Johnstone, R; Vignaendra, S --- "Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Law" [2004] LegEdDig 8; (2004) 12(3) Legal Education Digest 11

Review Article: Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Law, R Johnstone & S Vignaendra, Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003, 504pp

Dr John Nelson

[2004] LegEdDig 8; (2004) 12(3) Legal Education Digest 11

(available at http://www.autc.gov.au/pr/law/split_law.htm)

This very substantial report, exceeding 500 pages in length and commissioned by the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, presents the results of a wide-ranging empirical research study carried out by the authors into learning outcomes and curriculum development in Australian law schools. Although the setting is legal education within an Australian context, its findings also provide useful signposts for law schools and teachers in other countries where similar issues are bound to arise in the process of developing the law curriculum in order to maximise learning outcomes for students.

Since the scope of the research is wide and the report as a consequence necessarily lengthy (there are a total of 18 chapters reporting the methodology and the results), it is impossible in this review article to deal with the results in any significant detail. Accordingly, the approach adopted has been to outline the subject matter covered in each of the chapters and offer a general editorial viewpoint on its value to curriculum developers and law teachers.

It is important to appreciate the terms of reference for the project, which were ‘to identify, describe and evaluate: (1) the ways in which the processes of curriculum development and review have been varied and enhanced to take account of changing circumstances; (2) the extent to which the methods of teaching and assessment have been reviewed and revised in response to changing circumstances; (3) the degree of awareness by students of expected learning outcomes and intended graduate attributes, and links between these and the curriculum and the teaching and learning methods in the courses; (4) the impact of globalisation and the new communication and information technologies on teaching and learning; (5) the role of professional experience and its management in the curriculum; (6) graduate employability and employer/industry satisfaction; (7) the impact of the growth in double and combined degrees and the changing balance of postgraduate to undergraduate programs; and (8) highlight examples of ‘best practice’ in teaching and learning in law.’ (p.16)

The research method involved a three-pronged approach to data collection: (1) law school visits to interview deans and heads of school and key staff members, plus conducting focus groups with law teachers; (2) a written questionnaire directed to penultimate year law students, supplemented with interviews and focus group discussions with students; and (3) telephone interviews with employers of law graduates to find out what sets of qualities they looked for and whether the legal education and training their employees received produced the type of law graduates that they sought.

As a consequence of this research design, the success of the project was very much dependent on the involvement of all Australian law schools, all but one of which was willing to participate, given the fact that satisfactory samples of employers and students were likely to be more readily accessible to the researchers. In addition, the data collected were almost entirely qualitative, being the recorded views expressed mainly through interview by the various categories of respondents listed above, supplemented in some areas by the collection of numeric data. This means that most of the results chapters consist of the teasing out and analysis of emerging themes derived from these opinions, many of which are quoted in full. This approach contributes a richness to the findings otherwise likely to be missing from a quantitative research study but, nonetheless, as a general statement, it is difficult to conclude in many areas that the findings are necessarily representative of the entire populations being surveyed. One particularly valuable feature of the results chapters is the presentation of individual case studies to illustrate a particular phenomenon which the researchers wish to highlight. It is important to note, however, that, in order to guarantee anonymity, throughout the entire report responses and opinions are never attributed to individual law schools but are categorised generally, such as ‘one first wave law school sees itself as ...’

The development and administration of the interview schedules and survey form listed above are fully explained in the introductory chapter 1, which also sets the scene by briefly reviewing the history and changing environment of legal education in Australia and various nation-wide reviews in the US, England and Wales, and Scotland.

Chapter 2 gives a broad overview of developments in the undergraduate law curricula of Australian law schools, mainly by scrutinising the claims of individual institutions to distinctiveness, as well as how undergraduate law curricula have been developed. Chapter 3 describes the combined and double-degree programs available, as well as graduate entry LLB programs. Chapter 4 isolates key features of LLB curricula, particularly varied approaches to compulsory subjects and the number, scope and specialisations affecting elective subject offerings, which is complemented in chapter 5 by a consideration of how ethics, legal skills and legal theory have been incorporated into programs by different law schools.

The curricula of postgraduate programs are dealt with in chapter 6, including different visions of postgraduate offerings, program divergence and the place of research degrees. Chapter 7 tackles the difficult issues flowing from the influences of globalisation and information technology on law curricula. Methods adopted by different law schools for reviewing, monitoring and developing both undergraduate and postgraduate curricula are described in chapter 8 and chapter 9 examines the mechanisms adopted by various law schools to throw light on employers’ needs and perceptions of law programs and their satisfaction levels with graduates as the end product of the legal education system.

The report also examines students’ perceptions of their legal education, including their expectations and satisfaction levels with what they have received (chapter 10). A brief overview of the elements of good teaching and the scholarship of teaching is presented in chapter 11. Chapter 12 describes broad developments in teaching and learning in law schools and changes in law schools’ approaches to teaching and learning since 1987, the year of publication of the Pearce Report, the most comprehensive and far-reaching survey of all the federally funded component parts of the system of legal education in Australia and containing a number of recommendations which are still of significance today.

The report also describes the factors that law teachers identify as inhibiting good teaching (chapter 13), different teaching and learning policies and practices across law schools (14), changes in the specification of learning objectives and developments in assessment practices (15), changes in teaching methods, teaching materials and the use of information technology in teaching (16) and the processes law schools use to support and manage teaching and learning for their faculty and students (17). The final chapter is an overview of the entire report, including the most significant findings, and as such can be recommended to those readers who require an overview of the whole project in order to gauge the value of the contribution it makes.

This is obviously an extremely important research report which manages very insightfully to illuminate the changing practices in Australian law schools with respect to curriculum development and the enhancement of student learning outcomes. It provides a remarkable snapshot of the status quo, as well as suggested new directions for individual law schools to follow in the pursuit of best practice. The one surprising element is why the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, which deserves credit for commissioning this well conceived study, has not seen fit to reinforce the quality of the report and to ensure that it has the greatest impact by publishing it, not just making it available electronically.