Wilson, G --- "The tutorial model for undergraduate law courses: objectives, approaches and outcomes" [2009] LegEdDig 14; (2009) 17(1) Legal Education Digest 50

---

The tutorial model for undergraduate law courses: objectives, approaches and outcomes

G Wilson

2 Web J Current Legal Issues, 2008, pp 1–17

Within undergraduate law programmes the tutorial continues to be the main forum in which students are able to engage and interact with their tutors, discuss the various issues raised by the subjects which they are studying, and resolve any uncertainty or confusion upon their part as to the subject matter under consideration. Tutorials also provide a forum in which opportunities may present themselves for students to gain guidance upon, and practice in, examination technique. The importance of the tutorial forum is regularly emphasised by tutors, and students are constantly instilled with the need to attend their tutorials if they are to gain the optimum benefit from their course and be suitably prepared to succeed in assessment.

In this author’s experience approaches to tutorials have varied between two significantly different, albeit not always mutually exclusive, models, which may possibly represent radically different views as to the main purposes of the tutorial forum itself. The first of these involves students being presented with a series of short, general questions which they may be expected to prepare note style answers to for discussion in class. The questions set (with the exception of problem style questions) will not resemble formal assessment style questions, but instead serve as general markers for discussion of the more pertinent issues raised by the topics under consideration. In this sense there is no rigid structure to the tutorial, but rather general parameters guiding discussion, which may proceed in a variety of ways depending upon the interests or needs of the participants. In marked contrast to this model is one within which students tend to be presented with questions resembling formal assessment style questions. The intention is that students will draft out some form of outline plan or notes upon the questions in advance of the tutorial, which will then serve as a more specific reference point for discussion, with the aim being primarily to collectively answer in some form more specific questions. In this sense the tutorial structure is more rigid. Discussion is largely confined to preparing students for assessment by considering how particular questions should be tackled in an examination or essay setting.

The apparent divergence in approaches towards the delivery of tutorials provides the basis for an exploration of purposes and outcomes which tutorials are intended to serve and how this influences the approaches taken towards their delivery by tutors.

Drawing upon empirical research conducted in a small sample of law schools, this paper aims to consider the different ways in which tutors approach the delivery of undergraduate law tutorials, and to assess the extent to which there may exist tensions between achieving different objectives through the tutorial forum.

To obtain the views of legal academics on approaches to tutorial delivery within the undergraduate law curriculum, a questionnaire was sent to a sample group of academics. The questionnaire consisted primarily of a box-ticking exercise, but participants were given the opportunity to clarify responses and add any comments they considered relevant to the exercise. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section collected basic statistical information upon the participants and their teaching to provide an overriding picture of the sample group, and to make it possible to identify any trends and patterns in the responses received from academics sharing particular features in common. The following three sections focused specifically upon the perceived purposes of tutorials, the form which the respondents’ tutorials took and the considerations influencing this, and the desired outcomes of tutorials.

To ensure consistency, it was decided to restrict the survey to academics teaching in particular subject areas, and it was sent only to staff with teaching responsibilities in the areas of public law, the law of obligations and land law.

To obtain a representative sample of participants, six law schools were chosen to provide a ‘focus group’ for the survey. To ensure that this group was relatively representative of the wider legal academic community, half of the schools chosen were located in ‘old’ universities and half in ‘new’ universities. Although six law schools comprises a small sample, it is submitted that the range chosen nonetheless provided scope for any diversity in perceptions to manifest itself.

The response rate to the survey was 72 per cent, which included responses from all of the institutions sampled and from academics teaching all of the subject areas which provided the focus for the survey within each institution. Generally speaking, the statistical information obtained indicates a fairly representative sample of participants. Respondents are evenly divided between old and new universities, and those who have taught for varying periods of time. There is also a fairly even divide between those teaching modules through primarily doctrinal and those adopting wider approaches. Most respondents had overall responsibility for the relevant module and tended to set all or at least some of the tutorial tasks for that module.

Participants in the survey were asked to rank on a scale of 1-5 the relative importance which they personally attached to different purposes which tutorials may serve.

Six possible purposes of tutorials were provided, as follows: A. Providing students with a general forum for debating issues raised in the module; B. Providing students with an opportunity to practice answering examination style questions/writing essays; C. Providing an opportunity for students to clear up matters of confusion/difficult points; D. Providing an opportunity for students to develop their oral communication skills; E. Providing a forum for students to interact with their peers; and F. Other purpose.

Respondents tended to attach the strongest importance to the first three of these listed purposes. When a mean result is calculated, the importance attached to each is as follows: A = 4.3; B = 4.0; C = 4.6; D = 3.9; E = 3.3.

From this it would seem that participants overall attached most importance to the role of tutorials in clearing up matters of confusion and providing a general forum for student discussion. To a slightly lesser extent they valued their role in providing students with an opportunity to practice examination/assessment style questions and to develop their oral communication skills.

From the responses to these questions although it cannot be said that tutors generally attach priority to one purpose of tutorials above all others, where tutors have singled out one such purpose only a small minority have stated this as being the provision of an opportunity for students to gain practice in answering examination/assessment style questions. There was no relationship between the importance which participants attached to the various tutorial purposes and either their institutional location, length of teaching experience or subject area.

When asked to rank what they considered to be the relative importance of the different purposes for tutorials in generating student attendance, the mean result for each changes noticeably. While much importance is attached to students desire to receive practice and guidance in preparing for their examinations/essays, and in clearing up matters of confusion or difficult points (with a mean of 4.3 and 4.6 respectively), the other purposes for attending tutorials are not regarded as being of particular importance for students. Those respondents who singled out one perceived purpose for student attendance at tutorials as far more significant than the others primarily singled out gaining guidance with examination/assessment preparation (44 per cent) and the compulsory nature of tutorial attendance (33 per cent).

While many tutors regard tutorials as important for the general discussion forum they provide, they do not feel that students value tutorials in this way but that students do place a heavier emphasis upon the role of the tutorial in providing guidance upon examination/assessment technique.

In anticipation of possible different degrees of emphasis being placed upon the various objectives tutorials are designed to serve, respondents were asked whether during their academic careers they believed that the perceived purposes of tutorials had changed upon the part of either tutors or students. A majority did not believe that for tutors the perceived purposes of tutorials had changed much or at all (58 per cent). For those who did detect change, the main developments were an increased emphasis upon the development of student skills as opposed to the general dissemination of information and student discussion, and the attachment of greater significance to the role of the tutor in facilitating discussion. This may account for the relatively significant importance attached by respondents to preparing students for examinations/assessment, and suggests that teaching has become more outcome driven.

Popular comments were that students increasingly see tutorials as a supplement to lectures and wish to play a more passive role, leaving the tutor to ‘lead’ them. Another participant commented that students increasingly attend tutorials in order to be prepared for examinations — as an ends to a means — rather than for the educational experience that is the tutorial itself. This sits well with the high level of importance which students were perceived to attach to tutorials as an examination preparation exercise, and the relatively minor level of importance attached to the tutorial as a forum for general discussion.

In conclusion, it seems apparent that from the perspective of tutors several objectives are regarded as of particular importance, particularly clearing up confusion, providing a general forum for discussion, and assisting students in the development of the skills they will need to succeed in assessment. In contrast, students are perceived to be more likely to attend tutorials to receive assistance with their preparation for assessment and sometimes because they are compelled to attend.

Having gained respondents perspectives of the perceived purposes of tutorials, the survey went on to explore how these might influence the approaches which they adopted towards the structuring of the tutorials for which they were responsible. Respondents were asked to consider four questions concerning the approaches which they adopted towards their tutorials.

On the same 1-5 scale used in the previous section, respondents were asked to rank the relative importance they attached to various considerations when setting tutorial tasks. These considerations were as follows: A. Providing a general open forum in which students can debate the issues raised by the relevant topic; B. Providing students with an opportunity to practice answering examination/assessment style questions; C. Providing students with an opportunity to give presentations upon specific topics; and D. Providing students with an opportunity to undertake group work exercises.

The first two of these considerations were of the most importance to respondents, producing mean results of 4.3 (A) and 4.1 (B) respectively. Relatively little importance was attached to the other considerations.

Having established the primary considerations influencing tutors approaches to devising tutorial tasks, respondents were asked how regularly the tutorial tasks which they set (excluding problem-solving exercises) took one of the following forms: A. The questions/tasks are relatively general bullet points serving as loose reference points for discussion; B. The questions/tasks take the form of formal essay style questions; C. The questions/tasks take the form of titles for students to present papers on; D. There are no questions/tasks set as such, simply topics or themes for a completely open discussion; or E. Other form.

The responses obtained demonstrated a tendency upon the part of tutors to deploy a variety of tasks within tutorials, with each approach being used to some extent. However, when a mean figure is calculated for each one, formal essay style questions were, by far, the most commonly used form of tutorial task (mean = 3.3). Tutorials in which there were no questions set as such, but simply general topics for discussion, were almost never used (mean = 1.1), and questions taking the form of general bullet points as loose reference points for discussion or titles for students to present papers on were used to a limited extent, both producing a mean of 2.3.

Based upon the responses to the survey it would appear that undergraduate law tutors choose, more often than not, to set as tutorial tasks formal questions resembling those which might feature in examinations or essays. If the tutorial is built around very specific formal questions, to what extent is there a forum for general student discussion and clearing up matters of confusion? Arguably this is likely to depend upon how rigidly or flexibly the tutorial is structured, and what is specifically expected of students who attend. The next two questions asked of respondents sought to obtain some information upon these matters.

Participants were asked to choose from four statements a description which best described the structure of the tutorials which they taught. The four statements descended from describing a very loose structure to a rather rigid one, as follows: A. They are very loosely structured and the boundaries for discussion are quite flexible; B. They are usually loosely structured but some boundaries are imposed upon the scope of what is discussed; C. They are relatively clearly structured and discussion is centred on very specific matters, but there is some flexibility over their content; and D. They are very clearly structured and discussion is confined to very specific matters.

Invariably respondents categorised the tutorials which they taught as being described by statement C (62 per cent). A few regarded their tutorials as being best described by statement B (15 per cent) or D (23 per cent), and none by statement A. Thus, tutors generally appear to structure their tutorials relatively clearly, centring discussion upon very specific matters while leaving some flexibility over content.

Also important in understanding how tutors approach the delivery of tutorials is their expectations of their students, as this provides further evidence of existing perceptions of the tutorial process.

A significant number of respondents expected students to be regularly prepared to contribute towards a general debate on the more controversial or difficult issues raised by a topic either always or often (mean = 4.3), and to have prepared basic notes on questions set for discussion (mean = 3.8). However, there was less expectation that students would have prepared either formal or note form responses to assessment style questions, with the former producing a mean result of 2.8, and the latter 2.5.

That students are expected to be prepared on a rather general level for tutorials suggests further that although tutorial tasks may take the form primarily of the kinds of questions found in assessment modes, the tutorials are intended to provide a more general forum for debating the relevant issues which such questions raise, as opposed to a forum which provides a mock assessment opportunity.

To consider whether there existed compatibility with the perceived objectives of tutorials and the approaches taken towards their delivery, participants in the survey were asked to indicate the relative importance which they assigned to a series of possible outcomes from the tutorial process, using the same 1-5 scale used in the earlier parts of the survey. Four tutorial outcomes were listed: A. Students are better prepared for their examinations; B. Students are clearer in their understanding of the issues covered by the tutorial and any controversies or difficulties raised; C. Students have become more confident at engaging in oral argument and have improved their communication skills; and D. Students have been able to develop their interest in the subject area.

When a mean figure is calculated for each of these from the responses obtained, most importance is attached to outcome B (mean = 4.8). This is followed by outcomes D (mean = 4.4), A (mean = 4.3) and C (mean= 3.7). Furthermore, of those indicating the importance of one tutorial outcome above all others, a clear majority (71 per cent) state this to be outcome B. This lends further support to the view that tutors believe that the most important thing to emerge from tutorials is that students are clearer in their understanding of the subject area under consideration. It remains, perhaps, surprising however that given their focus upon improving student understanding of issues, the dominant form of tutorial task is that of the formal essay or problem type question.

A liberal approach to the tutorial would be expected to attach more importance to its role in providing a general forum for students to engage in discussion upon the issues which they have been studying, thus stimulating their interest, and clearing up matters of confusion in order to enable students to be more able to understand what it is they study and appreciate properly the knowledge which they acquire, than in preparing students for examination or assessment or particular modes of employment beyond their period of study. By contrast, adopting a vocational approach to the undergraduate law tutorial is likely to produce a view of the tutorial which is heavily related to specified outcomes. Ultimately, assessment within the degree is the means used to assess students’ ability to satisfy certain required skills. Nonetheless, in both instances the values influencing the delivery of education are outcome driven, whether the concern be ensuring that students are prepared to succeed in assessment or that they are equipped to take on particular functions in the world beyond university.

Just as the viewpoint one takes of the purposes of education is likely to inform one’s perception of the purposes of the undergraduate law tutorial, it would consequentially be expected to influence the approach one adopts in devising tutorial tasks. From a liberal perspective, a more open tutorial model where there are looser boundaries to guide discussion might be expected to be favoured. Different emphases on the part of those more concerned with the achievement of certain outcomes through the tutorial forum is more likely to result in the adoption of a tutorial model in which students are set formal questions for preparation and/or discussion. The use of more formal tutorial tasks is designed to ensure students are developing knowledge and skills that are particularly specified in relation to the topic under consideration, and which seek to stand them in good stead for succeeding in assessment on their course.

What is perhaps surprising — and even possibly of some concern — is that despite an evident attachment to the virtues of a liberal education upon the part of legal academics, there appears to be nonetheless a preference on their part for tutorials that are more outcome driven, particularly in relation to preparing students for assessment.

There have certainly been increased moves in higher education towards the measurement of outcomes. In particular, greater emphasis is increasingly attached to the preparation of graduates for the employment market, and the teaching of skills receives more attention within higher education courses in general. Students are increasingly regarded as consumers, both by educational institutions and themselves, and come to expect more assistance by way of preparation for life beyond their time at university. A greater number are likely to see their degree course as purely a means to an end, and not see the inherent value which it has in itself. Other factors such as the higher number of weaker students and larger class sizes have also perhaps served to make it more difficult to adopt tutorial models which lack an assessment driven, more structured focus. Thus, the apparent contradiction between some academics belief in a liberal education and the adoption of outcome driven tutorial formats can perhaps be attributed, at least in large part, to tensions produced by external factors.

There is certainly scope to open a broader debate upon the extent to which liberal and vocational values influence the agenda for undergraduate law tutorials, and whether legal academics should allow themselves to be compromised by external influences to the extent to which they appear to be.