Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND STUDENT LEARNING IN
PROFESSIONAL LEGAL EDUCATION
JULIE MACFARLANE* & PAT BOYLE**
INTRODUCTION
The study which is described in this paper was
designed with two complementary objectives in mind. The first objective was to
carry
out research to discover more about student conceptions of their learning
in an educational program which would introduce a new approach
to learning and
challenge their expectations. The researchers — an instructional
evaluation specialist and a law teacher —
were particularly concerned in
the first stage to explore as wide a range of student conceptions and reactions
to the learning process
as possible and then to attempt to draw some general
observations from those results. A phenomenographic1
approach was used to leave open the possibility of discovering unintended and
unexpected outcomes. The phenomenographic approach
focuses on “mapping the
qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive
and understand various
aspects of and phenomena in the world around
them.”2 To this end, the researchers sought from
student respondents as wide a range as possible of personal responses and
reactions to their
learning experiences and environment.
The second
objective of the study was to consider the question whether or not the design
principles of the new program achieved their
intended outcomes. These design
principles and their anticipated implications for student learning described in
detail below. The
second objective of the project was therefore to provide
information for decision-makers3 with which to evaluate
the success of the new program in achieving its stated goals (including intended
processes) and on which to
ground program revisions and modifications for the
second year of operation. These two drivers for the study provided a dual
motivation
to explore the impact of this new program on a sample of its first
year student entrants. In order to ensure that the research results
from the
project could be meaningful and usefully translated into evaluative judgements
about the success of the program in meeting
its goals, three working hypotheses
were formulated which were used to guide the data-gathering phase of the
project; that is, face-to-face
interviews conducted with the students. The three
working hypotheses were derived from the design principles of the new program
and
knowledge of the students’ previous educational experiences and
approaches to learning. The design principles of the program
and the working
hypotheses themselves are discussed in detail below.
The empirical stage of
the study took the form of a set of one-on-one interviews with a sample group of
students from the new program,
just three months into the program. The
methodology used for these interviews, the working hypotheses which guided them
and an analysis
of the data derived follow below.
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
The Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (the PCLL) is the
professional training course which Bachelor of Laws (LLB) graduates are required
to complete before they can enter the practical apprenticeship stage of their
professional training in Hong Kong, either in articles
with a firm of solicitors
or as a barrister’s pupil. It is a one year full-time program and is
currently offered by Hong Kong
University and, since October 1991, the City
Polytechnic of Hong Kong. The PCLL is therefore the approximate equivalent
qualification
in Hong Kong to the Law Society Finals or Bar Finals in England
and Wales; the Bar Admissions Courses in the United States and Canada;
and the
Practical Training Courses which operate in many Australian states.
The
development of the new PCLL at City Polytechnic was regarded by the original
course design team as a unique opportunity to create
the best possible program
of postgraduate professional legal education using the most successful ideas
pioneered on professional
programs throughout the common law world. In Hong Kong
the common law system continues in place until 1997 and theoretically
beyond.4 The program attempts to reconcile what we know
about the conditions and special needs of legal practice in Hong Kong with the
lessons
of experience on optimising the conditions and the outcomes of learning
for trainee lawyers in other parts of the world. None of
the fundamental
educational principles underpinning the program’s development nor the
methods of teaching and learning is new
or untested. What is new is the
particular combination of ideas and methods which took shape in the first year
of the program’s
delivery, 1991–92.
DESIGNING THE PCLL: FIRST PRINCIPLES
We assumed that most students entering the program
would be accustomed to learning in a traditional didactic setting with the
teacher
perceived as the authority figure with the desired
“knowledge” which could be transmitted and then learned by the
student.
Traditionally administered tests emphasising objective conceptions of
knowledge underlined this mode of learning as essentially passive
and highly
teacher directed. This assumption was based on both what we had come to expect
from law school entrants in the West and
from what we knew about the educational
model and systems of learning in Hong Kong.
In designing the new PCLL a
conscious decision was taken to challenge this traditional model of learning and
the established hegemony
of legal education. This decision reflected a number of
international trends in professional legal education, including the recognition
by government commissions of inquiry that the products of traditional didactic
legal education are not meeting the professions expectations
nor equipping
graduates effectively for legal practice;5 and a
developing body of research which highlights the importance of personal
development during professional education, in order
to build mature career
professionals who have personal criteria for decision-making and a sense of
self-confidence when faced with
less than standard situations in
practice,6 and who can act as effective
problem-solvers.7
The instructional design of a
professional program in law should therefore encourage the development of
individual problem-solving
skills as well as increase substantive knowledge of
the law. For example, if graduates were equipped with effective research skills
they would be better prepared to face legal practice where their current legal
knowledge would inevitably prove either inadequate
for all situations they might
encounter or rapidly out-of-date.8
In the
development of the PCLL program the first step was to identify a number of
operational principles which would determine the
overall direction of the course
and serve as a point of reference for all future decisions on teaching/ learning
strategy, assessment
methods, course content, class size, learning environment
and so on.9 These were deliberately considered and
described before drawing up a detailed statement of course
objectives.10 The operational principles for the PCLL
represent key beliefs about maximising the effectiveness of professional
education shared
by the course team and function effectively as an educational
“Credo” for the program. They include the following:
The next step was
to translate this “Credo” into practical working principles for
course design by drawing out in more
detail its pedagogical implications. The
operational principles thus prompted a number of fundamental design decisions
about the
program. In order to encourage the development of autonomy in learning
it would be necessary to present a varied diet of teaching
and learning
approaches to suit the range of different learning styles and preferences
inevitably represented within the student
body. Therefore the curriculum should
be presented in a varied way using many different methods of teaching and
learning and learners
should be encouraged to develop personal learning
strategies for both new and familiar tasks. Teaching methods would include
Problem-Based
Learning (the major vehicle for teaching substantive law on the
program; see below), field trips, practice seminars dealing with
legal skills,
discussion groups, lectures and individual work on
“in-trays”. 16
Maximising student
participation and interactive learning on the program meant small group
teaching. The program committed itself
very early to the development of course
material for use in small groups. Small groups maximise the opportunity for
members to get
to know each other relatively quickly and become comfortable;
they reduce the logistical problems of co-operative team working which
would
often be required; and they make it feasible for the small group tutor to keep
track of the contributions and progress of each
individual member and give
constant feedback and supervision. The program aims for very high levels of
one-on-one and small group
feedback. The nature of the feedback would however be
different from many students’ prior conceptions of teacher feedback.
It
would emphasise process as much as product and would present many and varied
“right ways” to approach problem-solving
rather than a
unidimensional “right answer”.
In order to encourage the
development of autonomy and self-management in learning the program adopted two
major learning strategies
both emphasising interactive methods of learning. The
first is Problem-based Learning (PBL) in small groups. Central to the concept
of
PBL is the idea that students encounter the problem first and develop a
knowledge base second. The knowledge base is developed
through “need to
know” problem-solving and research skills. The role of the tutor in PBL
would not be to provide answers
but rather to develop a supportive learning
environment in which students were expected to carry out problem diagnosis and
research
for themselves with a minimum of tutor input and
guidance.17
A second major learning strategy would
be skills seminars concentrating on learning by demonstration, practice and
feedback and would
deal sequentially with legal skills including research
methods, writing and drafting, interviewing, negotiation, advocacy and so
on.
These skills would be practised and refined again during the PBL exercises.
These interactive methods of learning and teaching
would be best suited to
challenging students out of their learned passivity and would clearly articulate
new expectations of participation
and decision-making in the classroom.
Another major design decision which flowed from the operational principles
was the creation of an appropriate physical and psycho-social
working
environment to support and facilitate the central learning tasks of the program.
This meant providing a dedicated physical
space which could be used by students
on a full day office basis, with small group meeting rooms dedicated to each
legal “firm”.
Computer facilities for the production of memoranda
and documents were also provided along with a telephone to contact outside
practitioners
acting in an advisory capacity.
ASSUMPTIONS AND WORKING HYPOTHESES
The face-to-face student interviews which were to be
conducted were focused by three working hypotheses developed by the researchers
in advance of the interviews taking place. These working hypotheses comprised
the basis of the researchers’ original interest
in the research project
and were directly related to the evaluation of the success of the program design
in achieving its intended
learning outcomes.
The working hypotheses
concentrated on examining student perceptions of any differences between the
learning experience and expectations
of this program and their earlier
educational experiences; any subsequent changes in their approach to learning;
and their perceptions
of and reactions to the learning environment of the new
program.
Hypothesis One
That there are significant differences between the
past and the present learning experiences of these students (these may include
the difference between prescriptive expectations and demands in the past and
more ambiguous and intangible expectations and demands
in the present; a
singular and unitary approach to learning in the past contrasted with a
multi-dimensional and complex approach
in the present experience). There are a
range of possible student conceptions and perceptions of, and reactions to,
these differences
(these might include a readjustment of values about learning,
difficulty relating past and present experiences, sometimes reversion
to earlier
learned security blankets, confusion about teacher expectations).
This first
working hypothesis centred on what Biggs calls “presage”
factors,18 that is factors which exist prior to
learning. Our assumptions about presage factors were based on what we knew about
the predominant
forms of secondary education in Hong Kong which have tended
historically to emphasise rote learning and memorisation and the heavy
dependence of the learner upon the teacher. This appears to be the predominant
model for the delivery of secondary education in Hong
Kong but does not
necessarily imply a learning stereotype for Hong Kong students as passive
“surface” learners. On the
contrary, Biggs’s
data19 suggest that Asian students widely adopt
“deep” and “achieving”20
approaches to study. Nonetheless it is generally accepted that Hong Kong
students display “almost unquestioning acceptance
of the knowledge of the
teacher or lecturer.21 By transferring much of the
responsibility for learning from the teacher to the student, either individually
or as a group, the new
PCLL program would be quite unlike any earlier secondary
school educational experience for this student group.
The same assumption
was made about the students’ previous experiences of tertiary education.
Students on the PCLL come from
three intake groups; City Polytechnic LLB
graduates, graduates of the Extra-Mural LLB program run by Hong Kong University
and LLB
graduates from UK universities and polytechnics. The City Polytechnic
LLB program is taught largely by large group lectures and smaller
group
tutorials. The assessments for this program take the form of closed-book
examinations which for many students are commensurate
with memorising large
amounts of detail about decided legal cases and statutes. Students who came to
the PCLL program from the Department
of Extra-Mural Studies at Hong Kong
University would have minimal experience of direct tutoring other than in large
lecture classes
where there was relatively little opportunity to critique,
reflect on or evaluate information. The same assumption could be applied
equally
to graduates of the English institutions. Few of the English polytechnic law
schools from which they had graduated have moved
beyond the lecture/ tutorial
style delivery in the traditional model of undergraduate legal
education.22
We were aware then that the demands of
the new PCLL would be unlike the demands these students were accustomed to in
their previous
educational experiences and that they would have a range of
possible reactions to being asked to dance to a different tune. We realised
that
this might result in some “culture shock” for students entering the
program. Clearly it was critical to student
comfort that expectations were
clarified as comprehensively and as early in the program as possible since these
would be so far from
the “norm” of earlier experience. It was hoped
that the evaluation data would highlight areas where expectations were
not being
made sufficiently clear, in addition to providing a broad general picture of
student responses to new expectations including
the fears and anxieties
generated as a consequence.
Hypothesis Two
The second working hypothesis was that differences
between past and present learning experiences of the students would be reflected
in individual student orientation and approach to study; for example, students
would prepare differently for class, interact differently
with their peers,
approach their study tasks with different objectives, be more or less likely to
study independently as a result,
and/or in groups.
A large body of research
and theoretical literature has developed on the theme of student learning styles
and we were interested in
exploring those explicit and some less overt changes
in student work practices in response to the changed expectations being placed
on them on the new program.23 For example, would the
highly practical and applied nature of the program be reflected in changed
patterns of study; would the emphasis
on groupwork affect how students prepared
for class; was there a danger that fear of failure on a new and unfamiliar
learning program
would produce instrumental strategies in response; and so on.
One of the interesting dimensions of exploring this hypothesis was that
quantitative data already exists on the learning styles of
the LLB graduate
cohort on the PCLL program (approximately half of the total student group). The
Study Process Questionnaire or SPQ,
devised by Professor John Biggs, was
administered to students on City Polytechnic’s Bachelor of Laws program on
four occasions
over the three years that the first PCLL cohort was studying for
the LLB. The SPQ asks respondents questions which relate to their
learning style
and study orientation. This data, although very different in nature to the
qualitative and illuminative data gathered
by this study, clearly suggested the
potential for some later comparisons.
Hypothesis Three
The third and final hypothesis to be explored was
that a changed approach to learning (above) would require a matching learning
environment
which could support the new kinds of learning experience and
learning styles (where the learning environment includes physical space
and
facilities, student/teacher relationships, support mechanisms from both teachers
and peers, and the general working atmosphere
or
“climate”),24 and that the creation of a
suitable learning environment would better enable students to meet the program
requirements.
The program had developed a tailor-made physical workplace
environment for students to use as they went about their work on the program.
This is described very briefly above. We hoped to discover how adequately this
workplace environment supported students towards their
achievement of program
goals. We were also interested in student perceptions of the wider features of
the learning climate (or “ambience,
tone, atmosphere,
ethos”).25 Research has suggested
relationships26 between environment and approaches to
study and the significance of student perceptions of and responses to
environment. For example
a number of studies have demonstrated that the kind of
academic environment provided for students by the institution directly affects
their approach to study or their meaning orientation. Our own hypothesis here
was limited to discovering what we could about student
perceptions of an
appropriately supportive environment for the new program but future research and
evaluation of the program could
usefully examine this relationship.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The study was intended to be primarily descriptive in
nature, that is its principal aim was to discover and describe a phenomenon
(a
set of meanings and understandings) rather than to explain something already
identified and relate it to other phenomena. On a
secondary level it was hoped
that some clear indicators for program revision and modifications would emerge
from the data (the evaluation
function). Given this primary aim, a
phenomenographic approach was adopted which was deliberately open in nature and
intended to
obtain student conceptions of their reality in the PCLL program,
expressed in their own terms. While it was necessary to be open
to a range of
student perceptions and reactions, the working hypotheses encouraged respondents
to express their understandings of
the program, particularly in relation to the
learning environment and changes in their approaches to study during their time
in the
program. To serve the evaluation purpose of the study information was
also required on perceived positive and negative aspects of
the program. All
information was collected through semi-structured free response interviews.
A theoretical sampling approach to selecting respondents was adopted. Such
an approach enables data collection to cease when no further
(new and useful)
information for the study is emerging from the data, in this case the interview
texts. Notwithstanding this general
approach, a high proportion of the students
in the program were initially identified for interviewing. Respondents were
randomly
selected within major sub-groups represented in the program:
males-females; under and over 25 years of age; graduates from the
“parent”
institution (City Polytechnic); graduates from Hong Kong
University Extra-Mural Department who had obtained a law degree by part-time
evening study — and graduates of other (largely English) institutions.
Ultimately about 40% of the student cohort on the program
were interviewed and
the interviews recorded on audio-tape.
DATA ANALYSIS
Both researchers listened many times to the audio-tape recordings of the face-to-face student interviews — a total of approximately twelve hours of discussion — and eventually began to derive categories of data reflecting students’ conceptions of the program and their experience in it. These categories shed light on the original research hypotheses and provided further information for program evaluation. The analysis of data is reported below under these two headings, firstly research findings and secondly implications for program evaluation.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Hypothesis One
Did students identify
significant differences between their learning experience on this program and
previous postsecondary experiences
and how did they respond and adjust to this
change?
Students were prompted to identify any perceived differences between
their experiences of learning on the PCLL program and earlier
educational
experiences particularly at tertiary level. Almost all students clearly
articulated considerable and significant differences
of style, approach, and
requirements and expectations. While a few concentrated only on differences of
teaching method — contrasting
lecture delivery of material with the
Problem-Based Learning approach of the PCLL which required students to research
and discover
for themselves — most went further in drawing attention to
consequential differences in teaching and learning patterns.
The major
categories of perceived “differences” can be summarised under four
headings.
Differences in ways of working co-operatively and as a team as
compared with working individually and separately on earlier programs
of
study. Almost all the students interviewed gave this category the most
emphasis in their description of “differences”. It was
clear from
the remarks made that the team co-operation made necessary by the Problem-Based
Learning method — which was organised
in week-long legal problems or
client files to which each “firm” or team of six to seven students
was required to apply
their collective efforts for a final presentation each
Friday morning before a specialist legal practitioner — was a dramatic
departure from the individualised study routines of previous tertiary
experiences. Students recognised that the PBL method forced
them into
relationships of interdependence with their peers quite unlike their previous
experiences which may have been limited to
the formation of pre-examination
study groups. The emphasis on group interaction produced both positive and
negative reactions (see
below).
As one student put it,
“A very great emphasis is put on group learning — for the past four years it has been lectures and seminars or tutorials, so we did a lot of learning from the lecturer, but now it’s mainly doing our own research plus group discussions.”
Another respondent
made the point that, “the stress is now on group dynamics rather than
having someone to teach us” and
another commented, “... there is a
lot of group work — before I learned alone.”
Differences in
the role of the teacher/tutor. Many of the comments made about the role of
the group in learning related to another of the major categories of perceived
‘difference’,
that is, “There isn’t much teaching in the
real sense because the focus is on group learning ...” While this comment
may not reflect the complexity of the role of the tutor in PBL to guide and
facilitate rather than to direct, it represents a clear
trend of perception
amongst student respondents which singled out the changing role of the tutor as
one of the characteristic differences
in this program. Tutors were uniformly
regarded as having abdicated their role as information providers and instead
were recognised
as providing signposts and overall process direction, for
example on research and problem-solving techniques. Tutors were perceived
not as
subject experts — which certainly few of them were in relation to Hong
Kong legal practice and none of them were in
relation to all the subjects
covered in PBL throughout the program — but as researchers with greater
experience (even if not
in the particular subject area under discussion),
providing guidance on which processes to adopt and some general moral support.
“Its more a way of teaching with the tutor around as someone you can ask
when you are having difficulties ...” “Teaching?
Learning is a more
suitable word — the focus is not on the teacher teaching — here
learning is by PBL with some guidance.”
This accurate identification of
the role of the tutor in PBL was not expressed without comment or judgement and
the reactions of
students to this new role for the classroom tutor varied quite
widely (see below under Program Evaluation). None of the respondents
saw the
role played by the tutor as “accidental’; they were aware that it
complemented the program goals and the expectations
that they learn to work
independently and on their own initiative and the reasons why this might be
appropriate in a pre-professional
context. As one student put it, “At the
very beginning (of the program), I must admit that I was disappointed because
there
is a sudden change between the LLB and the PCLL teaching methods ... I
realised (after a job interview) that the course is designed
to let you know
more about the real-life situation, gradually now I am getting used to the
teaching method ...”
Differences in the form and substance of
feedback. The next major category of perceived “difference” which is
clearly
related to both the categories discussed above pertains to the way in
which students were given feedback on their work. Formative
feedback on weekly
PBL presentations and written products was left to the specialist legal
practitioner who visited each group or
firm on Fridays along with the
group’s own tutor. Feedback was given verbally rather than in writing on
individual pieces of
work. In form and in substance feedback was seen as being
quite different from earlier experiences of grading or commentary on work
products given on other post-secondary courses. Feedback on the PCLL program was
often perceived as rather generalised in nature
and not necessarily directed to
whether the particular work product or products for that week were “good
or of “pass”
standard or got the “right” answer.
Feedback was also often perceived as unstable, that is the quality and sometimes
the content of the feedback given varied between the practitioners. On some
occasions one group might discover when they compared
notes afterwards with
another group that they had received a different appraisal of a particular
approach to the client problem,
or a different interpretation of a relevant case
or statute from different individual practitioners. They also remarked on the
different
abilities and styles of practitioners, most of whom had no teaching
experience but all of whom would have had some role in the supervision
of
trainee solicitors at some point. In giving feedback, some were expansive,
others were minimalist, some were harsh, others more
forgiving of mistakes.
While it is not surprising, given the nature of legal practice itself, that
feedback on practical legal exercises would rarely take
the form of a
“right” or “wrong” answer, many student respondents
indicated that they found this form of
feedback unsatisfactory. Comments on the
nature of feedback were sometimes broadened into comments on the assessment
system of the
program generally. In particular, student anxiety was running high
on the uncertain nature of the final examinations.27
This is dealt with further below under Program Evaluation.
More
responsibility for autonomy and self-management in learning. Greater
personal responsibility for self-directed learning was pointed out as a
significant departure from earlier study experiences
by a number of respondents.
This is discussed in the following section, under approaches to study.
Hypothesis Two
Are differences between past and present learning experiences reflected in changes in individual student orientation and approaches to study?
Student respondents were prompted to consider whether they were aware of any changes in their individual orientation to study on this program. Most made reference to their earlier comments on group work and co-operation. Others described themselves as much more proximal task-orientated than on previous courses; the PCLL required them to complete a series of tasks week-by-week and they were increasingly focused on their next “product” and/or summative assessment task.28 Some, either in response to this prompt or later in the interview, described changes in the expectations placed on them to think and act autonomously which suggested some differences in study style and approach. For example,
“Unlike the LLB ... instead of receiving the data passively you have to do it for yourself so actually (knowledge) is generated from the students not from the teachers.”
“Unlike the LLB course, the PCLL relies on self-initiative.”
“Learning here depends on your own research; the teachers do not give the answers.”
The following statement is likely to be indicative of movement from a “surface” towards a “deeper” approach to learning,
“I like to ask questions and to think critically ... I like to learn from people other than reading the books ... learning from what the others say, of course with confirmation, I learn more and more deeply.”
In some cases however the heavy workload of course assessments combined with weekly learning targets for PBL seemed to indicate that task orientation could become dominated by largely instrumental motives which could reduce the benefits of other program goals for example group co-operation. As one respondent put it,
“Because of the coursework pressure ... it means to a certain extent that ... people are exam-orientated, they are thinking about the coursework all the time ... that will affect other kinds of learning.”
Needless to say, despite some evidence from the interviews of a perception of the need for different approaches to study to complement the goals of the new program, the emphasis on self-learning was not uniformly popular with students who pointed to their consequent increased workload (see below under Program Evaluation).
Program Evaluation
The interviews revealed a considerable depth of
student insight into the processes of learning on the program, in particular the
overall
program rationale of encouraging independent thought and action. In
addition, all comments made by students included an element of
positive and/or
negative feedback on their levels of comfort and satisfaction with the program.
A summary of the evaluative points
made by students during their interviews
appears below. Evaluative comments are arranged under each hypothesis, as above.
Examination
of hypothesis three was primarily evaluation rather than
research-orientated, that is, it was limited to asking students to assess
the
adequacy and sufficiency of the learning environment provided for them and their
level of comfort and satisfaction with it. Therefore
discussion of student
responses to this question has been confined to this final section on Program
Evaluation.
Student feedback is recognised as one significant source of
information on some important aspects of the program for evaluation purposes.
Information provided by students, along with input from full-time teachers and
the more than one hundred legal practitioners who
had spent at least one morning
with the students on the program during the 28 weeks of the program, have
provided the course team
with significant data which can assist in the
formulation of proposals for program revision. Such proposals are currently
being debated
by the course team and some are outlined briefly below.
There
are a number of intrinsic limitations on the use of data from these student
interviews for evaluation purposes. The most obvious
is that the data record
student responses and reactions just three months into the program and do not
reflect any increased familiarity
with the program goals which one would expect
after a longer period of time. Similarly it is often suggested that the
“real”
usefulness of an educational experience is apparent only once
the student has an opportunity to fully reflect upon the experience
in
retrospect; and possibly to relate that experience to a new reality of learning
tasks for example at work. Since the interviews
were conducted relatively early
in the course student responses were not affected by the onset of boredom or
tedium which might be
created by the repetition of teaching and learning methods
over a 28 week period. However, a continued dialogue between tutors and
students
throughout the remainder of the program suggested to staff that there was in
fact little marked change in student responses
and reactions to the general
questions posed.29
Differences in the Learning Experience (Hypothesis One)
There appeared to be little resistance to the central requirement of the PBL method that information generated within the small group should be shared. The only frequently voiced objection to this was related to the practicalities of dependency between group members — for example concern about the whole group suffering from one or two individuals failing to pull their weight. There seemed to be no general psychological tension related to difficulties with working with different personalities or reticence .about giving others the benefit of one’s own research. Learning from peers, as well as and sometimes more than from tutors, was generally welcomed and approved by students. For example,
“(On my previous course) ... there was no chance to communicate with other students. When I took this course I thought that it was useful to have the chance to talk properly to other students and to learn from one another.”
Responses to the new increased significance of
groupwork reflected differing experiences within particular small groups. By the
time
the interviews took place, students had spent 10 weeks working in one PBL
small group and one larger group for practical skills training
(for example in
legal interviewing, research, drafting techniques and so on). They were now in a
second 10 week period for which
all groups had been reorganised. Some compared
their levels of satisfaction now and earlier according to criteria based on
group
membership and consequent spirit of co-operation. Generally there was an
acceptance of the principle that the groups should be reordered
in this way on a
regular basis to ensure that students were exposed to working with many
different colleagues; as in real-life. However,
there were a number of
complaints that some group members who had outside commitments (for example
family or work related) did not
give enough time to informal group meetings and
consultations and diminished the usefulness and productivity of the group as a
learning
vehicle.
This problem is often identified as an impediment to the
use of groupwork learning strategies and the course team had listened to
such
reservations being expressed during the course development process. However it
is important that it should not be overstated
and the significance of the
general willingness to engage in co-operative action overlooked. Many groups
appeared, both from student
comments and from the observations of their tutors,
to work together well with a minimum of tutor intervention to ensure fair
distribution
of workloads. The course team is considering a number of ideas
which might reduce the negative impact of group members who participate
less
fully than their peers might hope. A general question for the course team is how
far they will manipulate the process of groupwork
on projects to ensure equal
participation from all members. Responsibility to ensure that the syllabus is
covered and learned in
sufficient detail has to be balanced against the
importance the program rationale places on the development of autonomy in
learning
and encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning;
within the structure of Problem-Based Learning this inevitably
includes facing
some of the real-life difficulties of co-operation with others. Possible tutor
responses to groups which are not
sharing the workload evenly might include the
tutor, rather than the students (usually the group chair for the week)
allocating tasks;
requiring all group members to do all the tasks rather than
sharing them out; proposing that at the end of the week the final presentation
should involve two groups who have been working on the same client file in a
friendly competition to argue the most thorough and
convincing case (an
alternative version of this is to design exercises in which both sides of any
action are prepared by different
student groups).
While respondents
generally demonstrated understanding of the different role of the tutor as
facilitator and guide not all were comfortable
with this. A number of students
pointed out that few of the tutors had experience of legal practice in Hong
Kong. Although they accepted
that the tutor might not wish to provide them with
the answers in order that their own research and problem-solving skills were
developed,
some were unhappy with the idea that the tutor would not be any more
familiar with the law than they were themselves. This concern
may in turn have
been a reflection of the considerable tutor anxiety generated by their role. On
the other hand, students characterised
the tutor input which was forthcoming as
helpful and useful.
This particular aspect of PBL — the role of the
tutor as “non-expert” — presents a number of psychological
and
practical difficulties for students and tutors. It can result in diminished
student confidence in their tutors (expressed by
a number of respondents) and
can also affect tutor confidence in their ability to ensure that their students
have met learning targets
for the week’s work. One student commented that
“PBL is more a way of teaching with the tutor around as someone you can ask if you are having difficulties. The problem is, we often don’t see what the difficulties are we are facing ...”
This question has generated much discussion amongst
the course team all year and a number of suggestions have been made to respond
to concerns expressed by both students and tutors while maintaining -the
commitment of the program to a PBL system in which tutors
are not necessarily
subject expert.30 Proposals include maximising teacher
expertise by reducing the total number of problems and subject areas for which
each tutor is
responsible; the further and better use of “resource
persons’ (outside legal practitioners who are subject experts) who
can
give help and advice to both tutor and students during the course of any one
exercise; and clarifying student expectations about
the role of the PBL tutor at
an early stage in the program. In addition, it is expected that tutors will
benefit from working with
a particular problem a second or third time around and
a tutor more confident with both their role and the problem will alleviate
the
concerns expressed this year by students.
Differences in the nature and
style of feedback. It has already been noted above that the substance of
feedback offered during the
program was identified by many students as
inconsistent, insufficiently related to work products and too general in
substance. Many
respondents called for more written feedback where possible
— variously described by students as “guidelines”,
“sample answers” (already provided in this form for in-tray
exercises) and “revision notes”. The problem
for the course team is
to identify ways to ensure that adequate feedback is being given to students
without being able to provide
“right answers” which are not in the
nature of either PBL or professional education.31 One
proposal being considered by the course team is to formalise a role for the team
subject specialist for each problem exercise
(ie the exercise author) to be
substantially relieved of other teaching responsibilities in order to provide
systematic feedback
on that exercise. This could be done in both small and
larger groups and on an individual basis.
Changes in Study Orientation (Hypothesis Two)
Many students welcomed the changes in their own approaches to study of which they were becoming conscious and identified consequential benefits for them. For example,
“I think I learn more efficiently ... through the talking and the briefing from the others (group members).”
“In the past when I would do any paper I would ... simply change the sentence from the book. But at this moment I understand what it implies ... I feel more confident to write things down in my own language ... and I feel confident that my written and oral English has improved.”
Other respondents were less enthusiastic about the
consequences of the PCLL learning strategies which placed a greater burden on
them
to take responsibility for their own learning. One described the process of
approaching the tutor for help, and being told constantly
to go away and do more
research, as “frustrating”. Another student argued that it was
“not sensible to make the
student rely on their own research skills”
and another commented that often “you don’t know whether you go in
the
right direction or not, and then you find you are going in the wrong
direction and ... you have already spent a lot of time ... a
waste of time
...”
Students making these comments often related them directly to the
sheer volume of workload they were expected to shoulder with minimal
tutor
input. This was clearly exacerbated by a heavy burden of regular courseworks and
a feeling that the course proceeded at a relentless
pace for its 28 weeks. The
course team is exploring ways to reduce the summative coursework burden on
students next year and making
more of opportunities to give formative feedback
on regular work products (see above). In addition, some students suggested that
it might be helpful for summative assessments, which presently take place
immediately after a particular segment of the course has
been concluded, should
occur a little later to give “time to consolidate what we have learned and
also to learn about the other
parts (of the exercise) ... done by other group
members ...”. This is also being given active consideration.
Satisfaction with Learning Environment (Hypothesis Three)
During their interviews, students were prompted to consider the various elements of the learning environment, physical and psycho-social. Prompts given to respondents identified aspects such as physical space and resources including access to appropriate technologies; tutor support and assistance; and working atmosphere. Responses to this question were almost uniformly positive. Students were enthusiastic about the facilities provided for them — dedicated classroom space which they could access for 14 hours a day, their own computer facilities and photocopier, a specialist library resource centre — and it was clear from their responses that they saw the provision of these facilities as supporting their work on the program, both practically and psychologically (the program made “special” demands on them and hence “special” facilities were made available to them). Students spoke favourably of the atmosphere and ethos of the program, identifying specifically good relationships with staff and a feeling of team spirit and co-operation amongst students. Many spoke of a different kind of relationship formed with the tutor (see above) which was closer to a relationship of peers than previous experiences. Staff were praised for their friendliness and genuine interest in students. Negative comments related to the availability of some material in the Resource Centre (the program library), a matter which future planning must address.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Most credible instructional design models stress the
importance of assuring the adequacy of and consistency between the elements of
instruction (objectives, teaching methods, learning experiences and assessments)
for achieving overall instructional quality in relation
to both processes and
outcomes. Internationally, the trend in professional education (for example in
medicine, social work, land
surveying and law) has been towards a more
pronounced adoption of this rationale in order to empower graduates to begin to
practise
effectively in their fields.
More specifically professional
education programs have adopted two basic principles to guide the
teaching-learning process. These
principles are often described with reference
to the terms “learning how to learn” and “learning by
doing”.
The first of these principles relates to an intended outcome
(objective) of a program, that is, that graduates should emerge having
increased
their capacity and ability to learn, not simply having learned set material
during the program. There is wide agreement
among professional education program
developers that this global objective or goal is fundamentally important to the
process of professional
preparation given today’s dynamic and fluid
environment of professional knowledge and skills. The second principle,
“learning
by doing”, relates to the method of achieving (learning)
objectives. Knowledge, skills and attitudes should be achieved by
active
participation in real-life or simulated tasks, experiences and problem-solving.
In general, learning theory and research indicate
that learning in this way
provides an enhanced learning environment including; greater relevance of
material, higher motivation and
greater opportunity to meaningfully integrate
skills and knowledge.
The program of professional legal education described
in this paper has been designed according to the rationale and principles
identified
above. Specifically, its teaching and learning processes and the
study environment have been designed to encourage students to develop
as
self-directed problem-solvers who are able to work co-operatively and
effectively in teams. These design principles and the operational
consequences
which flowed from them suggested that many of the students in the program might
experience a form of “culture
shock”, as their previous educational
experiences would have been quite different. Such shock could inhibit the
effectiveness
of the program processes and outcomes. Both the “shock and
the new demands of the program itself might also result in some
identifiable
changes in individual and collective student learning strategies.
This study
aimed to discover early indications of the degree of fit between program
intentions for student experience and the students’
actual conceptions of
the program. The results are useful for answering instructional innovation
research questions and for providing
input for program evaluation.
The data
collected for the study indicated that the first cohort of PCLL students did
experience a sense of “shock. This shock
was caused by the demands which
were being placed on them and the experiences they were having in the program.
Both were radically
different to their previous educational experiences. In
summary, the major differences identified were:
The second research question which the study addressed was
concerned with early changes in students’ approaches to study as
a result
of their responses to the program dynamics within the first three months.
Students felt that they were learning in a quite
different way through
cooperative group work and that generally this was beneficial. Their input to
and what they got from group
work and other learning activities depended on
their willingness and ability to be autonomous learners (for example carry out
self-initiated
tasks, research, problem identification and so on). A significant
number of students also felt that they were becoming more proximal
task oriented
in their approach to study; mainly due to the tight schedule of work and
assessment tasks.
In relation to program evaluation a number of valuable
findings emerged from the study. As indicated earlier, these need to be
interpreted
with some caution given that the students’ experience of the
program was relatively short at the time of the interview. Notwithstanding
this
limitation, students generally commended several instructional aspects of the
program. In summary:
Students also
identified several aspects of the program which they were concerned about or
which they thought could be improved. Many
respondents expressed the view that
more and different feedback should be provided by tutors, particularly feedback
which communicates
to students the “closeness” of work or
performance completed to the “ideal” (for example sample or model
answers). Considerable student anxiety existed about the assessment workload,
and in particular the suitability of the program content
for preparing them for
the final examinations. The context in which these final examinations take place
and their relationship to
the remainder of the instructional design process have
been discussed briefly above. Another commonly expressed concern related to
the
levels of tutor expertise in areas of law, compared to their expertise as
instructional facilitators.
This study has concentrated on students’
conceptions of an instructional design and its operational processes. The data
it has
produced sheds light on the “fit” between instructional
design and student learning on the program. Notwithstanding its
limitations, it
indicates that several of the instructional design features of this new program
are having their intended positive
effects on student learning. It also
identifies some areas where the “fit” is less complete than course
planners intended
and provides valuable information to the course team on which
to base program modifications.
* Formerly City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
** Australian National University.
© 1993. [1993] LegEdRev 3; (1993) 4 Legal
Educ Rev 63.
1 F Marton, Phenomenography — A Research Approach to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality (1986) 21 J Thought 28.
2 Marton, supra note 1, at 31.
3 See generally WJ Popham, Educational Evaluation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1980).
4 The Basic Law, enshrined in the Joint Sino-British Declaration of 1987, guarantees the continuation of the common law system for 50 years beyond 1997. The effectiveness of this guarantee post–1997 has yet to be tested.
5 See for example, the report of the Marre Committee. Report of the Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession (Marre Report) (London: Law Society of England and Wales, Bar of England and Wales, 1988). The Marre Report built on many earlier comments and proposals such as Lord Chancellors Committee on Legal Education (the Ormrod Committee) (London: HMSO, 1971) Cmnd 4595; Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Research and Education in Law: Law and Learning (Arthurs Report) (Toronto: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1983); Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (Pearce Report) (Canberra: AGPS, 1987); American Bar Association Task Force on Law Competency, Report on Law Competency: the Role of Law School (Crampton Report) (Chicago: ABA, 1979); American Bar Association Task Force on Law Schools, Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap (McCrate Report) (Chicago: ABA, 1991).
6 See for example the work of Donald Schon and Chris Argyris. DA Schon, Reflective Practitioner (New York, Basic Books 1983); Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1985); C Argyris, Theory into Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1974).
7 See generally T Andre, Problem-Solving and Education, in M Moon & P Murphy eds, Developments in Learning and Assessment (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989). For a problem-solving perspective on legal education, see for example, S Nathanson, Problem-Solving in Professional Legal Education, in R Wacks ed, The Future of Legal Education and the Legal Profession in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press 1989).
8 See for example P Wesley-Smith, Neither a Trade nor a Solemn Jugglery: Law as Liberal Education, in R Wacks ed, The Future of Legal Education and the Legal Profession in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press 1989).
9 For a full statement see J Macfarlane et al, Designing the Legal Practice Course: the Hong Kong Plan (1992) 26 L Teach 84.
10 The design model deliberately eschewed an objectives-led approach preferring a combination of a process and an objectives-led approach. As John Dewey put it “the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing.” J Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed Explained, in J McDermott ed, The Philosophy of John Davey vol 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981) 450.
11 See Schon, supra note 6, and Argyris, supra note 6.
12 For one set of paradigms of different personal learning styles, see D Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984).
13 For example in the use of Problem-Based Learning methods (PBL) see H Barrows & R Tamblyn, Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education (New York: Springer, 1980); GR Norman, Problem- Solving and Problem-Based Learning (1988) 22 Med Educ 279.
14 See for example K Kreiling, Clinical Education and Lawyer Competency: the Process of Learning to Learn through Properly Structured Supervision (1981) 40 Md LR 284.
15 See for example the work on the academic and moral development of college students by William Perry. W Perry, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1970).
16 An “in-tray” is an individual student exercise simulating a typical task left in a trainee’s in-tray for them to complete and usually requires responding to an internal memorandum from a senior or the completion of documentation for a client file.
17 For a discussion of the role of the tutor in Problem-Based Learning see for example VR Neufeld & HS Barrows, The McMaster Philosophy: An Approach to Medical Education (1974) 49 J Med Educ 1040, at 1047.
18 J Biggs, Teaching for Better Learning (1990–91) [1991] LegEdRev 8; 2 Legal Educ Rev 133, at 136.
19 J Biggs, Asian Students’ Approaches to Learning: Implications for Teaching Overseas Students, in M Kratzing ed, Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Learning and Language Conference 1 (Queensland: Queensland University of Technology, 1990).
20 For an explanation of the meaning of these terms which are used widely in educational research and evaluation, see N Entwistle & P Ramsden, Understanding Student Learning (New York: C Helm Nicols, 1982). See also Biggs, supra note 18.
21 D Murphy, Offshore Education: A Hong Kong Perspective (1987) 30 Aust U Rev 30, at 43.
22 These institutions are still dominated by the traditional lecture/ tutorial method of information transmission. See J Bailey, Law Teaching Methodologies(PhD thesis, 1985).
23 See for example NJ Entwistle, M Hanley & G Ratcliffe, Approaches to Learning and Levels of Understanding (1979) Brit Educ Res J 99; NJ Entwistle, JB Thompson & JD Wilson, Motivation and Study Habits (1974) Higher Educ 379.
24 One instrument widely used and validated to explore classroom climate and psycho-social environment is the CUCEI. It gathers data in relation to seven critical determinants of classroom environment and climate ie personalisation, involvement, task orientation, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, innovation and individualisation. See B Fraser & D Treagust, Validity and Use of an Instrument for Assessing Classroom Psycho-social Environment in Higher Education (1986) 15 Higher Educ 37, at 42.
25 See B Fraser, Twenty Years of Classroom Climate Work: Progress and Prospects (1989) 21 J Curriculum Stud 207.
26 See NJ Entwistle & H Tait, Approaches to Learning, Evaluations of Teaching and Preferences for Contrasting Academic Environments (1990) 19 Higher Educ 169.
27 One extraordinary aspect of the initiation of the new PCLL was that its recognition by the local legal profession was subject to an agreement made between the Polytechnic, the University of Hong Kong and the two branches of the profession in March 1991. This agreement states that the final examinations (which account for 30% of students’ final marks) must follow a form consistent with the PCLL program offered by the University of Hong Kong and be approved by the legal profession (through an appointed committee). This constraint on the complete integration of the final element of the assessment process into the remainder of the instructional design process has caused many as yet unresolved difficulties in adequately matching the requirements of these examination papers to program objectives and the teaching and learning processes.
28 In its first year the program required students to take and pass a total of twelve in-course summative assessments, approximately one every 3 to 4 weeks.
29 In addition to regular informal discussion and feedback (enhanced by a staff-student ratio of approximately 1:7), 30 minutes of the small group “Homebase” sessions (which met two out of every three weeks) were devoted to a student-led agenda in which students could (and did) take the opportunity to comment a any aspect of the program, how they were dealing with its demands, specific requests for extra support facilities and so on. Homebase tutors channelled comments back to the full staff group for discussion where appropriate.
30 It is characteristic of Problem-Based Learning that non-expert tutors (although experienced professionals within the field) are used as facilitators. It is considered that over-familiarity with the particular subject area might tempt the tutor to intervene too early and too directly in the process. Furthermore the logistics of small group size used for PBL require that staff tutor in areas beyond their subject specialism.
31 See Schon, Reflective Practitioner, supra note 6, at 37–49 for a rejection of the idea of “technical rationality” (leading to “a right answer”) in professional problem-solving and decision-making. The program had adopted this position in formulating its original design principles.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/1993/3.html