AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

James Cook University Law Review

James Cook Univeristy Law Review (JCULR)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> James Cook University Law Review >> 2006 >> [2006] JCULawRw 3

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Cantley-Smith, Rowena --- "Put Down Your Pen: The Role of Oral Assessment in Undergraduate Law Studies" [2006] JCULawRw 3; (2006) 13 James Cook University Law Review 30


PUT DOWN YOUR PEN: THE ROLE OF ORAL ASSESSMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE LAW STUDIES

ROWENA CANTLEY-SMITH[?]

I. INTRODUCTION

Communication skills are undoubtedly one of the most important tools of a competent, professional lawyer. Contrary to popular perceptions, well developed oral communication skills are not restricted solely to the adversarial environment of litigation lawyers. Such skills transcend almost all aspects of legal professional practice. Whether communication is through the written or by the spoken word, proficiency in this regard can be seen as a reflection of legal expertise: a demonstrable, objective, manifestation of a deeper level of knowledge and understanding of the law. Curiously, despite the obvious importance to professional legal practice, oral communication skills are seldom taught to undergraduate law students.[1] Oral communication skills of undergraduate law students are rarely formally assessed in many Australian law schools.[2] Moreover, recent trends in tertiary education, such as the promotion and uptake of new technologies to create flexible student learning environments, appear to be creating a new type of student: the “virtual learner” who is often engaging in tertiary law studies in an increasingly remote and isolated environment. In the absence of assessable communication tasks, the acquisition of life long skills, such as oral communication, is almost non-existent in the tertiary education experience of the virtual learner.

Presently many undergraduate law students complete their entire tertiary education without ever having to orally discuss the law in general terms, nor verbally demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the law through formal oral assessment tasks. This outcome is surprising, particularly when considering the nature of the ensuing professional legal practice. In this regard effective communication skills are evidently central to achieving success. Why is it then, that oral communication skills and oral assessments tasks appear to be notably absent from the assessment regimes in many Australian undergraduate law courses?[3] Put another way, why is it that written modes of assessment, particularly final examinations worth 100 percent, or examinations worth less than 100 percent combined with written assignments, are heavily favoured in undergraduate law courses? Moreover, what is the impact of such standardised assessment on student approaches to learning, and ultimately on the valuable life long learning outcomes for students?

This paper focuses on two distinct and important processes in tertiary undergraduate legal education: (i) the increase in oral assessment; and (ii) the teaching of oral communication skills to undergraduate law students. This paper’s foremost focus is on the role, and beneficial impact, oral assessment tasks can have on student approaches to legal education and student learning outcomes. The initial part of the paper examines the importance of oral communication skills. In so doing, it refers to the significance such skills have in post-university life as a practising lawyer and the need to include oral communication training and development in undergraduate law courses.[4] The discussion then moves, in the second part of the paper, to a study of the role and benefits oral assessment can have on student approaches to learning. This part of the paper suggests that, regardless of the circular debate concerning the appropriate time and place for the acquisition of legal skills, oral assessment tasks such as viva voce examinations and oral presentations offer a sound pedagogical choice for any law teacher. As such, serious consideration ought to be given to encouraging greater utilisation of this form of assessment in undergraduate law courses. This is particularly so in the current climate of tertiary institutions who claim to be actively educating and training independent, life long learners.[5] Within this context, the views of law students on this issue also warrant further consideration. Accordingly, the results of student evaluations, directed towards eliciting student feedback on oral communication skills and oral assessment, are outlined in the third section of this paper. Various recommendations are then set out, followed by concluding remarks.

II. THE IMPORTANCE OF ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS

The ability to converse on complex legal and related issues with fluency, accuracy and effectiveness is not only desirable, but virtually mandatory to a successful professional life as a lawyer.[6] This is immediately evident when reflecting upon the professional legal environment in which many new law graduates will find themselves. Many, if not most, will be required to interact with any number of people, in a myriad of ever changing situations including, inter alia:

▪ Meeting clients and taking instructions.

▪ Advising clients on legal issues of their particular circumstances.

▪ Discussing legal matters with colleagues.

▪ Discussing the implications of legal matters with other experts such as accountants, doctors, bankers, engineers and so on.

▪ Interacting with legal support staff.

▪ Engaging in non-adversarial processes such as negotiation and mediation.

▪ Engaging in oral advocacy in a Court, Tribunal or other legal forum.

In such circumstances, it is surprising to discover that oral communication skills are rarely included in the curriculum of many law schools.[7] This is not to say that skills training in tertiary law courses has been ignored. During the past few decades, numerous reports and reviews have been undertaken, in Australia and elsewhere, concerning the imperative of including skills training in tertiary education.[8] In a recent discussion on the various reviews of skills training in the Australian higher education sector, Hutchinson suggests that universities have started to give greater consideration to the ‘generic skills and personal attributes of the graduates they produce’.[9] This shift in focus has been prompted by the recommendations of the various reviews. In 1992, the Mayer Committee’s Report identified a number of fundamental generic skills, including: ‘Communication of ideas and information – The capacity to communicate effectively with others using the range of spoken, written, graphic and other non-verbal means of expression.’[10]

Hutchinson has identified a number of subsequent reviews that have included communication skills in the list of requisite graduate competencies. For instance, the 1998 West Review provided that all graduates should have acquired, ‘effective communication skills in all domains (reading, writing, speaking and listening)’.[11] In 1999, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) endorsed the American Bar Association’s Report (the McCrate Report) into legal education and professional development.[12] The ALRC adopted the position that tertiary legal education should focus on ‘what lawyers need to be able to do’, and made the following recommendation:

In addition to the study of core areas of substantive law, university legal education in Australia should involve the development of high level professional skills and a deep appreciation of ethical standards and professional responsibility.[13]

Greig supports this proposition, arguing that tertiary legal education should expand beyond the traditional cognitive learning aims. Rather that focusing entirely on ‘what lawyers need to know’[14], Greig argues that modern law school curriculum should encompass a wider range of equally important objectives, including the promotion and development of students’ social and interpersonal skills.[15] More recently, Christensen and Kift have identified communication as an important graduate attribute, describing it as follows: ‘Graduates will be able to clearly, appropriately and accurately communicate, both orally and in writing, having regard to the appropriate language for a variety of contexts.’[16] They also argue for the integration of generic and specific skills training into traditional knowledge acquisition based law curriculum.[17] In this context, communication skills are defined as and including oral communication, oral presentations, advocacy, legal interviewing, mooting and negotiation skills.[18]

Some law teachers and members of the legal profession believe that generic skills such as oral communication are acquired in contexts outside the university, and therefore skills training and development need not be included as a formal requirement of undergraduate law courses. Christensen and Kift note that this is at odds with the attitude of the wider university community and employer groups.[19] Moreover, Christensen and Kift reject the commonly held view that students acquire such skills by osmosis rather than by any specific instruction. In this context, they refer to the findings of the 1998 Vignaendra Report,[20] in which communication skills were listed amongst the most frequently used skills of law graduates in any type of law related employment.[21] This imperative to include communication skills in tertiary education is repeated in numerous other reports.[22]

Despite the overwhelming support for the inclusion of generic and specific skills training and development in law school curriculum, it appears that very few law schools have specific units directed towards teaching and learning of fundamental skills such as oral communication.[23] While oral communication necessarily forms part of elective specialist mooting, advocacy and mediation and negotiation units, and can occur informally in small group teaching environments such as tutorials, there appears to be little or no actual formal teaching of this important type of generic skill, particularly in core units which are required for subsequent admission to practice.[24] In addition to the discussion above, a number of strong arguments exist in favour of including oral communication skills in an undergraduate law curriculum. Verbal and written proficiency undoubtedly depend upon well developed communication skills. While natural ability is certainly a bonus in this context, such innate talent is arguably a rare commodity. As with many other skills, including legal research and writing, oral communication is something that is learned. These skills can, and should, be taught to undergraduate law students. Teaching and student learning in this context must not be read in a definitive sense, but rather seen as the starting point in the acquisition and development of such skills. In much the same way that many other aspects of professional life build upon the existing knowledge base of new law graduates, oral communication skills can be taught to law students, who will then develop and perfect such skills through subsequent practical experience.

Of course, as suggested already, it can be contended that universities are not the place for ‘complete’ preparation of lawyers for professional practice; and that much of a law student’s development of practical skills is borne of practice and experience post-university. This may be true in some respects. While units on core legal topics[25] must remain at the centre of all undergraduate courses, the same cannot be said for the vast range of elective units offered. In terms of the depth and breadth of legal subject matter, it would be impossible to equip undergraduate law students will full and complete specialist knowledge in all areas of the law. At best, elective units provide undergraduate law students with the basic requisite knowledge on fundamental legal issues across a variety of specialist legal areas.[26]

The main skill to be acquired here by the undergraduate law student is an introductory level of legal knowledge. This process is preparatory in the sense that these types of units enable law students to investigate potential areas of interest for subsequent professional practice. Interestingly many students may study areas of law, which they may never develop further after graduation. By contrast, oral communication skills transcend almost all aspects of legal and non-legal professional practice. In this sense, oral communication can be described, as a generic and also readily transferable or universal skill.[27] Given the fundamental importance of communication skills in most professional environs, requiring some form of oral communication skills training in tertiary law courses is highly desirable.

Moreover, aptitude in this regard demands a deeper level of knowledge and understanding of particular legal issues. In addition to teaching oral communication skills, oral assessment tasks can be used effectively throughout tertiary legal education to promote a deeper level of learning and understanding of the law. Unlike the traditional 100 percent final examination, which encourages short term outcomes such as passing exams with the least amount of student input, oral assessment tasks give rise to many, perhaps less tangible, benefits such as increased knowledge, understanding and the acquisition of life long learning skills. These fundamental aspects of tertiary legal education are examined further in the following discussion.

III. THE IMPACT OF ORAL ASSESSMENT
ON STUDENT APPROACHES TO LEARNING

A. THE TEACHING – LEARNING PARADIGM

Teaching and student learning can be seen as two important parts of a dynamic and circular relationship; one necessarily impacts and depends upon the other. Both parties, the teacher and the student, assume significant roles in facilitating successful learning outcomes. From one perspective, achieving successful learning outcomes will result directly from the student’s approach to learning in a particular course. In this way, a student’s approach to learning can be seen as a direct consequence of his or her own personal traits.[28] From another perspective, the teacher’s lecturing style and the teaching environment itself, will also impact upon a student’s approach to learning, and ultimately the achievement of quality learning outcomes. This circular nature of the teaching-learning relationship has been discussed by Joughin and Gardiner who suggest that student characteristics have a direct impact upon student approaches to learning and ultimately outcomes.[29] These characteristics concern ‘factors that students bring to learning’[30] or ‘qualities that students bring to their studies that significantly influence their learning’.[31] Interestingly, Joughin and Gardiner contend that prior experiences significantly impact upon student approaches to learning.[32]

Likewise, the teaching environment, or the ‘context of learning’, is also seen as impacting directly upon the approaches to learning that students adopt during their tertiary studies, and finally, the outcomes of the teaching and learning process.[33] Ramsden describes this inter-dependent relationship in the following terms: ‘differences in the quality of learning are due to difference in the ways students go about learning; and these differences in turn can be explained in terms of their experience of teaching.’ [34]

B. THE ROLE OF ASSESSMENT IN STUDENT APPROACHES TO LEARNING

Within the teaching-learning paradigm, the impact of assessment on student approaches to learning is an important influential factor in successful student learning outcomes. Joughin and Gardiner have commented that:

▪ Students approach learning in specific ways which can be characterised as ‘surface’, ‘deep’ or ‘achieving’ approaches to learning.

▪ The approaches to learning adopted by students determine the outcomes of learning.

▪ The approaches adopted by students are largely determined by the context of learning and how this context is perceived.[35]

Marton and Säljö suggest that students will assume a learning approach that is ‘determined by their expectations of what is required of them’.[36] Put another way, student ‘experiences of teaching and assessment influence their approaches to learning, both directly and indirectly’.[37] Thus, one of the main measures by which students establish their expectations is by reference to assessment tasks.

The notion that assessment methods directly affect the manner in which students approach their learning is not new. As Ramsden noted, the ‘relationship between assessment methods and the quality of learning has been recognised since at least the middle of the 19th C’.[38] However, by focusing on the relationship between various approaches to learning and learning outcomes, and including the impact of particular types of assessment on students’ approaches to learning, the teaching-learning paradigm discussed above presents as a particularly useful educational tool.[39] In short, the teaching-learning paradigm assists with identifying the ways in which quality learning outcomes can be achieved. Relevantly, the role of assessment in this context is often overlooked, despite the significant impact it can have on student approaches to learning. As Brown aptly states:

Assessment defines what students regard as important, how they spend their time and how they come to see themselves as students and then as graduates … If you want to change student learning then change the methods of assessment. [40]

Within the teaching-learning paradigm, assessment should not be viewed as a mere afterthought or conclusion to the teaching of a particular unit. It should not consist of a task, or tasks, aimed solely at determining how much of the prescribed unit materials have been memorised and regurgitated verbatim by students.[41] On the contrary, properly designed and applied assessment tasks can be an effective teaching and learning instrument. Assessment in this sense is a pervasive component of teaching and learning which impacts significantly upon students’ approaches to learning.[42] Joughin and Gardiner contend that:

Assessment is probably the single most important component of a subject’s design. Well thought out changes to a subject’s assessment regime can have a major impact on the quality of student learning in that subject…For students, assessment always defined the actual curriculum…Assessment sends messages about the standard and amount of work required and what aspects of the syllabus are most important.[43]

C. THE IMPACT OF ORAL ASSESSMENT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

In such circumstances, the question for further consideration is whether there are any particular forms of assessment that encourage students to adopt a deeper approach to their studies. Specifically, what is the effect of oral assessment on student approaches to learning? Does such an assessment method lead to more satisfactory outcomes in the learning and teaching environment compared to other frequently used methods, such as final written examinations?

Over the years, numerous studies have been undertaken to better understand the teaching-learning paradigm and ascertain the environment in which students can excel in their tertiary education.[44] Appropriately designed assessment undoubtedly plays a significant role in achieving successful student learning outcomes. The teaching-learning paradigm in particular disciplines, such as law, can give rise to important questions concerning the overall purpose of assessment and its relationship to desired student learning outcomes. A number of further specific assessment related questions arise in the context of law teaching, some of which warrant greater consideration by current law teachers. For example, what type, or types, of assessment tasks produce quality learning outcome for law students? And is a particular type of assessment task more appropriate to legal studies?

Assessment tasks also need to be considered in the wider context of professional legal practice and the acquisition of important generic skills such as oral and written communication. Consideration must be given to the variety of skills required for a successful legal career and inquiries made into whether the current teaching-learning paradigm adequately provides for the development of such abilities. As discussed above, whether or not all professional legal skills ought to be included in tertiary legal education is arguable.

Many aspects of legal professional practice are not taught per se, but are learned over time in and by practice. In addressing such questions, it is preferable to focus on ascertaining which types of assessment tasks facilitate improved law student learning outcomes. Clearly, in order to design and implement appropriate assessment tasks, a key consideration for any law teacher involves deciding what is the best student learning environment. According to various studies, there seems to be general consensus that students learn best when their assessment tasks are, inter alia:

▪ Evenly timed;

▪ Represent or simulate real life; and

▪ Perceived by students as relevant and appropriate to their needs as learners.[45]

The primary form of assessment currently employed throughout Australian law schools is the final written examination, or some variation on this which includes an additional writing task such as a research assignment.[46] Traditional final written examinations have numerous advantages. Efficient use of time is perhaps one of the most important benefits for students and teachers alike. By comparison, oral examinations can have serious drawbacks such as time inefficiencies, resourcing demands, and administrative difficulties. However, these disadvantages may be said to be illusory. Properly designed and administered oral assessment tasks, such as oral examinations or oral presentations, can be as time efficient as written examinations or written assignments. In some cases, such as classes with a small number of students, oral assessment tasks may in fact be far more efficient in terms of time, resourcing and administration requirements. Additionally, modern technology can overcome many of the traditional problems associated with oral examinations, such as multiple examiners and/or accurate recording of a student’s response. For instance, oral examinations can now be easily recorded, visually and aurally, so that a second examiner need not be present during the oral assessment task. Further, a well constructed matrix of questions can be used as a marking sheet to record the level of the student’s answer. Second marking can also easily be undertaken, if required, by reference to the visual or aural recording and the examiner’s written notes.

Oral assessment methods have a range of other benefits worth considering. Firstly, sole reliance on written assessment methods fails to provide students with an opportunity to develop important oral communication skills. Secondly, in some circumstances, heavy reliance upon final written examinations as the primary form of assessment can work directly against any attempt to foster active student learning practices. In one sense, it is the very nature of written examinations that gives rise to the problem. The impersonal character of such assessment methods, which ensure a high degree of separation between student, teacher and marker, reduces the extent to which students are obliged to take responsibility for their levels of learning.[47] Such assessment methods can produce superficial answers, making it difficult for an examiner to ascertain the skills of a student, together with the depth of understanding and level of knowledge of the subject matter. This in turn makes it near impossible for a proper reflection by the lecturer on the extent to which learning outcomes have been achieved. By contrast, oral examinations may enable an examiner to ascertain, in a comparatively short space of time, what a student knows as well as the depth of this understanding.[48] Of course, it must be noted that some students may experience difficulty with disclosing their skills and level of knowledge through oral examinations. Individual experiences and personality traits, for instance, may impact directly upon the student’s level of success in such forms of assessment. However, the influence of personal characteristics or qualities that students bring to their learning, and the success they achieve in completing assessable tasks, is not unique to oral assessment. The same can be said for written forms of assessment, particularly written examinations where even highly competent and knowledgeable students may do poorly due to a range of factors such anxiety or other individual characteristics. In any event, just as with written forms of assessment, part of the role of the teacher using oral assessment methods should include properly preparing students for such experiences through instruction and continual practice. Such forms of assessment could, for example, be introduced into the law school curriculum on an incremental basis, whereby students’ initial introduction to such tasks involves small non-assessable tasks which focus more on training and practice. As such skills develop, oral examinations and/or oral presentations could form part of the assessment in a selected number of later year units.

As mentioned above, the widespread use of written examinations raises serious questions about some of its less attractive outcomes. These include superficial levels of learning and understanding, minimal student input through ‘notes trading’ and encouraging the pursuit of short term goals at the expense of the academic excellence and the acquisition of life long learning skills. By contrast, there is strong evidence in the available literature suggesting that oral assessment tasks may promote a higher level of student participation in the learning process. Increasing students’ immediate responsibility for learning outcomes in turn can facilitate a deeper level of understanding of the relevant subject matter.

Given the paucity of reliance on non-written examination assessment methods within many law schools, it is useful to consider the available literature discussing the impact of oral assessment on student approaches to learning. While literature on the subject is limited, it demonstrates that oral assessment has a positive impact on student approaches to learning. This suggests that oral assessment promotes a higher level of student participation in the learning process, which facilitates a deeper level of understanding of the relevant subject matter. Joughin is particularly instructive in this context, characterising oral assessment by the following six dimensions: [49]

▪ Content

▪ Interaction

▪ Authenticity

▪ Structure

▪ Assessors

▪ Orality.

Interestingly, in terms of content, Joughin suggests that oral assessment may be used to test a wide range of skills including, inter alia, a student’s knowledge, understanding, interpersonal competency, and applied problem solving ability.[50] More importantly, Joughin agrees with Brown and Knight’s contention that the examiner’s ability to ‘probe a student’s understanding’ is the principal advantage of oral assessment.[51] This clearly demonstrates one of the primary advantages of an oral versus written examination, namely, the immediacy of the relationship between teacher/examiner and the student. In such cases, an examiner can readily test the veracity and extent of a student’s level of knowledge and understanding on a particular legal issue. Well prepared and able students can easily demonstrate high levels of understanding whilst incompetent or lazy students will be unable to ‘fudge’ their answers. Employing oral assessment methods can be seen as allowing for ‘instantaneous exchange between the examiner and the examinee’. This allows an examiner to fully ‘probe a candidate’s reasoning, ethics and knowledge’.[52]

Bone discusses various assessment methods with the aim of ensuring that assessment in the paradigm of law teaching-learning is successful.[53] After noting the absence of attention given to oral assessment tasks in legal education literature, Bone highlights a number of the advantages of oral assessment and the tendency for students to adopt a deep approach to learning including, inter alia:[54]

▪ Students do not wish to make fools of themselves in front of those passing judgement, which prompts a responsibility towards work.

▪ Speech is transparent to waffle and padding.

▪ In order to answer questions on a subject the student has to understand for him or herself.

▪ Speaking inevitably means that you are heard.

▪ Oral assessment involves body language conveying more about level of comprehension than can be expressed in written form.

▪ There is personal involvement and ownership of the spoken word.

Thus, in addition to developing oral presentation and verbal communication skills, widening the available assessment tasks by including other forms of assessment, such as oral presentations and oral examinations, clearly facilitate a deep approach to student learning.[55] Unlike surface approaches to learning, Joughin suggests that deeper approaches to learning are ‘characterised primarily by the intention to understand’, which in turn teaches students to ‘seek to transform rather than reproduce what they are learning’.[56] With that in mind, Bone proposes that the use of oral assessment encourages deeper learning outcomes because of the necessary connection between a student’s ‘personal commitment and engagement with the subject matter’.[57]

By contrast, fostering student reliance on written examinations, together with offering only limited forms of alternative assessment methods, arguably encourages law students to adopt a surface approach to their legal studies. As this brief research into oral assessment reveals, there is strong support in the relevant literature for broadening assessment methods to include alternatives, such as oral assessment, into undergraduate law courses. It must be noted however, that for the most part, the literature is written from the perspective of the teacher rather than the learner. Moreover, while evaluation is a vital part of any teacher’s progressive development and improvement, the focus of evaluation should not be one-dimensional. Clearly, the teacher-student relationship involves another important party: the student. Accordingly, it is important to obtain some fundamentally important information about students, such as how they view the purpose and usefulness of a particular programme, type of assessment and whether they see that they have an active role to play in the process. Obtaining student feedback on alternative forms of assessment is an important part of any such inquiry. To that end some data has been collected as part of a preliminary investigation into oral assessment. This is set out and discussed in the following section.

IV. STUDENT FEEDBACK ON ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND ORAL ASSESSMENT

The student feedback set out in this part of the paper was obtained as part of a preliminary investigation into the role of oral communication skills and oral assessment tasks in undergraduate law units.[58] Undergraduate law students in two units undertook questionnaires focusing on oral communication skills and oral assessment.

A. QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1 - METHODOLOGY

This project was undertaken in four phases: (i) changing tutorial materials and teaching-learning environment; (ii) preparation of questionnaires; (iii) collection of data; and (iv) data analysis. These are discussed below.

PHASE 1: CHANGING TUTORIAL MATERIALS AND TEACHING-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

In the first law unit evaluated in this context, a number of changes were introduced into the tutorial program of a core unit, namely Contract law, in 2nd semester 2004. The changes included drafting new tutorial materials and changing the format of the teaching-learning environment in tutorials. Students were provided with written and verbal instructions about the changes and what would be required of them. They were advised that, in addition to preparing written answers, they would be required to attend classes and engage in individual and group discussions of the tutorial questions. The changes were intended, in part, to encourage students to be more reflective about the subject matter they were studying, improve their oral communications skills and adopt a deeper approach to their learning. This new teaching and learning environment represented a significant departure from the standard tutorial practice of writing the ‘model’ answer, providing written summaries, and drawing up flow charts on the board, which students copied down for later consideration.

PHASE 2: PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

A questionnaire was designed to evaluate how students viewed the tutorial program and various assessment tasks. This included questions directed towards eliciting what they thought the purpose of the program was and whether they thought it was useful or helpful in learning the subject matter. Moreover, in the context of student approaches to learning, a number of the questions were aimed at generating information on how the students themselves viewed their role in the teaching-learning paradigm. The questions were a combination of direct questions (a range of open and closed questions), Likert scales and free comments. As noted below, with respect to oral communication skills and assessment, students were asked for their views on the following issues, with the relevant questions following a Likert scale approach:

Qu 1. The purpose of tutorials is to provide students with:
1.6. A forum for discussion of relevant legal issues
1.8. A forum for practicing oral legal argument
Qu 7. With respect to the tutorial program this semester please give your opinion on the following questions:
7.2. The tutorial program assists students in developing their oral communication skills
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

Phase 3: Data Collection

The data was collected by anonymous, voluntary student questionnaires. The evaluation was conducted in two tutorial classes and administered to approximately 35 students. The purpose of the questionnaire was explained before handing it out. It was also made clear that the data collected would be analysed to assist with making positive changes and improvements to the programme. The questionnaire included a cover page reiterating these verbal instructions. To ensure student anonymity was respected, students distributed and collected the papers and then placed them in an envelope. All of the students present answered the questionnaire.

Phase 4: Data Analysis

Summaries of responses to the questionnaire were prepared, together with diagrammatic representations of same. The relevant parts are discussed below.

(A) RESULTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1

The results of the questionnaire were informative and clearly demonstrated that students expectations were not altogether aligned with the purposes and aims outlined to them at the start of the course. As noted above, Question 1 followed the Likert scale approach and listed a series of questions relating to the purposes of the tutorial program. The results of the first questions relating to oral communication skills (Qs 1.6 and 1.8 above) revealed an overwhelming positive response. The majority of students surveyed agreed that discussing relevant legal issues (>90%) and practicing oral legal argument (>70%) were important objectives of the tutorial program. In addition, over 80% of students surveyed were of the view that the changed tutorial program assisted them in developing their oral communication skills. This was demonstrated by the results to Question 7.2 which again adopted the Likert scale approach.

B. QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 2 - METHODOLOGY

This project was also undertaken in four phases: (i) changing the assessment options; (ii) preparation of the questionnaire; (iii) data collection; and (iv) data analysis. These are discussed below.

PHASE 1: CHANGING THE ASSESSMENT OPTIONS

Prior to commencing teaching International law, an elective unit, in 2nd semester 2004, a number of changes were made to the unit’s assessment regime. Specifically, the previous compulsory take home examination and mid-semester test were replaced with different forms of assessment options: (i) 100% final written examination or (ii) written assignment plus final examination (30% and 70% weighting respectively).

PHASE 2: PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

In this elective law unit, the questionnaire focused on a range of assessment and evaluation issues. While the questionnaire is reproduced in full at the end of this paper, the questions adopted three main forms: direct questions (a range of open and closed questions), Likert scales and free comments. The various questions asked of the students were designed with the intention of being able to evaluate students’ perspectives on, inter alia:

▪ Their assessment choices.

▪ Oral communication skills.

▪ The advantages or otherwise of a range of different assessment methods, including final written examinations, written assignments and oral examinations.

More specifically, students were asked for feedback on oral communication skills and also to provide the reasons underlying their assessment choice for this unit.

PHASE 3: DATA COLLECTION

As with the previous survey, the data was collected by the process of anonymous, voluntary student questionnaires. The evaluation was conducted in a lecture at the end of semester and was administered to approximately 30 students. Before handing out the questionnaire, its purpose was explained it was made clear that the data collected would be analysed to assist with making positive changes and improvements to the unit’s assessment regime. The questionnaire included a cover page reiterating these verbal instructions. The papers were distributed and collected by the students and placed in an envelope to ensure student anonymity was respected. All of the students present answered the questionnaire.

PHASE 4: DATA ANALYSIS

Summaries of responses to the questionnaire were prepared, together with diagrammatic representations of same. The results are summarised below.

(A) RESULTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 2

The assessment options in this unit were: (i) 100% final written examination; or (ii) 70% written exam plus a 30% written assignment. The first set of questions (Qs 1-3) examined the students’ choice of assessment. The results from these initial questions varied. In some instances the student answers conformed to expected results, while in others the outcomes were surprising. The responses to Question 1 revealed that almost half of the students surveyed had selected the second assessment option. The next question sought explanations for this choice. Reasons provided for choosing the optional written assignment included:

▪ Interesting essay topics;

▪ Wanted to write an essay;

▪ Better at writing essays; and

▪ Ease the pressure of final exam.

Amongst the free comments, one student stated that his/her choice to write an essay was based on the view that he/she did not have to write too many words for 30% of the total marks available in the unit. Another mentioned the exam conditions which s/he stated were ‘unacceptable’, ‘disruptive’ and did not ‘truly represent a student’s ability’. By contrast, a number of others expressed the view that their choice of assessment was based on their perception that they were better at writing exams. Other reasons cited for choosing the 100% exam included:

▪ Wasted time focusing on one area for the essay;

▪ Would get behind with reading if they spent time writing an essay;

▪ Felt more comfortable with exams;

▪ Exams are easier than essays;

▪ Already doing essays in other subjects; and

▪ Not enough marks allocated to the essay to justify doing it.

A number of students were extremely candid in their free comments, noting that their reasons for choosing the 100% final written examination assessment option were that it required less work and that it was also easier to get a good mark. Remarkably, one student stated that the time provided (8 weeks) was not sufficient to enable him/her to write a 2000 word essay. Almost 70% of students responded negatively to the proposition that they should be provided with greater assessment choices.

Questions 4 – 11 followed the Likert scale approach and listed a series of questions relating to various assessment methods and their relative advantages. The first of these questions, Question 4, set out a range of assessment methods. Students were asked to indicate whether they had been assessed by any of the listed methods and if so, with what frequency. Not surprisingly, the answers were weighted towards final written examinations. Most students (> 90%) indicated that they were assessed regularly or often by 100% final written examinations (Q. 4.1). Likewise, 75% of students responded that they had been assessed regularly or often by final examinations worth less than 100% (Q. 4.2). While a small number of students indicated that they has been assessed by other methods such as drafting exercises, group work, and formal presentations, the answers provided in respect of the remaining assessment methods revealed that most of the students surveyed had either rarely or never been assessed by any other means. Mooting, advocacy exercises, negotiation exercises and oral examinations fell into this group (Qs. 4.9 - 4.11)

A number of propositions regarding the advantages of 100% open book final written examinations were set out in Question 5. The majority of the students (>80%) agreed about the time efficient nature of this form of assessment (Q. 5.1). Given this response, it was interesting to see that more than half of students disagreed with the proposition that this form of assessment was reliable (Q. 5.2). Likewise, the responses were split almost evenly in respect of whether 100% open book final written examinations:

▪ Relieved the stress of having to memorise lots of information (Q. 5.3).

▪ Properly tested how well students could use and apply information (Q. 5.4).

▪ Enabled adequate assessment of individual students’ abilities (Q. 5.5).

The responses in terms of the remaining parts of Question 5 were weighted towards agreement rather than disagreement with the propositions regarding 100% exams. The responses demonstrated an overall agreement by the students with the propositions that 100% open book final written examinations:

▪ Properly tested individual student’s knowledge of materials acquired during the unit (Q. 5.6).

▪ Properly tested individual student’s skills acquired during the unit (Q. 5.7).

▪ Prevented plagiarism (Q. 5.9).

▪ Prevented cheating (Q. 5.10).

Question 6 proposed the advantages of written assignments as a method of assessment. Overall the responses revealed that nearly all students agreed, or strongly agreed, that written assignments were an excellent form of assessment. Very few students disagreed with the propositions that written assignments allow for:

▪ Individuality of expression (Q. 6.1).

▪ Reflect the depth of a student’s understanding of materials and knowledge of the law (Q. 6.2).

▪ Assess a different range of skills and abilities (Q. 6.3).

▪ Measure students’ research skills (Q. 6.4).

▪ Measure a student’s written communication skills (Q. 6.5).

Similar responses were provided to Question 7. In this question students were asked to consider the usefulness of oral examinations. Over 85% of the students surveyed agreed that this form of assessment allows for individuality and expression (Q. 7.1). Fewer than 67% agreed that oral examinations would reflect the depth of student understanding and knowledge of the law (Q. 7.2).

The responses to the remaining three questions were almost identical with most students indicating that oral examinations were useful in assessing a different range of skills and abilities to those assessed by written examinations (Q.7.3); measured a student’s oral communication skills (Q. 7.4), and encouraged students to develop their verbal legal skills (Q. 7.5).

Further propositions regarding oral communication skills and oral assessment methods were posed in Question 8. Students’ responses were consistent across the first four sub-questions. When asked whether oral communication is an essential legal skill, all students agreed (43%) or strongly agreed (57%), that this was the case (Q. 8.1). Similarly, save for a few negative responses, the majority of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that, inter alia:

▪ Making presentations is an essential legal skill (Q. 8.2).

▪ Law students should be taught how to communicate orally their knowledge of the law (Q. 8.3).

▪ Law students should be taught how to make oral presentations (Q. 8.4).

▪ Students would benefit from oral presentations being included in possible assessment options (Q. 8.7).

▪ Oral examinations should be offered to students as an option to a final written examination (Q. 8.10).

A somewhat curious and inconsistent outcome can be seen in the answers to the remaining parts of Question 8. In particular, despite the overwhelming positive response to oral skills and assessment noted above, there was a high degree of disagreement with two of the remaining propositions. Almost half of the students indicated that oral communication skills should not be taught in all law courses (Q. 8.5) and further, that oral presentations should not be compulsory (Q. 8.8). Further questioning would be required to appreciate the reasoning underlying student perspectives in this regard.

Questions 9, 10 and 11 sought student feedback on the extent to which final examinations (100% or 70%), written assignments and oral examinations would enable an examiner to determine whether a student has achieved the unit’s aims and objectives.[59] While students supported all three, they expressed the strongest agreement with respect to written assignments. In conclusion, the preliminary data collected by these evaluations indicate a general perception amongst the students surveyed that oral skills and oral assessment methods are worthwhile.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The main recommendations arising from this paper are that:

▪ Oral communication skills are taught to undergraduate law students.

▪ Oral assessment is included as a component of law school formal assessment regimes.

▪ Further research, including data collection, is undertaken into alternative forms of assessment and means for facilitating deeper approaches to student learning.

A. TEACHING ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS

The minimal attention that has been given to the teaching of oral skills at the undergraduate level is somewhat unusual given the nature of legal practice. The many and varied reviews and reports on requisite skills for graduates clearly identify oral communication as essential. Likewise, the preliminary data set out in the preceding section reveals overwhelming student support for introducing oral communication skills into the undergraduate law school curriculum. It is recommended therefore, that greater consideration be given to teaching oral communication skills to undergraduate law students.

While further action is certainly recommended, it must be pointed out that this issue requires policy and decision making at a senior level of a law faculty, to ensure that a coordinated and coherent approach is taken towards including oral communication skills into a law school curriculum.

B. INCLUDING ORAL ASSESSMENT IN FORMAL ASSESSMENT REGIMES

In addition to the question of whether oral communication skills should be introduced into the teaching program, many reasons can be advanced for giving greater weight to oral forms of assessment methods in law units. Some of these have been highlighted by this paper and clearly there is a need to further consider changing the seemingly static written based forms of assessment that dominate assessment tasks in many undergraduate law courses. As discussed, the current undergraduate law learning environment is heavily biased towards final written examinations or a combination of written examinations and assignments. Whilst written examinations have numerous advantages, for example efficient use of time and teaching resources, such assessment methods have particular characteristics that can encourage students to adopt a superficial approach to their studies. As is evident from the widespread ‘trade in notes’ between current and previous years’ students, extensive reliance on final written examinations, or a written examination and assignment, appears to be directly countering any attempt to foster active and deeper approaches to student learning. Short term outcomes, such as passing exams with the least amount of study, are pursued and favoured over other less tangible benefits such as increased knowledge, understanding of the law, and the acquisition of life long learning skills. It is not desirable for law school formal assessment regimes to encourage this situation of superficial student learning outcomes.

When considering possible alternatives, there is a worthy argument to be made for introducing methods of oral assessment into the law school curriculum. As discussed above, it is clear from the available literature on oral assessment that there are many advantages for students. Of particular interest is the link between oral assessment tasks and the adoption of a deep approach to learning. The long term impact of encouraging surface approaches to learning through over-reliance on final examinations as the only assessment task should not be ignored. Arguably, the deeper level of understanding and knowledge that students generally acquire through oral assessment should be given greater attention. That is not to say that oral forms of assessment should completely replace for written forms of assessment. Rather, oral assessment tasks such as oral examinations and/or oral presentations could be used effectively in conjunction with written forms of assessment. A student for instance, may be required to make an oral presentation on a research assignment or take an oral examination as part of the overall assessable tasks for a particular unit. Additionally, an oral examination may be used in a supplementary way, where a student’s depth of understanding can be tested against a written examination. Through such a process, an examiner would be able to explore the particular legal questions at issue at a deeper level and obtain a better idea of the student’s level of skills, knowledge and understanding.

C. FURTHER RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF ASSESSMENT

Interestingly, the preliminary data set out in Part IV of this paper suggest that students support the introducing oral assessment into some law units. The preliminary results obtained from law students, clearly demonstrate that students support the view that oral skills are an important aspect of their legal education. However, the data collected and analysed so far was only intended to be part of a preliminary investigation into oral communication skills and oral assessment. Further, the processes adopted and research undertaken was only intended to commence the inquiry into oral communication skills and oral assessment. It must also be noted that the current surveys contain views of a comparatively small number of the overall law student body. Consequently, it would be useful to examine a wider cross section of students, across a range of Australian law schools, to ascertain their perspectives on this issue. Accordingly, it is recommended that further research be undertaken into the use of alternative forms of assessment. This includes formal oral presentations, assessable group discussions and oral examinations, replacing a proportion of written class tests and/or final written examinations. Undertaking further detailed research into the practical aspects of oral assessment in undergraduate law courses could build upon that already provided by the preliminary investigation. Ideally this would include a comparative examination of the practicalities of preparing, implementing and marking written and oral examinations. A more fully scoped evaluation questionnaire specifically addressing these issues could collect a greater level of accurate data to be analysed. The information obtained from such evaluations would better inform policy and decision making on the issues of oral communication skills and oral assessment within Australian law schools.

VI. CONCLUSION

This paper has sought to demonstrate that oral assessment is important in the legal teaching and learning framework. In broad terms of student approaches to learning, serious consideration ought to be given to moving away from heavy reliance on final written examinations. While this form of assessment certainly has an important function, it is not without its failings, most notably how little it offers in terms of achieving a range of student learning outcomes and quality learning experiences. As the preliminary research contained in this paper has revealed, adopting other assessment techniques, such as oral examinations, encourages students to adopt deeper levels of learning. This in turn can encourage life long learning skills amongst law students. Thus there is strong support for increasing the use of this type of assessment in undergraduate law units.

Moving to oral assessment methods will require a significant change in the way law students and teachers operate. Admittedly, ensuring the success of any changes to the current ingrained assessment methods may require further training for law teachers, at all levels, in the development of teaching and assessment of oral skills. Such changes would also require further education of law students to enable them to better appreciate the long term benefits that would flow to them as a result of such assessment processes. Additional training and education should not be seen as a barrier to increasing the use of this kind of assessment in law units. On the contrary, arguably, it is time to consider the appropriateness and relevance of unit design and assessment strategies currently employed for undergraduate law units. There is a need for a reassessment of assessment methods utilised in law schools. Law students must be encouraged to put down their pens from time to time and actively engage in life long learning activities, especially those which better equip them with universally important professional skills such as oral communication.

APPENDIX A — QUESTIONNAIRE 2

The present assessment for this course is
Option 1: 100% final examination (open book) or Option 2: 30% essay + 70% final examination (open book)
1. Which option did you select
2. What were your reasons for selecting this form of assessment?
3. Would you like a greater choice in the assessment options?
3.1. If yes, what other forms of assessment do you think would have been appropriate for this unit (international law)?
4. Have you ever been assessed by any of the following methods:
4.1. Final 100% examination (open book)
4.2. Final examination worth less than 100% (open book)
4.3. Class test – short answer questions
4.4. Class participation – question/answers & discussions
4.5. Drafting Exercises
4.6. Group work
4.7. Formal presentations
4.8. Moots and other advocacy exercises
4.9. Negotiations exercises
4.10. Viva – oral/spoken examination
o Option 1
o Option 2
o Free comment
o Yes
o No
o Free comment
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

5. 100% open book examinations are the best assessment method for the following reasons: (please place a tick in the relevant column):
5.1. Efficient in terms of student’s time
5.2. Reliable form of assessment
5.3. Removes the stress of having to memorize lots of facts and figures
5.4. Properly test how well students can use and apply information
5.5. Adequately assesses individual student’s abilities
5.6. Properly tests individual student’s knowledge of materials studied during the course
5.7. Prevents cheating
5.8. Prevents plagiarism
5.9. Other reasons [please provide examples]:
6. A written assignment is an excellent method of assessment because it: (please place a tick in the relevant column)
6.1. Allows for student individuality and expression
6.2. Reflects the depth of student understanding and knowledge of materials
6.3. Assesses a different range of skills and abilities
6.4. Measures the student’s research skills
6.5. Measures the student’s written communication abilities
6.6. Other reasons [please provide examples]:
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

7. A Viva-voce (oral) examination would be a useful method of assessment because it would:
7.1. Allow for student individuality and expression
7.2. Reflect the depth of student understanding and knowledge of materials
7.3. Assess a different range of skills and abilities to those assessed by written assignments and examinations
7.4. Measure the student’s oral communication abilities
7.5. Encourage students to develop and improve their verbal abilities on legal matters
7.6. Other reasons [please provide examples]:
8. Please indicate whether you agree with the following propositions:
8.1. Oral communication is an essential practical legal skill
8.2. Making presentations is an essential practical legal skill
8.3. Law students should be taught how to orally communicate their understanding of the law
8.4. Law students should be trained to make oral presentations
8.5. Oral communication skills should be assessed in all law courses
8.6. International law is ideal for learning, developing and practicing oral communication skills
8.7. Students would benefit greatly from oral presentations being included in the possible assessment options
8.8. Oral presentations should be a compulsory part of the curriculum
8.9. By its nature, the subject matter of international law is well suited to viva-voce examination(oral examination)
8.10. Viva-voce examinations (oral examination) should be offered to students as an option to a final written examination.
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

9. Final examinations (e.g. 100% or 70%) enable an examiner to properly determine whether a student has successfully acquired the following skills and knowledge (aims and objectives of the unit):
9.1. In-depth understanding and knowledge of the fundamental principles of International Law.
9.2. An ability to critically examine, compare and discuss the current status of international law with reference to current international issues.
9.3. An ability to identify the various sources of international law and understand the application of treaty and customary international law in the context of current international issues.
9.4. An ability to identify the main institutions acting in the international arena, in particular the United Nations and its constituent bodies/agencies.
9.5. In-depth understanding and ability to explain the concept of statehood and the current role of the ‘State’ in international law.
9.6. In-depth understanding and ability to explain various concepts of international law including jurisdiction, territory, state responsibility, immunity, personality, recognition and the use of force.
9.7. In-depth understanding of the distinct nature and functions of the international legal system as well as its relationship with national legal systems such as Australian domestic law.
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

10. Written assignments enable an examiner to determine whether a student has achieved the unit’s aims and objectives, including:
10.1. In-depth understanding and knowledge of the fundamental principles of International Law.
10.2. An ability to critically examine, compare and discuss the current status of international law with reference to current international issues.
10.3. An ability to identify the various sources of international law and understand the application of treaty and customary international law in the context of current international issues.
10.4. An ability to identify the main institutions acting in the international arena, in particular the United Nations and its constituent bodies/agencies.
10.5. In-depth understanding and ability to explain the concept of statehood and the current role of the ‘State’ in international law.
10.6. In-depth understanding and ability to explain various concepts of international law including jurisdiction, territory, state responsibility, immunity, personality, recognition and the use of force.
10.7. In-depth understanding of the distinct nature and functions of the international legal system as well as its relationship with national legal systems such as Australian domestic law.
o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never

11. A viva-voce (oral examination) would enable an examiner to better determine whether a student has successfully acquired the following skills and knowledge (aims and objectives of the unit):
11.1. In-depth understanding and knowledge of the fundamental principles of International Law.
11.2. An ability to critically examine, compare and discuss the current status of international law with reference to current international issues.
11.3. An ability to identify the various sources of international law and understand the application of treaty and customary international law in the context of current international issues.
11.4. An ability to identify the main institutions acting in the international arena, in particular the United Nations and its constituent bodies/agencies.
11.5. In-depth understanding and ability to explain the concept of statehood and the current role of the ‘State’ in international law.
11.6. In-depth understanding and ability to explain various concepts of international law including jurisdiction, territory, state responsibility, immunity, personality, recognition and the use of force.
11.7. In-depth understanding of the distinct nature and functions of the international legal system as well as its relationship with national legal systems such as Australian domestic law.

o All the time/regularly
o Frequently/often
o Rarely/infrequently
o Never


* Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University and Barrister-at-Law, The Victorian Bar.

[1] At the outset, the author notes that the focus of this paper is on undergraduate law courses, not undergraduate courses in non-law disciplines or post-graduate law courses. The latter may include oral assessment, the most notable being the oral defence undertaken by doctoral students. Such assessment however, is undertaken within an entirely different learning environment and is outside the ambit of this discussion. For further discussion on post-graduate oral assessment, see, eg, Gordon Joughin, Oral Assessment from the Learner’s Perspective: The Experience of Oral Assessment in Post-Compulsory Education, (PhD Thesis, Griffith University, 2003).

[2] For instance, the Law Faculties of Monash University

(www.law.monash.edu.au) and the University of Melbourne (www.law.unimelb.edu.au), where the most common forms of assessment are 100% written examinations, 100% written assignments or some combination thereof, eg, 70% written examination and 30% written assignment. Currently, only 8 of the 62 units offered at Monash University’s Law Faculty include an optional non-written form of assessment. Formal oral assessment is prescribed in only three of those units, two of which are specialist, elective mooting, negotiation and advocacy units. Likewise, of the 66 units offered at Melbourne University’s Law Faculty, only six offer the option of an alternative form of assessment. While assessment in two elective units includes a class presentation, only one core unit requires an oral presentation. As with Monash, two of these units are elective negotiation and advocacy units. Similarly, class presentations are included as part of the assessment tasks in six of the 61 units offered at Sydney University’s Law Faculty (www.law.usyd.edu.au), while oral examinations form part of the assessment in only two of the elective units.

[3] Ibid.

[4] While some law students may not enter legal practice after completion of their law degree, this paper focuses on students undertaking such courses with a view to entering the legal profession.

[5] See, e.g., the various statements of Australian universities on publicly accessible websites: Monash <www.monash.edu/about/learning-teaching-plan.html>; University of Melbourne <

growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/2007universityplan/learning.html>, <growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/news/docs/GEUpdateAPRIL2007.pdf>; University of New South Wales <www.ltu.unsw.edu.au/content /userDocs/2005-2007LandTPlan_Gloss.pdf>.

[6] At the outset, it should be noted that many students might not pursue a career in law per se. Rather than reducing the importance of this skill, this outcome may reinforce the need for teaching and assessing generic skills such as verbal fluency and oral communication.

[7] See above n 3.

[8] See, eg, Eric Mayer, Putting General Education to Work: The Key Competencies Report, Report No 3 (1992) (the Mayer Report).; Craig McInnis, Simon Marginson and Alison Morris, Australian Law Schools After the 1987 Pearce Report, (1994); Sumitra Vignaendra, Australian Law Graduates' Career Destinations (1998); Commonwealth, Learning For Life: Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Final Report (1998) (the West Review); Queensland University of Technology, Graduate Capabilities: Embedding Graduate Capabilities in the Core Curriculum, Faculty of Law (2007) <http://www.law.qut.edu.au/study/skills.jsp> at 27 August 2007; see also American Bar Association, ‘Legal Education and Professional Development – An Educational Continuum’ (1992) (the MacCrate Report); UK Centre for Legal Education Reports (including Law Discipline Network), General Transferable Skills in the Law Curriculum, Graduate Standards in Law (1997) <http://www.ukle.ac.uk> 27 August 2007; John Bell and Jennifer Johnstone, General Transferable Skills in the Law Curriculum, Report for the Department for Education and Employment (1998).

[9] Terry Hutchinson, ‘Where to Now? The 2002 Australasian Research Skills Training Survey’ (2004) 14 Legal Education Review 63, 64.

[10] Hutchinson, above n 10, 64; see also Mayer, above n 9, 14.

[11] Hutchinson, above n 10, 65; see also Commonwealth, above n 9, 47.

[12] Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System, Report No 89 (1999) [2.20-2.21].

[13] Ibid, ‘Summary of Recommendations’; ‘General Discussion’ [2.12] et seq.

[14] Sharon Christensen and Sally Kift, ‘Graduate Attributes and Legal Skills: Integration or Disintegration?’ (2000) 11 Legal Education Review 207, 208.

[15] Alison Greig, ‘Student Led Class and Group Work: A Methodology for Developing Generic Skills’ [2000] LegEdRev 3; (2000) 11 Legal Education Review 81.

[16] Christensen and Kift, above n 15, 216.

[17] Ibid 207.

[18] Ibid 217.

[19] Ibid 207 et seq; see especially 212-13.

[20] Ibid 212; see also Vignaendra, above n 9, 39.

[21] Christensen and Kift, above n 15, 212.

[22] See Hutchinson, above n 10; Christensen and Kift, above n 15.

[23] An excellent example of how skills can be effectively incorporated into tertiary law school curriculum is the QUT project discussed by Christensen and Kift, above n 15.

[24] In Victoria for instance, admission to practice requires applicants to satisfy the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Board of Examiners that they have successfully completed units across all of the 11 areas of knowledge mandated by the Council of Legal Education. Law Institute of Victoria, Practising in Victoria (2007) <http://www.liv.asn.au/regulation/practising/practising-Steps.html> at 27 August 2007. See also Christensen and Kift, above n 15, 212-213.

[25] These include the units required by the professional practising bodies such as Contract law, Torts, Criminal Law, Evidence, Civil Procedure, Property, Administrative and Constitutional Law.

[26] These included for example, taxation, corporations law, public and private international law, intellectual property law, consumer credit and banking law, environmental law and family law.

[27] Christensen and Kift, above n 15. For discussion of generic skills also see Commonwealth, Higher Education at the Crossroads: An Overview, Ministerial Discussion Paper (2002) 19 et seq; especially 98-99; Jennifer Gibb (ed.), Generic Skills in Vocational Education and Training: Research Readings (2004); Peter Kearns, Review of Research: Generic Skills for the New Economy (2001).

[28] It is important to note that these issues may be different for different groups of students. International students for example will present with a range of traits based various influences such cultural, linguistic, legal and religious backgrounds. However, the focus of this current paper is limited to domestic law students who will enter Australian legal practice.

[29] Gordon Joughin and David Gardiner, A Framework for Teaching and Learning Law (1996). This framework or P-3 model of learning is based on earlier works by commentators such as Biggs, Dunkin, Biddle, Bloom and Child. It was recently developed further by Gordon Joughin in the context of post-compulsory education in his PhD Thesis, above n 2.

[30] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30, 4.

[31] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30, 16; see also Joughin above n 2, 35.

[32] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 29, 16 et seq; see also Joughin, above n 2, 35.

[33] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30, 5; see also Joughin, above n 2, 35.

[34] Paul Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (1992) 18.

[35] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30, 5.

[36] Ference Marton and Roger Säljö, ‘On Qualitative Differences in Learning: II-Outcomes as a Function of the Learner’s Conception of the Task’ (1976) 46 British Journal of Educational Psychology 125; see also Joughin, above n 2, 39.

[37] Paul Ramsden, ‘The Context of Learning in Academic Departments’ in Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell and Noel Entwistle (eds), The Experience of Learning (2nd ed, 1997) 215; see also Joughin, above n 2, 38.

[38] Ramsden, above n 38; Joughin, above n 2.

[39] Ramsden, above n 38, 5 et seq.

[40] George Brown, Joanna Bull and Malcolm Pendlebury, Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education (1997) 7; see also Chris Rust, ’The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning – How Can the Research Literature Practically Help to Inform the Development of Departmental Assessment Strategies and Learner-Centred Assessment Practices’ (2002) 3 Active Learning in Higher Education 145-158.

[41] Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30, 48 et seq.

[42] Ibid 48.

[43] Ibid.

[44] See Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, above n 35; Joughin, above n 2; Joughin and Gardiner, above n 30; Brown et al, above n 40.

[45]Alison Bone and Karen Hinett, ‘Innovation in Assessment’, Assessment for Learning: Guide for Law Teachers (2002) UK Centre for Legal Education <http://www.ukcle.ack.uk/resources/assessment/guide/index.htm> at 28 August 2007; Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, above n 34; Graham Gibbs (ed), Improving Student Learning–Through Assessment and Evaluation (1995); Noel Entwistle and Abigail Entwistle, ‘Revision and Experience of Understanding’ in Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell and Noel Entwistle (eds), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education (2nd ed, 1997) 146-158; A W Astin et al, 9 Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning (1996) American Association for Higher Education

<http://ultibase.rmit.edu/Articles/June97/ameri1.htm> at 17 October 2007.

[46] As discussed above n 3, save for the few specific advocacy and professional practice litigation units, there is a surprising paucity of oral assessment (presentations or examinations) being utilised in undergraduate law courses.

[47] See, eg, Alison Bone, Ensuring Successful Assessment (1999).

[48] See Chris Rust, Purposes and Principles of Assessment (2002) Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

<http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/briefing_papers/p_p_assessment.pdf> at 27 June 2002.

[49] Gordon Joughin, ‘Dimensions of Oral Assessment and Student Approaches to Learning’ in Sally Brown and Angela Glasner (eds), Assessment Matters (1999) 146-156; see also Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI), Teaching and Learning Support: Effective Teaching and Learning Conferences (2006) University of Queensland

<http://www.tedi.uq.edu/conferences/index.html> at 27 July 2006.

[50] Joughin, above n 50.

[51]Ibid.

[52] Joughin, above n 2, 17.

[53] Bone, above n 48.

[54] Ibid; see also Alison Bone and Karen Hinett, Assessment for Learning: Guide for Law Teachers (2003) UK Centre for Legal Education,

<http://www.ukcle.ack.uk/resources/assessment/guide/index.htm> 28 August 2007.

[55] See especially Chris Rust, ‘The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning’ (2002) 3 Active Learning in Higher Education 148-150.

[56] Joughin, above n 50.

[57] See Bone’s discussion of Joughin’s commentary on this issue in Bone and Hinett, Assessment for Learning, above n 55.

[58] The author undertook these student surveys as part of a preliminary investigative research project completed as part of a postgraduate teaching qualification. Copies of this unpublished report can be obtained directly from the author.

[59] The aims and objectives set out in these questions were provided to the students at the commencement of this unit.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2006/3.html