer students, especially at LLM level.

73

In my role as PG Exams officer I have come to believe that we take on far too many students, many of whom cannot cope with the intellectual rigour of an LLM, presumably taken on simply for the money. (GURNHAM)

G2 On ‘innovation’ and the nature of effective teaching • I don’t consider a) structured seminar exercises ensuring everyone participates, b)

bullet-pointed lecture slides with the minimum of text, interspersed with appropriate graphics, c) enthusiastic & engaging delivery of teaching, to be innovative. I do think these things are rarer than they should be – and that they are good for results and for student satisfaction. Point-and-talk lectures can be done very, very badly or very, very well, and when they are done well, they’re a very good way of getting knowledge across. I think there’s a danger of looking for what is effectively a technical fix by pursuing innovatory methods, when what students mainly need is more dedication, more enthusiasm and more imagination from their teachers. (EDWARDS)

• I warmly welcome a catholic range of sound teaching and learning methodologies in the Law School. In an ideal world, provided that a given method met a number of criteria, a teacher’s preferred model should be supported. Those criteria include those underpinning a method which: (i) meets a minimally-acceptable standard (so e.g., leaving students in front of a non-interactive video (done by a colleague in the past) would not be acceptable., (ii) can be accommodated by a revised workload model which must include a requirement of efficiency, (iii) is satisfactory – or – better – to students who get intellectual stimulation and enjoyment from it: i.e., it ‘works’ for those involved. This may be judged informally, through the (admittedly flawed) University course unit evaluation questionnaires, through the School’s own questionnaires, and by the exam results, (iv) allows the teacher to communicate his or her enthusiasm for the subject and encourages the highly-desirable synergy between research and teaching. In the light of such criteria, whether a model is labelled say ‘innovative’ or ‘traditional’ or otherwise shouldn’t matter. On a personal note, eschewing all false modesty. my ‘traditional’ methods of teaching in lectures and seminars meet all of my (self-defined) criteria. So, for example, the compulsory courses in Public Law 1 and Constitutional Law (which have common lectures, and contain 300+ students) meet especially criterion iii). They routinely obtain the top, or very near the top, results in the annual University survey in semester 1. Constitutional Reform (optional semester 2 subject) attracts large numbers (154 this session), is invariably No.1 in the University Survey, and produces excellent assessment results (with record numbers of firsts this year, expressly commented on with approval by the external). This is not a plea for that approach being or becoming universal in the School, which would be silly, but it is a plea that we aim at a range of teaching and learning approaches which excludes none that can be shown to be acceptable – or better- in academic terms. (RBRAZIER)

• I continue to believe that students thrive on diversity of teaching methods and that the lecture/seminar format retains value in many cases. Innovation can be as much in content as style. I would suggest that a key factor in student satisfaction is the enthusiasm of the teacher regardless of the form of teaching. I would stress again the importance of contact hours per se to students especially in year 1. Teaching is not just about the subject of a particular course unit but establishing a human contact. (MBRAZIER)

74

• It is an interesting question whether 30 lectures and 5 seminars is pedagogically “sound” ; I have no real way of assessing whether it is or not.

G3 On legal skills • I find myself more and more not teaching students about the legal topics covered

in the course but about how to write essays and about how to study. There is a strong case for a better induction course or an introductory course of legal skills and study.

• Another concern I have is that there is little, if any, common teaching of legal skills in the law school. I think it is inefficient if different course directors have to engage in essentially the same activity; a generic course on legal skills is perhaps an option. More generally, I think that there is a strong need for us to disabuse students of any mistaken preconceptions they have might have about reading law in a university - especially when those views have been imbued into at A-level. Students need a clearer idea of what the notion of university study entails. I would be interested in discussions or opportunities to see how other staff teach and incorporate different teaching techniques into their teaching. It is frustrating that almost all of my discussions about teaching are with friends and colleagues from other disciplines and universities rather than those teaching within my own School. I try to read articles/discussions/blogs about teaching techniques and technology, and specifically experience of those teaching Law subjects, but find that time is very limited and has to be balanced with what little time is available for research. (ULPH)

G4 Miscellaneous • Being innovative in teaching has not been easy. I have encountered resistance to

the development of these new ways of teaching from other staff at the University and it can be very difficult to get support for new ventures. I developed the distance learning MA/Diploma completely alone without even any admin or IT support. It has been a struggle to get the teaching hours put into teaching on the distance learning programmes recognised. Teaching distance learning, unlike many people’s perceptions, involves a relatively high teaching load to be successful as students have to be dealt with on a one to one basis. Without this commitment of time students do not do well even with first class materials and virtual learning environments and there will be a high drop out rate (of course this higher teaching input is recognised in a higher fee). Staff need to be encouraged to get involved in innovative teaching methods. Their work needs to be encouraged and recognised both in teaching loads and in promotion. Relevant support should be provided to those who are interested in improving their teaching in this way. (BENNETT)

• The classification in three categories teaching/admin/research no longer seems relevant. Other areas of work (knowledge transfer/community engagement) seem to me relevant, and certainly are areas considered for promotion, so it should start getting some greater recognition even in exercises like this. (MEDINA)

• I am concerned about the weight to be accorded to "student satisfaction" as I am unsure what this actually means. If it means "giving it to them all on a plate" then obviously this is something that I cannot agree with. If it means equipping students with the necessary skills and knowledge so as to enable them to pursue

75

further private study, then I am all for it. We have a diverse student body with differing expectations as to how they will spend their time here. Some of those expectations are justifiable; others are not. There is a good case for clarifying with students what they can and cannot expect from academic staff.

• I think it would be good if we had annual compulsory sessions where one reflects on teaching methods and best practice but also have presentations of innovative approaches to teaching. (FARRELL)

G5 Summary. A range of views were aired on a range of subjects pertinent to the UG Review as a whole. Views may be representative of common attitudes in the School. though, we have no way of knowing this for certain, absent a dedicated study; and there is naturally a bias here toward those who were willing to submit comments. Views can be summarised as follows: G5.1 Teaching and research. • the view that teaching loads in the School are comparatively high, prejudicial to

research activity (perhaps, particularly for more junior staff) and the teaching role undervalued.

• the problem of simultaneously being urged by the University to improve research and teaching, and the urgent need for co-ordination between teaching and research strategies.

• the benefits/necessity of integrating research into teaching in order to bring subjects alive, transmit enthusiasm and demonstrate the practical applications of knowledge.

G5.2 ‘Innovation’ and effective teaching. • wariness of the term ‘innovation’ and associated implications of prescription of

method. • the position that there are core principles of effective teaching (passion,

imagination, dedication, functional relationships based on contact). G5.3 Legal Skills provision. • basic legal study skills need to be more effectively taught, perhaps in a dedicated

course that also corrects students’ initial misunderstandings of what legal study involves.

G5.4 Miscellaneous • the view that developing innovation in teaching practice is not only hard work in

terms of designing and compiling materials, but must also overcome resistance from a number of sources, including having the work recognised in teaching allocation, and in promotion. The need for a support to encourage experimentation in delivery.

• the need for knowledge transfer and community engagement to be recognised in School life (as it is in promotion procedures) in addition to teaching, administration and research roles.

• the need to shape student attitudes and expectations, as well as respond to them via student satisfaction questionnaires.

• the need for periodic and regular reflection in the School, on teaching practice and sharing ideas for innovation.

76

PART THREE OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

77

1. Reflections on limitations of resource, evidence and language. It may seem odd amidst a veritable mass of new information to begin a summary by focussing on omissions and limitations, however, report-writers have an ethical duty to admit to them, particularly if they intend to move beyond description to prescription, or at least recommendation. It must be restated then, that, the report has been carried out by a team containing no educational specialists, to tight timescales, and with extremely limited resources. Teaching and learning issues are legion, and the literature(s) sprawling, and we have needed to be highly selective in our review activities, and realistic in our expectations of staff contributing to surveys and case studies. Analyses have had to be, by necessity, simplistic, and there are many important factors unaccounted for; and some colleagues whose views are not evident through non-participation. In addition, use of language has emerged as an issue in categorising approaches. In particular, both ‘passive/active’ and ‘traditional/innovative’ distinctions have been questioned by those who feel the first term in each pair (‘passive’; ‘traditional’) are too-often used pejoratively to refer to a static ‘standard, didactic’ model that (i) is assumed but rarely demonstrated, and (ii) has produced, and continues to produce good results in some courses. Relatedly, concerns were raised that the term ‘innovation’ is taken to imply something self-evidently ‘good’, but may simply be a voguish re-branding of long-existing, if not ‘timeless’ effective teaching principles that are traceable to antiquity, and still present in current ‘traditional’ approaches. The semantic, conceptual debate is an interesting one, but, unfortunately, beyond this report to resolve. In reality, the disagreement may be much less about language or the essential properties of effective teaching, and much more about whether, to what extent, and with what rapidity teaching methods should be required to adapt to new and rapidly changing educational contexts, for example, the information-rich, globalised, marketised era of mass higher education obtaining today. Perhaps ‘adaptive’ teaching is a more appropriate term for the current context; perhaps not. Accepting the limits of resource, evidence and language, the report has been conducted thoroughly, by experienced academics with some pre-existing familiarity with some of the literature. It has also adopted an inclusive approach, gathering information from virtually all academic teaching staff, and the greater part of staff who teach in the School. While we cannot claim, therefore, ‘authority’ in an absolute sense (we are not senior educationalists), we claim as much ‘authoritativess’ as can be expected under the circumstances. We have also produced evidence of a kind that has hitherto been unavailable to the School and this may, at the very least, be seen as an important resource. 2. Interpretation of core findings. The literature review in Part One concluded that: • there is consensus on the principles of effective teaching, which, in sum, are:

active; social; reflective; varied; motivating; and sustained by quality relationships. Any approach (regardless of - or absent - a label) that enacts these principles should, ipso facto, effectively impart knowledge and skills.

• approaches that attempt to systematically enact some or all of these principles, for example, enquiry-based and related approaches, and that tend to be focussed around self-directed small groupwork, show some advantages in terms of

78

promotion of social and (meta)cognitive skills, and student satisfaction. Though there are problems interpreting the evidence-base, it can be claimed they are at least as effective regarding educational achievement, and, arguably, more efficient in their frequent use of group assessment.

If these findings are valid, the analysis of School teaching practice covered in Part Two can be summarised in terms of ‘good news’ and ‘less good news’.

The Good News: There is much to be proud of, viz. • a great variety of practices, carried out by reflective, dedicated, passionate,

imaginative, and educationally-informed practitioners, who experiment when appropriate, and in doing so, make full use of their experience, knowledge of new approaches, and new technology. There are examples of both so-called ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ approaches that attain consistently excellent results in terms of student feedback and grades.

• many approaches, however categorised, already enact some, many, or all of the principles of effective teaching. There is awareness of, and qualified consensus on these principles.

• in the practice survey, ‘teaching (inter)activity’ – a measure indexing interest in, and use of practices relating to effectiveness principles – was positively associated with teaching satisfaction, student perceptions, and the proportion of firsts awarded. These findings constitute original School-level evidence to corroborate aspects of the literature review, and point to the benefits that even an eclectic and non-systematic application of effectiveness principles can have.

• many colleagues who had not attempted to try particular approaches signalled that they were interested in doing so.

The Less Good News: There is much that could be done, viz. • recognising, with some notable exceptions, that implementation of effective

practice often appears piecemeal or quasi-accidental, that is, researched on a ‘need to know’ basis when specific problems arise, or ‘discovered’ over a long period of time. That there is presently, little opportunity to share practice and ideas, or an expressed desire for further training/professional development.

• recognising that the survey of teaching practice suggested a third of staff employed 0-2 ‘interactive’ practices in their current teaching.

• recognising that teaching is currently perceived to take up a disproportionate amount of staff time; that a nominal 40-20-40% split between teaching, administration, and research is actually experienced by all staff as a 45-20-35 split; and for staff on teaching and research contracts as a 48-23-29 split; and where three-quarters of this sub-group spend less than the nominal 40% of their time in research activity.

• overcoming a perceived lack of incentives to experiment with teaching, including: the sense that the teaching is generally undervalued; that experimentation cannot be done in the context of currently high teaching loads that also eat into research time; and a perceived lack of support producing a sense of ‘struggle’ to effect real innovation.

• overcoming mistrust of new approaches that are seen merely as ‘old wine in new bottles’

79

3. Revisiting the ‘research hypothesis’. Which was -

'To test the null hypothesis that there is no meaningful pedagogical difference (in terms of approach, efficiency or effectiveness) between what is currently offered in the School and what centres for innovation and an attendant evidence base suggest could be offered'

It should first be noted that the hypothesis was intended to be an heuristic device (or orienting perspective) that also conferred a tone of rigour and objectivity on proceedings, not as a formal scientific statement to be tested by particular methods. At face value, however, the null hypothesis is partially supported, partially rejected: supported in that there is some good awareness, some prior training, and some enactment of the active/effective learning principles described in the literature review; rejected in that that much active/effective practice is non-systematic, pedagogically tacit, and conducted without overt reference to evidence beyond the experiential variety. Questions of efficiency have been less a feature of the literature than expected, however, to the extent that assessed group learning (where groups are marked, not individuals) and larger seminar groups (the UKCLE small group resource assumes 12-20+ students) are not highly prevalent at Manchester, the null hypothesis is rejected: greater efficiencies could be made without loss of pedagogic value. 4. Recommendations: Alternative approaches to teaching. These are made in light of core findings and the partial null-hypothesis rejection above; and are intended to be a stimulus for further debate. There are two broad sets of recommendations: those that can be made without reference to the wider institutional context, and those that cannot. General recommendations made without reference to the wider institutional context:

We aspire often to a ‘research culture’ in the School, and to address some of the ‘less good news’ above, there is an equivalent need to foster a ‘teaching culture’ where:

• teaching, which is expected to take up 40% of the time of staff on teaching and

research contracts, is consistently valued, not only as ‘core business’, but as an activity that attracts status and recognition, and where success is rewarded, for example, by: regular ‘mentions in dispatches’ at Board, Boards of Study and Teaching & Learning Committee meetings; advertising positive external examiners’ comments; greater emphasis on teaching prowess in UG prospectuses; putting staff forward for teaching awards; creating internal teaching awards, etc. At the moment, there are few non-intrinsic incentives to excel at teaching.

• teaching actually takes up 40% of staff time, and not 45% or 49%, as the teaching practice survey suggests. This involves real attempts to tackle comparatively high teaching loads, together with chronic understaffing.

• the pedagogy of successful teaching practice is made explicit: shared, explained, reflected upon, and celebrated. A regularly-meeting forum should be created to encourage this, and to help develop and disseminate practice. Monies could be made available to fund attendance at external events and findings reported back to

80

the forum. Staff should be encouraged - even expected - to attend and participate in other University teaching & learning fora (e.g., Faculty Teaching and Learning forum, CEEBL events, etc.) as part of their continuing professional development.

• teaching staff are invited staff to periodically review their own teaching in so far as it meets effective teaching principles. This self-assessment should ideally be assisted by peer assessment and made part of the peer review process. There should be an expectation that course are delivered effectively.

• there is a climate supportive of change and experimentation, which is open to new techniques, applications, and non-standard assessment formats or exam timing; where innovation is recognised in teaching allocation; and facilitated in other ways, for example, by a teaching equivalent of the ‘research support fund’.

• innovation in practice is simply yet routinely evaluated, either through small-scale unfunded evaluations (for example, before-and-after designs using routine student satisfaction or marking data) or larger-scale funded experimentation of approaches. This does not need to be time-consuming and can help demonstrate impact. Learning styles of students could also be routinely assessed and teaching methods adapted appropriately.

Recommendations made with reference to the wider institutional context:

As indicated by comments made in section G, there are strong cross-University pressures to simultaneously improve teaching (together with the quality of student experience) and research; and senior University management have addressed the School specifically over the last year in relation to the results of both National Student Survey, and Research Assessment Exercise. It has also become clear that the School has the highest staff: student ratio in the University, made evident by the existence of some very large classes, a comparatively high teaching load, and section E findings that suggest that staff time is imbalanced towards teaching. In this context, a powerful rational argument can be made for recruiting more teaching staff. The following recommendations consider ways in which core findings can be applied in order to make teaching more efficient without loss of pedagogic value, and with the real prospect of significant gains for students in terms of transferable, marketable skills. The reviewed literatures in general, together with individual case studies and isolated examples of practice already evident in the School, should give teaching staff the confidence to challenge key assumption about teaching, viz.,

• that teaching must follow a directive, ‘executive’ model of knowledge transmission to be effective. Students can learn from each other and can be trusted to direct their own learning with the support and guidance of subject experts. This does not mean ‘hands-off’ or ‘teacher-free’ learning, but does mean a de-emphasis on lecturing where opportunities for interaction are limited, and a greater emphasis on collaborative group work that is facilitated, not directed by experts. Some excellent examples are given in sections F and G.

• relatedly, that only subject experts can be teacher figures. Already, in seminars, much reliance is made on postgraduate students, who are, in a sense, relative, as opposed to absolute subject specialists. However, this idea could be extended to peer teaching, where relatively experienced (e.g., 2nd year, 3rd year and PG) students impart study skills (for on example essay or exam technique; marking criteria; or even non-assessed ‘marking’ of essay plans) in either dedicated

81

sessions or as part of the existing student mentor scheme. Given proper training and organisation, peer teachers are likely to improve their own study skills in addition to the students they ‘teach’.

• that end-of-semester exams and essays are the only pedagogically justified and/or resource-efficient methods of effective assessment. Assessment methods give strong cues as to when work is expected from students and thought should be given to methods that, if not continuously assessed, promote semester-long engagement instead of strategic ‘cramming’; these include: series of debates & moots; weekly homework; mid-semester exams; group projects and presentations, supported by individual learning diaries, and incorporating self- and peer-assessment. This is, again, not a ‘teacher-free’ process, nor does it preclude the use of essays or exams, but greater emphasis should be made on encouraging and assessing consistent engagement. Some excellent examples are given in sections F and G

• that seminar size is more important than the organisation and activities that occur within it. Across a huge variety of examples, there is consensus that the optimum size for collaborative group work is 2-5 members, however this is the basic unit of groupwork and there can be several or many such groups working in the same room at the same time. With properly constructed tasks, properly facilitated by skilled subject experts, such groups can be encouraged to work effectively and, when sessions incorporate reporting or presenting back to the whole group, benefit from the variety of opinion and approach that multiple smaller-groups offer. The UKCLE ‘small group’ (collaborative) teaching resource expects law schools to be offering seminar groups of 12-20+ in size, which is not uncommon in other high-performing schools in the UK. Staff and students should have confidence that, with slight modifications in approach, class sizes of this magnitude can be justified on pedagogic as well as efficiency grounds and have been shown to work extremely effectively. This is in contrast to the current situation where group size is not pedagogically justified, does not often contain smaller-group collaborative work and does not have demonstrable effectivness.

The School collectively should begin a process of reviewing its practices against the principles of effective teaching and, where lacking, attempt to enact them in a consistent manner that is commensurate with available (stretched) resources. ‘One size fits all’ technical fixes do not exist and this report cannot give tailored solutions to every perceived teaching issue in every module, however, a number of suggestions can be made as starting points: • large, compulsory first year classes: EBL-type approaches have been applied to

large classes successfully at Manchester (see CEEBL for details), and colleagues are urged to explore this perspective, however, if this is unpalatable in part or in whole, ‘hybrid’ approaches may be productive in the shorter term. This would involve a shift of attentional emphasis away from lectures (together with a harmonisation of the number of lectures across law and criminology programmes) and toward larger facilitated seminars (of e.g., 16-20) split into 4-5 collaborative groups who work on semester-long problems and projects that incorporate individual work but are assessed at the group-level. The number of sessions and balance of contact hours devoted to lectures and seminars could be reviewed. Done well, with training and piloting, students and teachers should reap all of the

82

benefits of collaborative learning while simultaneously being more resource-efficient in terms of teaching and marking.

• medium-sized and smaller sized classes: consider implementing an identical ‘hybrid’ approach to above, or, where sensible, dispense with lectures altogether in favour of a workshop model where sessions contain some formal instruction, combined with the collaborative group approach.

• dissertation options: continue with the individual-level EBL-type approach to the extent that it already exists in this work format; consider group dissertations in either the long-or short-formats where there both individual and group outcomes are assessed.

• experiment with the range of ‘purer’ EBL-type approaches according to preference, and with the support of CEEBL and related staff.

5. Treating students as Partners in Education. Students (and the parents who fund their study) are under huge pressure from a range of sources, including the financial burdens of fees, and increased expectations of educational and vocational success despite greater competition for a shrinking pool of jobs. They, therefore, are understandably more demanding of teaching and sensitive to ill-explained or partially-justified changes that they perceive to be ‘teaching on the cheap’ or reduced ‘value for the money’. However, their attitudes towards teaching, teachers and learning, like all attitudes, will inevitably be based on imperfect information and understanding of those processes and roles. It is strongly recommended therefore, that our duties as educators and shapers-of-attitudes does not stop at our subject specialisms: all major changes to teaching practice should be explained fully , (i) with reference to pedagogical arguments and evidence, (ii) with reference to the need for staff to balance teaching and research roles in order to keep or raise the institutional reputation that is key to the long-term value of their degree, (iii) in relation to what they stand to gain from the changes. Colleagues should reflect that without this, prospective changes, for example, increases in seminar sizes, can look like simple exercises in corner-cutting. However, with this level of explanation, which treats students as rational adults and partners in the educational process, larger seminars and a greater emphasis on active groupwork can be explained from the point of view of encouraging transferable, and very marketable skills: team-working, oral and written presentation, independent and collaborative research, creative thought and developed analytic and metacognitive skills.

6. Overall, there are up-front developmental costs involved in change, and some of that change will inevitably be unsuccessful, but there are also definite costs of not adapting to the new educational context of information-rich, globalised, marketised, mass higher education. This report shows that the quality of staff and teaching in this School mean that it is exceedingly well placed to adapt - with imagination, good-will and planning - to this challenging context.

83

APPENDIX I ADDITIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW DOCUMENTS

84

Effectiveness in Legal Education (composite document: Murphy, Dragneva-Lewers & Jones) A Introduction We consulted:

• The UK Centre for Legal Education at Warwick (UKCLE)

• York Law School • An array of monographs and periodical literature on innovative/other methods

of teaching and learning. Our view was to investigate the prospects of improving efficiency and effectiveness in both teaching and learning. B Existing Lectures Examined We found that existing lectures could:

(i) imparting raw knowledge; (ii) providing an opportunity to describe complexities; (iii) providing structure (which in turn can assist comprehension).

We found that conventional lectures were unlikely (or at least less likely) to cultivate: (i) problem solving skills; (ii) overarching and theoretical understandings of subjects as a whole; (iii) synthesising skills (ie, producing individual/novel accounts of the law); (iv) a critical/evaluative faculty.2 C Possible Changes in Approach (i) Actively cultivating independent thought and critique to a greater extent than we do now Notably, educational literature stresses the importance the kinds of things that conventional lectures tend to do rather poorly. For example, Entwistle (1995) suggests that teaching quality will be enhanced by, among other things:

• Ensuring students have adequate prior knowledge and understanding; • Matching content to the intellectual stage of student achievement; • Helping students perceive relevance and develop interest in the syllabus; • Emphasising & modelling characteristic modes of thinking within a discipline; • A positive course team ethos which encourages reflection on teaching.

(ii) Providing allotted time for student reflection and feedback Beyond the familiar Law School and University Questionnaires, there is much to be said for allowing two or three slots of time where students can share with one another their reflections on (i) what they think they have been learning and (ii) what they see the objectives to be. Following discussion, the student thoughts can be jotted down

2 Seminars can help enable students to develop critical/analytical skills; and some members of staff use seminars to encourage the development of problem solving and synthesis skills. However, the literature suggests that seminars are not enough: we should also integrate new methods into our lecturing to ensure that students gain (or have the opportunity to gain) key transferable skills.

85

and passed to the lecturer for later reflection. The value of allowing time for this kind of pausing and reflecting seems nowadays to have achieved the status of education orthodoxy (Thomas, 2000). (iii) Concrete alternatives to “traditional” lectures So far as legal education is concerned, the now orthodox view is that offering a variety of teaching methods is very important.

A consistent message is the importance of interactive learning; and this does not mean solely interaction with the lecturer! For example, students could be given the chance to:

• draft exam answers and compare their own answers with those of their neighbour(s),

• work in small groups on a problem and have each group feedback to the class etc.

Hinnett (2002) is a strong advocate of active and reflective learning. And some of the perceived advantages of teaching in this way include:

• giving students a break from concentrating on one person, • producing interaction amongst students, • encouraging students think about the content of a lecture rather than simply

attending and recording it; • allowing students the chance to acquire an holistic view of the law; • providing students with the opportunity to become autonomous learners

(which faculty can be vital in the professional lives). (iv) Possible supplements to lectures UKCLE also advocates the following things which can be used to enhance the learning experience:

• the use of learning journals and reflective logs alongside lecture materials; • reflection intensive active learning techniques e.g. legal clinics, • simulations (e.g. court scenes) and role-plays, negotiations, debating,

discussions, • legal research, • resource-based learning, • research-based learning • problem solving.

UKCLE emphasises that these things can be done individually or in small groups so as promote both autonomous learning and group work skills. (v) The introduction of group/collaborative learning There is a massive literature on group learning and cooperative learning. A recent paper by Johnson, Johnson and Smith (2007) offers a comprehensive review of debates and explores the advantages of cooperative learning compared to competitive/individualistic forms on the basis of social interdependence theory.3 They summarize over 300 studies conducted since the 1960s and point out that these studies ‘have a validity and generalizability rarely found in the educational literature’. 3 They also set out a number of qualitative criteria that need to be met in order for this form of learning to prosper.

86

In particular, the study found (among others) the following demonstrable advantages associated with group-based learning:

• higher achievement; • the promotion of more positive interpersonal relationships which, in turn, has

positive effects on adjustment to university life and leads to an improved commitment to work and learning, and better social membership;

• superior results in terms of psychological health; • the promotion of civic values needed to be part of a professional community; • cost-effectiveness in teaching and learning.

(vi) Self directed/enquiry-based learning There is also a good deal in the available literature to support greater use of self-directed or enquiry-based learning (albeit within the broad parameters of the syllabus/curriculum). The the key ingredient in enquiry-based/research-like learning (EBL) is the establishment of a context ‘within which enquiry may be best stimulated and students can take charge of their learning’ (Hutchings 2007:13). It is not just thinking (knowledge accumulation and processing) that is encouraged, but questioning that leads away from directed learning to a form of learning according to which students are empowered as scholars. The underlining premise is that students learn best when they ‘have taken possession of the process of discovery’ that leads to the acquisition of knowledge and professional development (Hutchings 2007:12). As a general matter, one analyst found that:

[T]here is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things, learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners). They enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retain and make use of what they learn better and longer than do the reactive learners (Knowles (1975: p14).

D Conclusions There is a clear consensus in the literature on the following matters: (i) active learning is eminently superior to passing learning (since this fosters “deep” learning (which leaves learners with an understanding of context and practical relevance beyond mere knowledge of, or familiarity with a subject); (ii) it is positively a good thing to expose students to as many learning styles as possible since, as Burridge (2002) puts it, “diversity my be as important as purpose”. (iii) there are strong pedagogical rationales for adopting various ‘active/reflective’ practices, alongside and within our lectures, to ensure our students leave with the richest possible legal education. (iv) autonomous and group-based learning have been empirically shown to deliver a range of outcomes that are superior to those achieved through more conventional modes of learning. General accounts of the benfits of these forms of learning include. There are many other educational studies than those mentioned in the foregoing that

87

bear out these findings in relation to self-directed and group based learning. Examples include Hammond and Collins (2004) and Jaques and Salmon (2007). There is also modern institutional recognition of the empirical benefits of these mainly student-led methods of learning: se the White Paper, The Learning Revolution (2009).4

Educational effectiveness: literature and best practice

(R. Dragneva-Lewers) In addition to the issues in Imogen’s paper (many of which will overlap with what follows below), I would like to focus on two more themes/issues in the literature and best practice on educational effectiveness. My goal so far was to summarize key arguments, findings and examples in an effort to ‘de-mystify’ terms. Clearly, there are more aspects to explore in greater detail. One still needs to relate all this to our own circumstances, constraints and ambitions much more.

1. Competitive versus collaborative (group) learning There is a massive literature on group learning and cooperative learning. A recent paper by Johnson, Johnson and Smith (2007) offers a comprehensive review of debates and explores the advantages of cooperative learning compared to competitive/individualistic forms on the basis of social interdependence theory. They summarize over 300 studies conducted since the 1960s and point out that these studies ‘have a validity and generalizability rarely found in the educational literature’. The authors show that compared to competitive learning, cooperation tends to result in the following superior outcomes: � Higher achievement, greater long-term retention of what is learned, more

frequent use of critical thinking, more accurate and creative problem-solving, more willingness to undertake difficult tasks and persist despite difficulties, more intrinsic motivation, transfer of learning from one situation to another.

� Studies dealing particularly with college effectiveness show that student-student interaction and student-faculty interaction are critical when this interaction is cooperative not competitive. Also that learning how to engage in critical thinking depends on student participation in class, teacher encouragement and student-student interaction. Higher achievement translates itself in higher rate of completion and others.

� Cooperation promotes more positive interpersonal relationships and greater social support even among disparate social, ethnical and other groups. This has

4 There are, of course, work-load implications in adopting both group based learning and EBL. They are not teacher-free processes, but the nature of engagement changes (less ongoing transmission, but in the nature of support and mentoring. There are benefits for individual research for staff and there have even been cases in which students have been involved in staff research (Healey and Jenkins 2009). The biggest single benefit for staff is that such a paradigm has been shown demonstrably to enhance the quality of the general research environment.

88

positive effects on adjustment to university life, reducing uncertainty about attendance, improved commitment to work, and better social membership. It is an argument about introducing cooperative forms of learning as early as possible.

� Cooperation offers superior results in terms of psychological health and self-esteem. Studies show that cooperative methods promote basic self-acceptance and developing multi-dimensional views of self and others that allow for positive self-perceptions and internalization of mutual success. This results in a greater ability to deal with uncertainty, ability to formulate meaningful goals, ability to form meaningful relationships and others.

� Cooperative learning promotes more positive attitudes to learning – love of learning, distinguishing between sense and nonsense, striving to improve, taking pride in what you do, etc.

� It promotes the civic values need to be a part of a professional community. � The benefits of cooperative learning tend to be reciprocally related – the more

efforts students expand, the more they like each other; the more they like each other, the better they perform; etc.

� Cooperative learning is a very cost-effective mechanism as it produces benefits in relation to many institutional outcomes simultaneously.

Johnson, Johnson and Smith (2007) also underline the elements identified in the literature as critical for effective cooperative learning. Note that these are qualitative criteria, rather than quantitative ones based on number of participants in a group.

� Positive interdependence. Such interdependence is created when: o participants are oriented towards a shared outcome, goal, reward, o when the means for the achievement of this outcome are shared and

specify the action required. Means include resources, role and task allocation.

o There are boundaries existing among individuals and groups can define who is interdependent with whom.

� Individual accountability. Individual performance is assessed and results are given back to the group in order to assign support, avoidance of free-riding, and affirmation that the achievement of the group is greater than individual achievement. There are various forms this can take, which have been discussed extensively in the literature and case study reports.

� Promotive interaction. It exists when individuals help and assist each other, exchange resources, challenge each other, act in trustworthy ways, etc.

� Appropriate use of social skills. This entails the purposeful development of leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication and conflict-management skills, which need to be developed as much as academic skills.

� Group processing. It is key that groups periodically reflect on how well they are functioning and how they may improve their learning process.

From the teacher’s point of view, the awareness of these elements means that they (Johnson, Johnson and Smith 2007):

� Structuring lessons and curriculum materials cooperatively, � Fine-tuning and adapting the process to specific circumstances, needs,

students, � Intervening to improve group effectiveness.

89

2. Enquiry-based/research-like learning/student-scholar model (EBL) This theme is a part of the bigger question of bringing together teaching and research, which is widely debated in the educational literature. Often we tend to talk about research-led teaching thinking primarily in terms of the way teaching can help our research. Here the focus is slightly different: how can we improve education/learning by engaging students in research and enquiry. 2.1 The underlining paradigm Educating by engaging students in enquiry/research-like learning requires us to consider a particular paradigm, as briefly summarized below. This paradigm has implications for individual teaching styles, but also for the range of institutional/policy responses to realize its full benefits. Educational paradigm

Educational approach Link with research

Teaching Telling students what they need to know about the discipline. The curriculum is largely defined by staff around teaching subject content. Information transmission is the main teaching mode. Students explore the knowledge-base of the discipline in response to closed questions or lines of enquiry formed by staff.

Can be research-led in the sense of reflecting latest research findings of staff. The curriculum can be made reflective of research content. But it normally stops at telling/informing about research. Information-responsive mode: ‘What is the existing answer to this question?’

Learning Engaging students in learning how to learn; emphasis on learning what they need to know. Students pursue open questions or lines of enquiry, framed by staff, in interaction with the knowledge-base of the discipline.

Curriculum reflects research processes and problems. Knowledge presented as a research outcome. Engendering research ethos through teaching. Discovery-responsive mode: ‘How can I answer this question?’

Discovery/ Enquiry

Encouraging students to seek and discover new knowledge. The curriculum is largely designed around enquiry-based activities - discovering research content in a directed way and/or self-directed/group-directed research methods to identify content. Minimized division of roles between teacher and students. Different role of teacher – facilitation, mentoring. Students as participants not an audience.

There are in effect two steps here: 1) Students explore a knowledge base by

pursuing their own closed questions (‘What is the existing answer to my question?’), or

2) Pursue open questions in interaction with the knowledge-base of the discipline (‘How can I answer my question?’).

90

Based on Hodge et al. 2007, Griffiths 2004, Healey 2005, Levy 2009, Healey and Jenkins 2009. The ‘labels’ selected to point to the different paradigms differ in the different writings and are sometimes crude and artificial. Nonetheless, the key ingredient in enquiry-based/research-like learning (EBL) is the establishment of a context ‘within which enquiry may be best stimulated and students can take charge of their learning’ (Hutchings 2007:13). It is not just thinking (knowledge accumulation and processing) that is encouraged, but questioning that leads away from directed learning to one where students are empowered as scholars. The underlining premise is that one learns best when they ‘have taken possession of the process of discovery’ that leads to the acquisition of knowledge and professional development (Hutchings 2007:12). 2.2 What are the benefits associated with enquiry-based learning? For the students (Based on Hutchings 2007)

� By awakening their questioning ability and initiative EBL develop a range of intellectual and social abilities – critical thinking, reflection, team work, information literacy.

� It stimulates deep (as opposed to surface, piecemeal) learning of the

curriculum content. It does not just lead to the development of ‘transferable skills’, but to a more thorough engagement with the knowledge base of the discipline. Learning it is not just instrumental, but its own intrinsic value is enhanced.

� The EBL approach putting emphasis on open-endedness of issues (see section

3.3) is particularly suited to studying problems that are multi-faceted and complex, and often do not have simple or ‘right’ answers.

� Because of the above, EBL is also suited to engendering inter-disciplinarity,

which is critical for many in the Law School.

� By engaging natural questioning abilities and nurturing real life inspired questioning, it breaks through sometimes artificial barriers between science and real life. It helps avoid falling into abstraction and ‘ivory tower’ scholarship.

� It engenders a spirit of engagement as opposed to indifference, passivity and

alienation. Thus, it helps deal with problems of weak attendance, etc.

� EBL teaches to question the reliability, relevance and status of the contents offered, thus engendering a spirit of innovation.

� Especially when combined with small group learning, is develops social skills,

helps sharing and engenders mutual trust.

� Being a flexible approach, EBL gives the possibility to tailor it to individual student needs and abilities. This helps minimize adversary competitiveness

91

and elitism (see section 1). Every student can be valued, inspired and allowed to contribute.

� EBL prepares for life-long learning in the workplace and generally in life.

Current conditions in most work contexts are defined by rapid developments in technology, radical changes in social landscapes, and a lot more uncertainty. Content changes and what matters is the ability to navigate through new information and make sense of it. EBL engenders an understanding of the open-ended and ever changing nature of knowledge.

For staff

� There are work-load implications given the changed role of the teacher. EBL is not a teacher-free process, but the nature of engagement changes. There is less ongoing content transmission, but more of a scenario/problem/stimulus-setting work in advance and the provision of support and mentoring.

� There are benefits for individual research from a teaching paradigm that is

research-like. In addition, there have been a number of cases showing various situations in which students have been involved in staff research (Healey and Jenkins 2009).

� Such a paradigm enhances the quality of the general research environment.

As any educational approach, EBL can be done well or not. It can fail to deliver the mentioned benefits if not fully and thoroughly implemented. Some of what is needed for the success of EBL is discussed below. 2.3 What does EBL involve in practical terms EBL is an intrinsically flexible process it allows that students are involved in different types/elements of enquiry and degrees of independence. At its extreme, it comes closest to replicating genuine research. There is some variation in the way various scholars, practical guides and case notes describe EBL. Yet, very briefly, these seem to be the essential elements:

� Establishment of an area of investigation, a stimulus for questioning – scenario, task, problem.

� Identifying the key issues and appropriate questions. Depending on the circumstances, these questions can be:

o directed by the teacher – open-ended questions to allow for various responses,

o an initial general question can be given that requires further unpacking, o self-directed – students tease out from a problem scenario what

questions need asking, or pose their own questions, o group-directed questions – small groups brainstorm to formulate a

question. � Identifying resources and how best to learn from them – at the highest level,

this requires decisions of appropriateness of resources to be taken by students.

92

� Investigation of sources and reporting of outcomes. � Assessing progress

o Reflection on the process, identifying learning outcomes and gaps, reformulation of initial questions.

EBL relies on student initiative and discovery but it is not a teacher-free process. The tutor still needs to:

� Have a role in setting up and/or advising on the task/stimulus/scenario/problem. EBL is not meant to stand for a content-free syllabus. So this is the area where the tutor has to make sure that the task makes a contribution to content discovery.

� Create appropriate conditions – physical and emotional � Enter into appropriate discussion and give guidance (but not necessarily

direction!). Allow to be used as a source of learning (‘speaking textbook’) not as a provider of the learning outcomes.

� Monitor activity, advise on task allocation if group work is involved, advise on research methods, facilitate process evaluation, provide feed-back, and so on.

� Show that they are also involved in a process of learning a model of academic behaviour (Hutchings 2007)

Many studies identify the critical role of an inspirational, charismatic teacher in empowering students to engage in EBL. Here are some examples of what can be enquiry-based learning:

� Dissertation (3rd/4th year) This is clearly a piece of individual research and can involve a large number (if not all) elements of EBL identified above. It remains an individual work which has a number of advantages but also limitations as discussed in section 2.

� Problem-based learning (PBL) Here it is the problem that serves to stimulate learning in a structured sequence of steps. In this sense EBL is wider and more flexible as an approach (not all enquiry needs to start with a problem). Some authors (Hutchings 2007) caution against the excessive reliance on the formality of the model, which can become easily ossified. UKCLE offers a number of case studies of UK universities which have introduced PBL, for example, Norwich Law School. Norwich has used it for a number of units, e.g. UG constitutional and administrative law followed by around 230-240 students.

� Field-work � Project-work

(Our Accounting and Law did Projects in Corporate Governance in their 4th year, but I am not sure what was involved.)

� Portfolio-work UKCLE provides an example of portfolio-based learning and assessment at University of Westminster for their Legal Skills and Process LLB year 1 (semester 1) and year 2 (semester 1). A portfolio is a collection of evidence that represents achievement in learning within a defined module. It draws on experiential learning theory and requires students to reflect on their learning, conceptualize new methods and test them.

� Case-studies

93

� Role-play There are many examples of role-play being used as a separate method or as a part of PBL. For example, PBL and role play have a critical role in teaching company law at Southampton Solvent (UKCLE case). Among other things, students form course teams of companies and board of directors and enact various corporate situations. There seem to be a number of issues that have been controversial in the acceptance of EBL:

� Is EBL appropriate for all students or just for bright/committed students? � Is EBL something primarily for final year students (after they have received

key content, developed thinking capacity and skills), or for all undegraduates starting semester 1.

� Are there some subjects that are unsuitable for EBL? Are there subjects where directed content transmission is critical? Or can one introduce elements of EBL even in such areas?

� To what extent should students be involved in mainstream staff/department research? There are a number of cases showing this being done with great effectiveness.

� Should student involvement extend to dissemination of research results, including publication? What aspects of publication? Think of Harvard Law Review.

� What are the right policy responses for the institution/department of EBL being introduced across the board?

o For example, the introduction of cross-disciplinary project-based work, which has shown to be highly beneficial in a number of cases, may mean that lecturers in various subjects have to maintain an ‘open door’, easy access policy without being academic advisors or course directors or supervisors.

o There are critical issues to address in the area of assessment/appeals, etc. policies.

94

Effectiveness in Legal Education [IMOGEN JONES] In the initial meeting of the pedagogy group we set ourselves the task of testing the null hypothesis that Jon had formulated. This was that; ‘...there is no meaningful pedagogical difference (in terms of approach, efficiency or effectiveness) between what is *currently* offered in the School and what centres for innovation and an attendant evidence base suggest *could* be offered.’ I was (self) assigned the task of reviewing the literature produced on the subject by the UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE) at Warwick and also examining known examples of innovations at other law schools i.e. York. This draft note briefly sets out the initial results of the examination of this literature. In order to avoid confusion, I would note that I have concentrated on the first and last measures of ‘meaningful pedagogical difference’ as defined by our null hypothesis (i.e. approach and effectiveness) for two reasons. Firstly, this is where the literature is concentrated. Secondly, efficiency is difficult to measure and may include a number of variables e.g. efficiency in learning, teaching, delivery, preparation etc. There can be no doubt that adopting a new method of delivery will initially be resource intensive and I do not intend, at this stage, to speculate how this would differ (as compared to current practices) if established. I write also with an awareness of the context of our review. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the last year, the advent of students paying fees has resulted in them seeing themselves and behaving like purchasers buying what they consider to be a marketable degree. Part of this image is the increasing demand for what they perceive to be quality. Hence, we have to see this as part of a response to student demands for a better education as well as one which recognises the perspective of academics. Furthermore, evidence from potential employers tells us that Manchester law graduates are deficient key skills associated with oral presentation. Finally, it is clear that the pedagogic and professional values held by individual members of staff impact significantly on their attitudes to teaching. It is important that we inform those views by reference to a respected body of evidence-based literature. The Educational Effectiveness of Lectures The logical starting place for consideration of our null hypothesis has to be an examination of what the learning outcomes of our current methods of delivery are. What formal lectures can achieve: Knowledge/remember specific facts

i.e. name, recall, repeat, recognise etc

Comprehension/organisation of facts so as to make sense of them

i.e. describe, explain, define etc

What formal lectures are unlikely to achieve: Application of known concepts or principles to solving problems in new

i.e. solve, apply, interpret etc

95

situations Analysis of information into its constituent elements

i.e. indentify interrelationships and key concepts

Synthesis/ putting together of information in new or original ways

i.e. produce and unique solution or original plan

Evaluation/making of critical judgements i.e. compare and contrast explanations or theories

Lecturing to More Students (1990), p8

Lectures are an easy way to communicate information to students. They are economical, a significant volume of information being presented by one expert. They allow for clearly structured courses, set around a chosen volume of knowledge. They can update changes in the law which the text books cannot account for. Charismatic lecturers can enthuse students about changes to the law, its social context and shortcomings. Finally, it replicates classroom ‘chalk and talk’ and thus conforms with the institutional view of education that students have developed throughout their life. They cannot, however, give students crucial and transferable critical and evaluative skills. Despite having limited capacity as educational tools, the presence of lectures in the law curriculum is something which is envisaged to continue into the future. However, we are encouraged not to allow this to preclude us from engaging in a diverse range of teaching methods or attempting to improve the role that lectures can play in providing an effective and efficient education. There is much that is defined as good practice that we already do. For example, we set out the learning objectives and outcomes of all modules alongside assessment information and place them on the internet so that all students are able to access them if they wish. But educationalists suggest that we should build upon this by actively explaining those objectives, outcomes and assessment techniques to students. Doing this need not be resource intensive, I expect many already do this, and can be achieved by spending a short amount of time in a lecture going through these issues, making them part of initial handouts and placing the documents in an obvious location on each course’s blackboard site rather than just on the Law Schools website. As well as setting explicit course objectives, educational literature suggests that we should be keen to set key objectives for ourselves in order to enhance the quality of our teaching. For examples, Entwistle (1995) suggests the following list:

• Ensuring students have adequate prior knowledge and understanding

• Matching content to the intellectual stage of student achievement • Helping students perceive relevance and develop interest in the syllabus

• Teaching in ways which explains concepts fully with enthusiasm and empathy • Emphasising and modelling the ways of thinking characteristic within a

discipline

96

• Assessing and providing feedback in ways which directly reward understanding

• Developing a departmental or course team ethos which encourages reflection on teaching.

The last aspect of reflective practice is key to much of the educational literature and can involve student feedback and reflection complementing staff reflection (see below). This list should be encouraging; I have no doubt that many within the law school already do many, if not all, of these things. Thomas (2000) points out that recent educational orthodoxy emphasises the centrality of the student perspective. Student satisfaction and the effectiveness of the education delivered can also be increased by integrating student feedback at various stages of the semester, with students appreciating the opportunity for involvement beyond that of the formal university/school questionnaires. An example might be at mid-semester, to conduct a short exercise whereby students are asked to jot down what they think they have been learning and what the objectives behind this are. They could then discuss this with their neighbour and hand their comments in for the lecturer to reflect upon later. This should promote reflection both on the part of student and lecturer and benefit both parties’ educational experience. Finally,it is clear that good lecturers provide clear explanations and that this is best achieved by the lecturer being familiar with the materials they wish to explain. The ability to do this does not necessarily come naturally and emphasises the importance of peer review as a method of ensuring quality. It also highlights the role that research-led teaching has to play within a Law School such as Manchester, whereby those with intrinsic knowledge of a subject are more likely to be i) a charismatic and enthusiastic presenter about a subject and ii) able to provide clear explanations based on genuine knowledge and understanding of the topic. Alternatives to ‘Traditional’ Lectures A clear theme runs throughout much of the literature on legal education; varying teaching methods is important. Most of these alternatives focus on the benefits of interactive education. Some of these alternatives can be contained within the traditional lecture setting, some can complement it and some stand alone. Within lectures, students should be encouraged and given the opportunity to reflect upon what they have been learning. This can be done in a number of ways – asking students to draft exam questions, giving them questions to compare answers with their neighbour, asking them to work in small groups on a problem and feedback to the class etc. This gives students a break from concentrating on one person, produces interaction amongst students and encourages students think about the content of a lecture rather than simply attend and record it. But what of those skills which lectures are unlikely to foster? It may be argued that seminars enable students to develop critical and analysis skills and it is certainly true that some members of staff use seminars to encourage the development of problem solving and synthesis skills. Yet the literature does not suggest that seminars are enough, rather there is a consistent message that we need to integrate new methods

97

into our teaching in order to make sure that our students gain (or have the opportunity to gain) key transferable skills rather than just knowledge of certain legal topics. One way in which this argument is advanced is through the promotion of active and reflective practices. Hinnett (2002) suggests that we should understand learning as a four tier process whereby: i) Learning is individual: we start from our own position of knowledge and have our own experiences to draw upon. ii) Learning is contextual: the context in which we learn affects how and what we understand. iii) Learning is relational: learners need to relate new information to existing and experiences. iv) Learning is developmental: after stages i to iii, students can make informed choices about what to do next and how to develop their understanding. Carrying on from this, she suggests that law courses would ideally help students appreciate that: i) learning is constructed as discussed in i to iv above. ii) help students become autonomous learners. iii) provide opportunities for students to develop critical and evaluative experiences. iv) facilitate a holistic view of the law, involving knowledge, key skills and an ability to reflect on experiences. v) promote the idea that reflection is central to any professional practice. Reflection can be encouraged overtly through the use of learning journals and reflective logs, alongside lecture materials (as discussed above) and via other reflection intensive active learning techniques e.g. legal clinics, simulations (e.g. court scenes) and role-plays, negotiations, debating, discussions, legal research, mooting, resource-based learning, research-based learning and problem solving. These activities can both promote autonomous learning and group work skills, whilst emphasising the outcome of understanding and critical thinking skills. All are advocated by UKCLE. A further key way to promote student reflection about their learning is through the use of self and peer assessment. The process of students discussing the potential grading as well as commenting on their (and their peers) work gives them a sense of empowerment over the educational process. This also enables students to communicate the ideas that they think are important to the lecturer. Another way of thinking about reflective learning is as ‘active learning’ rather than ‘passive’, whereby participation in the types of activity discussed above is an opportunity for discovery or reflection.

98

Concluding Thoughts There is considerable consensus in the literature that as many learning styles as possible should be catered for through the provision of opportunities for both active and passive learning experiences. This means that a range of teaching and learning methods should be deployed and as such ‘...diversity may be as important as purpose...’ (Burridge et al: 2002). Beneath this lies an ever stronger belief that passive learning is not sufficient, rather we should ensure that our students learning experience is ‘deep’, leaving them with an understanding of the context and relevance of the knowledge they have acquired. When students are forced to find knowledge and discover solutions via ‘active’ and ‘reflective’ practices, the knowledge will have a deeper impact and consequently be retained for longer. In the context of our null hypothesis, at the risk of over generalisation about what ‘our’ current approach and the effectiveness of this is, there is a clear indication that there are strong pedagogical rationales for adopting other ‘active/reflective’ practices, perhaps in conjunction with more traditional approaches, in order to make sure that our students take the most away from the learning experiences we provide. Bibliography Boud, D (Ed)., Developing Student Autonomy is Learning (2nd Ed), London: Kogan Page (1998) Burridge R., Hinett, K., Paliwala, A., and Varnava, T., (Eds.) Effective Learning and Teaching in law, London: Kogan Page (2002) Childs, P., Autonomy and the Ability to Learn Project (Report), (2004) Clegg, K, Playing Safe: Learning and Teaching in Undergraduate Law, UCKLE (2004) Hinett, K., Developing Reflective Practice in legal Education, UCKLE (2002) Jenkins, A., Healey, M., and Zetter, R., Linking Teaching and Research in Disciplines and Departments, The Higher Education Academy (2007) Thomas, P., Learning About Law Lecturing, National Centre for Legal Education (2000)

99

APPENDIX II COPY OF TEACHING PRACTICE SURVEY

100

LAW SCHOOL UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING REVIEW

STAFF SURVEY

1. How long have you been teaching…

2. Which of the following do you use in your teaching?

(place an ‘x’ in a box on EACH line)

3. And which of the following do you use in your teaching?

years months at Manchester Law School? in total ?

Lecturing do this in a course I direct

do this in a course I don’t direct

don’t do now but have done

don’t do this but am interested

don’t do this & am not interested

in-lecture audio or video

in-lecture student exercises

in-lecture discussion or q&a

other (please describe below)

E-learning e.g., Blackboard (BB)

do this in a course I direct

do this in a course I don’t direct

don’t do now but have done

don’t do this but am interested

don’t do this & am not interested

discussion boards or chat facilities

multiple-choice questions or test banks

audio and/or video

external web site or facility (e.g., Facebook, Wiki page, etc)

other (please describe below)

PLEASE ANSWER ALL PARTS OF ALL QUESTIONS

ACADEMIC

101

4. And which of the following do you use in your teaching?

Please use the space here to describe any other feature of your teaching you consider to be ‘innovatory’. 5. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Group work & related

do this in a course I direct

do this in a course I don’t direct

don’t do now but have done

don’t do this but am interested

don’t do this & am not interested

‘workshop’ teaching model

non-assessed group projects or activities

assessed group projects or activities

peer assessment or feedback

students defining their own areas of study

other (please describe below)

strongly agree

agree neither agree nor

disagree

disagree strongly disagree

Overall, I’m happy with my teaching approach

I understand the pedagogy of my approach

My teaching is efficient (contact hours are appropriate)

My teaching is effective (promotes learning)

My teaching is well-received (promotes student satisfaction)

102

6. Roughly speaking, what is your current and ideal balance between teaching, admin and research? (e.g., 50% teaching, 10% admin, 40% research)

% teaching % admin % research current balance ideal balance

Please use the space below to add any further comments you may have:

THANKYOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!

IF YOU HAVE PRINTED THIS OUT FROM AN E-MAIL ATTACHM ENT, PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME SO THAT WE CAN TICK YOU OFF OU R LIST