Christudason, A --- "Using Student Feedback to Improve the Quality of Teaching Law to Non-law Students" [2006] LegEdDig 40; (2006) 14(Spec Ed) Legal Education Digest 13

Using Student Feedback to Improve the Quality of Teaching Law to Non-law Students

A Christudason

(2006) 14(Spec Ed) Legal Education Digest 13

40 Law Teacher 1, 2006, pp 41–58

For more than two decades, I had been accustomed to teaching Law Modules to non-law students at the Department of Real Estate, NUS (National University of Singapore). Such students were not being prepared for a career in Law, and they possessed either a background in our affiliation or Real Estate. Last year however, I undertook to design and teach a new Module with a colleague. This Module was a different genre altogether: it was to be taught to students from other disciplines and Faculties. Undertaking to teach law to non-law students from non-real estate backgrounds posed a different set of challenges which resulted in a new learning experience for me as a not-so-new teacher.

While this paper reflects on some of the challenges of teaching a widely heterogeneous student cohort, the focus is on the importance of obtaining timely SF (semestral student feedback) to improve teaching effectiveness in such a context. To confirm the effectiveness of the decisions made in the course of the module, the paper produces some of the qualitative results of the formal feedback on the Module conducted at the end of the Module. This highlights students’ final perceptions of the Module and the value of their learning experiences.

This Module introduces students to the legal institutions and frameworks which underpin real estate development and investment in Singapore. The Module is targeted at all students across Faculties (except Medicine, Law and Dentistry) who have had no exposure to Real Estate Law. By introducing legal concepts and principles through interactive lectures and participatory tutorials, the aim was for students to gain an appreciation of the various considerations which shape the legal policies pertaining to real estate in Singapore.

The cohort of students I received was heterogeneous in almost every possible way: they were from different (1) disciplines (2) ages (3) levels in their Courses (4) Faculties across the campus (5) nationalities and not unimportantly (6) followed different timetables. Such differences, particularly (1) — (5), often translate into different learning abilities, expectations and ultimately, learning outcomes while (6) posed practical difficulties. In view of the wide differences that my students brought to the classroom, I had to critically reflect on my usual teaching methods. In order that my students had a more valuable (and enjoyable) learning experience I decided to rely on more informal (and ongoing) SF. This would serve to provide useful pointers on how I could continually refine my teaching methods; I could then re-assess their effectiveness for this particular cohort during, not after the Module. In doing so, I found that I was in effect reacting to the heterogeneities outlined in (1) — (6).

Formative evaluation of teaching has been described as ‘evaluation that takes place along the way.’ Such evaluation enables students to know ‘how they are doing’ and teachers to make mid-course corrections. On the other hand, summative evaluation (also obtained from similar sources namely students, colleagues and alumni) yields data that (in addition to other uses) could be used to compare teaching performance and provide a basis for decisions about staffing contracts, tenure and promotion. This paper considers how formative and evaluative information by way of SF usefully guided me in the conduct of this Module to achieve the desired learning outcomes [outlined in page 3].

At least five major users of student ratings on campus have been identified. These are (1) campus evaluation offices, (2) campus committees, (3) administrators, (4) students and (5) teachers. This paper only discusses the value of SF for (4) and (5). Whether paper-pencil, or online, the overall objective of a SF exercise is ‘to obtain valid and reliable SF on courses, as well as their teachers.’ In this regard, various factors may affect the validity and reliability of SF. These include the situation, content, time, and wording, absence of hypothesis, intent, slippage, and rhetoric in the feedback questionnaire. One other important concern is the anonymity of student responses. There is also the question of whether a standard format can be applicable across all Faculties.

Despite these and other concerns, online SF has a variety of benefits. The chief benefit is that when compared to paper-pencil feedback, there is less of a time-lag between the actual providing of the feedback by students and the teacher’s reactionary time. The particular usefulness of end of semester formal feedback is that at the time of responding, students are in a far better position to understand and appreciate the topics covered in the past semester.

Many Universities which employ online SF lament students’ low response rates. At the NUS however, various strategies have been employed to ensure optimum participation rates from students in the Feedback exercise: (1) initially, students’ registration for examinations was dependent on students’ completion and submission of on-line feedback; (2) currently, undergraduate students who participate in the feedback exercise will be given additional points which may be added to their total bid points which they can use to bid for Modules in the following semester; (3) Graduate students, Dentistry Law and Medicine undergraduate students who do not participate in the feedback exercise will only be able to access their results via the internet five days after the release of the examination results. In light of this, although there may be a high, or even hundred percent response rate, it is to be expected that there is a certain bias in their responses as they may not feel that their feedback would benefit them directly.

As for (2) above, in order for the SF to be ‘useful’ and actionable for the teacher, students must first be primed to provide it. In addition to putting in place the avenues for ongoing SF, the following were the issues I had to bear in mind when trying to elicit responses from students: (1) Feedback should be specific; (2) Feedback should concentrate on observable behaviour rather than inferring what the individual is thinking or feeling; (3) Feedback should describe the effect of the teacher’s method of instruction on the student; (4) Feedback should offer alternatives to the behaviour being criticised; (5) Provide a ‘safe’ environment — Nothing (well, almost nothing) you say will be taken against you.

It is important that feedback be obtained early in the course, even after the first class. For this purpose, I asked for a Class representative. I also ensured that I would speak to students at each tutorial class where I met with different and smaller groups. I also used a combination of individual and group feedback simply by speaking to students randomly and to the group representatives on a regular basis.

Arising from my existing experience of teaching students within the Real Estate discipline, initially (before the Module had commenced) I had prepared fairly complex case-studies for analysis during tutorials. However, after the first tutorial, feedback indicated that there were problems. This alerted me to students’ immediate difficulty of handling complex legal issues. As such, tutorial questions were re-formulated to provide some hand-handling in the form of structured questions which led up to the case studies.

My original plan had been for students to operate in Affinity Groups. However it transpired that this was highly impractical due to the students’ widely differing time tables across Faculties. Accordingly I adopted another collaborative/peer learning strategy: the buzz group. Through this means, after self-learning prior to tutorials, students would engage in collaborative/peer learning during tutorial discussions.

Arising from feedback that students were having difficulties in grasping fundamental concepts, I decided to temporarily move away from the structured type of questions I had originally intended to set and began experimenting with the use of Multiple Choice Questions. The type of format typically adopted for assessment in law modules is the case-study/essay question. However, for this Module, arising from the nature of difficulties that students voiced they were facing, we decided on an examination format of allowing a choice of short structured hypothetical questions followed by compulsory case-study questions.

The Module comprises 2 contact hours per week. Effectively, the actual contact time for the lecture slot is approximately one hour and forty-five minutes as students must be given time to move on to their subsequent classes at various other venues across campus. The Module I cotaught comprised 140 students. The students were divided up into six groups for tutorial purposes. The tutorials groups were taught by the other lecturer as well as me. While my colleagues and I did meet from time to time to discuss tutorial answers and the approach we should take, we learnt that students from the different groups perceived our approaches ‘irreconcilably’ different. This made us aware that there should be a great degree of consistency (though not uniformity) in our approaches so that students would know the basic concepts and their application which we intended for them as their learning outcomes for a given topic. We therefore made the effort to discuss the group covered prior to each Tutorial session.

There were various opportunities to obtain feedback from former students. Arising from this, there was contact with the former students, who were now captains of industry and who could provide valuable feedback on what the specific and current concerns in industry were.

To be a master teacher, one needs to be engaged in continual on-going reflection and critical thinking about various aspects of the Module. These include course content, modes of delivery and assessment. This paper has highlighted some of the problems with the formal end-of-semester online SF system at NUS.

As for qualitative feedback, their validity and reliability can also be questioned from various angles. First, such feedback often lacks detail or explanation and can lead to difficulties in interpretation; this is especially so where there are contradictory comments. Second, where students know that it is not possible for them to benefit from their feedback there may be a disincentive to be truthful. Third, students may not provide useful feedback because they are accustomed to it not being acted upon. Nevertheless, the discussion has shown that qualitative SF can provide valuable insights on how one’s teaching can be improved. However, the main problem with the formal SF system is that such feedback comes in a little too late for adjustments to be made during the course. This underscores the importance of putting in place informal and accessible mechanisms for students to provide timely feedback during the course. By providing pointers to students about how to provide the feedback, students learn to think through the suggestions they make, make practical suggestions for improvement, and take responsibility for their suggestions. When you obtain the feedback, it is critical that you adopt an open responsive attitude to it.

The difficulty of course, lies in deciding when and how you should respond to the SF. To respond is not to pander. Admittedly, the line between the two may be thin and one would have to tread very carefully. In this regard, the importance of discernment cannot be overemphasised. If unsure, it may be a good idea to check out senior colleagues’ opinion. A responsive approach is beneficial in that it not only signals to students that you are involving them in the teaching/ learning process, but it gives students a sense of connectedness with the Module. Based on a study of student/teacher interactions and motivations underlying student behaviour, it has been found that when courses are designed so that teachers and students share responsibility and work together to achieve common goals, there are very positive effects on educational outcomes; not only is learning superior, but harmonisation of teaching/learning motives also improves the emotional quality of the educational experience for both professors and students.

Besides, there is always a better way of doing things. There is a valuable lesson here and I cannot articulate better than Marilla Svinicki. None of us is so good that we cannot be better.